This transcript appears to be from a **Lake Elmo Planning Commission** meeting. Please note that while the prompt provides City Council names, the Planning Commission is a separate body. Based on the dialogue, the Chair is **Tom Ray** (referred to as "Tom Rayamp") and the Vice Chair is **Jane Chars**. The staff member presenting is addressed in public comments as **Sophia** (likely a city planner). Here is the formatted transcript: [06:30] **Tom Ray (Chair):** Good. I usually just get an email with an agenda. All right, it's 6:30. I will call to order the January 26, 2026, Lake Elmo Planning Commission meeting. Our first item of business is to stand for the pledge of allegiance. [06:30] **Group:** I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [06:31] **Tom Ray (Chair):** Uh, first item of business is to appoint a chair and a vice chair for the committee. Do I have any nominations? [06:31] **Commissioner:** I'll nominate Tom Rayamp for chairman. [06:31] **Commissioner:** Second. [06:31] **Commissioner:** You got three seconds. [06:31] **Tom Ray (Chair):** Three seconds. Okay. Anyone else? All right. All in favor? [06:31] **Commissioners:** Aye. [06:31] **Tom Ray (Chair):** I'll accept the nomination. Thank you. Yes. Thank you everyone. All right. All in favor? [06:31] **Commissioners:** Aye. [06:31] **Tom Ray (Chair):** Any opposition? All right. I guess I am the chair again. Thank you very much. And now we need an appointment for vice chair. [06:32] **Commissioner:** Nominate Jane Chairs for Jane Chars for vice chair. Sorry. Chair's chars. [06:32] **Tom Ray (Chair):** I'll second that. [06:32] **Jane Chars:** I accept gladly. [06:32] **Tom Ray (Chair):** All in—anyone else? All in favor of Jane being the vice chair? [06:32] **Commissioners:** Aye. [06:32] **Tom Ray (Chair):** Any opposition? Jane, you are the vice chair. [06:32] **Jane Chars:** Awesome. Congratulations. Yeah. Thank you. [06:32] **Sophia (Staff Member):** Thank you for your 2026 commitment. [06:32] **Tom Ray (Chair):** Thank you so much. Uh all right, moving on. Need to approve the agenda for tonight's meeting. [06:32] **Commissioner:** Motion to approve the agenda. [06:32] **Jane Chars:** Second. [06:32] **Tom Ray (Chair):** All in favor? [06:32] **Commissioners:** Aye. [06:32] **Tom Ray (Chair):** Any opposition? Oh, we have an agenda. All right. And on to the minutes from the December 8th, 2025 planning commission meeting. [06:33] **Commissioner:** Motion to approve the minutes of the December 8th, 2025 planning commission meeting. [06:33] **Commissioner:** I'll second. [06:33] **Tom Ray (Chair):** All in favor? [06:33] **Commissioners:** Aye. [06:33] **Tom Ray (Chair):** Opposition? And we have approved minutes. All right. Moving on to number five, which is the public hearing, the zoning text amendment. [06:33] **Commissioner:** You guys have black screens, correct? [06:33] **Commissioners:** Yes, we do. Okay. [06:33] **Sophia (Staff Member):** All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, at the December 9th city council workshop, city council discussed the public hearing notice requirement and our procedures with that. The general consensus was to increase the mailing distances from 350 ft to 500 ft. Um, there was also discussion about adding push notifications for public hearing notices to the city website. As of today, that is live. Um, so looking at the city code, there are 20 sections that needed to be amended. Again, this change is just striking out 350 and adding 500. So, we can talk about a specific section if there's questions, but I'm not going to go through each one of them. Uh, they relate to general regulations, subdivision regulations, and zoning. Um, a public hearing was sent to the official paper on January 16th. And at this time, we have received four written comments that are before you tonight. And staff has a recommended motion. I can stand for any questions. [06:34] **Tom Ray (Chair):** Should we read into public record the public comments? Oh, I guess I need to open the public hearing. [06:34] **Sophia (Staff Member):** You open the public hearing. [06:34] **Tom Ray (Chair):** I'll open the public hearing first. All right. It is now—do you need a motion? [06:34] **Sophia (Staff Member):** I do. You're right. Thank you. [06:34] **Commissioner:** Motion to open the public hearing. [06:34] **Jane Chars:** I'll second. [06:34] **Tom Ray (Chair):** All in favor? [06:34] **Commissioners:** Aye. [06:34] **Tom Ray (Chair):** All right. Opposed? None. Let's open—the public hearing is open at 6:34. Do we have anyone who in the audience who wants to make a comment? No. Okay. Then let's read these into record and I will ask you to read one and everybody can read one. Okay, I'll start with this one from Anne Buchek. Hope I'm pronouncing your name correctly. Uh that was sent in today. "Planning Commission chairman and members, this evening, January 26, 2026, the planning commission will be discussing not only who is required to be notified for changes to land usage, but it can also be a time when the city tries to be more transparent with their citizens. I am happy the staff made the recommendation to increase notification to those surrounding the proposed development to 500 ft. However, more can be done. The city could be like our neighbor, West Lakeland, and require notification of land owners within 1,000 ft or 10 land owners away from the proposal. Lake Elmo still has large lots and 500 ft may mean only one home land owner being notified. It is important to remember when development takes place, not only are structures to be built, but there may will be changes to traffic patterns, zoning changes, and environmental impacts such as wildlife patterns and lighting. The wider the notification, the more transparent. Also, may I ask if the city could post notifications of major subdivisions and primarily major subdivisions on the fresh front page. The city does indicate it if a meeting will take place, but does not indicate if an agenda item will deal with a change in land usage. Unfortunately, not everyone takes the time to do some clicking and so a small posting on the front page would be helpful in informing citizens of potential changes. Please try to be as transparent as possible. I apologize for the late posting of this notice. I would appreciate if my thoughts could be read out loud at the meeting this evening." Thank you, Anne, for your comments. [06:36] **Jane Chars:** Did you read her name? [06:36] **Tom Ray (Chair):** Anne Buchek. [06:36] **Jane Chars:** Yep. 2301 Legend Avenue North, Lake Elmo 55042. Next, we have a comment emailed in from Joyce Salwood Kelch at 4855 Keats Avenue North, Lake Elmo, Minnesota. She says, "Here are my comments to the city council members for tonight's meeting. Thanks for reviewing this item. It was a huge concern for neighbors on or near Keats Avenue North several years ago. Please vote to change the notification from 350 ft to 500 ft which will be a step in the right direction like Hugo, Grant, Baytown and May Township have this 500ft policy. Although West Lakeland has a quarter mile or 10 closest neighbors and Stillwater Township has a 500 foot and quarter or half mile for special products. Please consider this. Today I submitted requests for push notifications and received confirmations." And then she thanks Mel Eder for his commentary which someone else can read. Or I can do it. [06:37] **Commissioner:** Need to find the right one. Go ahead. [06:37] **Commissioner:** All right. Uh, this one is from Mel Eder, and I'm not sure that Mel has his address in here. [06:37] **Jane Chars:** No, I didn't see. Mel lives on Keats Avenue as well. [06:37] **Commissioner:** Mel lives on Keats Avenue as well. Uh, and Mel states, "The change from 350 to 500 ft is great for dense areas, but for the areas with acre lots from 1, 5, 10 and still larger doesn't cover many properties, it was great if we could address the two different areas." [06:38] **Commissioner:** This is from Joyce Kelch. "Sophie, hello. Here are my comments for city council meeting for the 9th meeting. Thanks for reviewing this item. That was a huge concern for neighbors on and near Keats Avenue North several years ago. Please vote to change the notification from 350 ft to 500 ft, which would be a step in the right direction. Like Hugo, Grant, Baytown, and May Townships have this 500 foot policy. Although West Lakeland has one quarter mile or 10 closest neighbors and Stillwater Township has 500 ft and one quarter or 1/2 mile for special projects. Please consider this. Today I submitted a request for push notification and received my confirmation. Thank you Mel Eder for your time to find a statement and notify me regardless. Joyce Sewald Kelch, 4855 Keats Avenue North, Lake Elmo, Minnesota." [06:39] **Commissioner:** I think the last one is George Crocker. The last one is from George Crocker and Leah Fouchy. 5093 Keats Avenue, North Lake Elmo. "Hi Sophia. Thanks for helping us understand this proposed change. We support the comment you recently received from Joyce Kelch." [06:39] **Sophia (Staff Member):** That's all that I received. [06:39] **Tom Ray (Chair):** Thank you for those who submitted comments. So the question at hand I guess is 350 to 500 ft. [06:39] **Commissioner:** Motion to close the public hearing. [06:39] **Tom Ray (Chair):** Oh, thank you. Motion to close the public hearing. [06:40] **Commissioner:** Second. [06:40] **Tom Ray (Chair):** All in favor? [06:40] **Commissioners:** Aye. [06:40] **Tom Ray (Chair):** Public hearing is closed at 6:40 p.m. All right. So, we need a motion for discussion. I don't know that I have the exact wording here, but I'll just make it up. So, uh motion to recommend city council change the area of notification to 500 ft for public hearings. [06:40] **Sophia (Staff Member):** The motion in the report is "motion to recommend approval of the proposed text amendment as presented by staff." [06:40] **Tom Ray (Chair):** As presented by staff. [06:40] **Commissioner:** I'll second that. [06:40] **Jane Chars:** Do we want to have a discussion before we—I have a couple questions. [06:40] **Tom Ray (Chair):** Yeah, we should. [06:41] **Jane Chars:** Yeah. Uh, could you—so, I read through this and on page 14 and it's in the subdivision section under public hearings, there's a paragraph in here that says that the notice shall be published in the official newspaper at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing and written notification of the hearing shall be mailed at least 10 days prior to all owners of the land within, let's say, 500 ft of the boundary of the property in question. Public hearing shall follow the hearing procedures outlined in 105.12250. The planning commission at its discretion may direct that notifications be sent to property owners in distances of greater than 500 ft. When and how would that apply? And is it only for the subdivisions? [06:41] **Sophia (Staff Member):** That is a great question. I haven't experienced that with the planning commission, so I'd have to check with the city attorney. [06:42] **Jane Chars:** I guess when would we be notified that there's going to be that it's an agenda item for the notification? Usually we were getting our agendas about a week out. [06:42] **Sophia (Staff Member):** Correct. Typically the agenda is made and sent out within the same couple days. So I'm not sure how that would play out. We'd have to be working quite a bit ahead of time. [06:42] **Jane Chars:** Yeah. And I'm just wondering if it's just for that one type of a development or if that could be applied to other things. [06:42] **Sophia (Staff Member):** I believe it's just for that one type if it's in that code section. But how that would play out, I'm not sure. I'd have to check with the city attorney. [06:43] **Jane Chars:** I guess what I keep going back to as my point of reference is when the DGI farm was trying to be developed as a commercial property and that's when some of these same neighbors that responded tonight were upset that they didn't get notifications. And as an example, my lot is wider than 600 feet. So where are they taking the measurements from? Are they taking it from the mailbox? Are they taking it to each house or how do you determine how those addresses chosen? [06:43] **Sophia (Staff Member):** From the outermost property boundary. So if it's multiple parcels, it's the outside of all of those parcels. [06:43] **Jane Chars:** And then are you using a tool for that or are you just visually drawing a line on a map? [06:43] **Sophia (Staff Member):** The county GIS. It has an algorithm. You can type in a 350 foot buffer. It'll do that buffer and any property that's even slightly within that buffer gets picked up as a mailing notice. [06:44] **Jane Chars:** I mean, things that have just been like three houses away from me, I've never received notification on because it's more than 350 ft and still more than 500 feet. So, I feel like there are still things that are big enough changes that we should have another way. Maybe you could explain a little bit for the citizens how they would go about getting set up on those push notifications since that's something new. Would they—how could they find that? [06:44] **Sophia (Staff Member):** They should talk to Kathy Smith. She's our communications coordinator and she can get them set up on push notifications for public hearing notices, um meeting packets, and then just general city information. And it's basically on the lakeelmo.gov website. [06:44] **Jane Chars:** Correct. They go into the website and they go to notifications. [06:44] **Sophia (Staff Member):** I think they go under Agenda Center, but I don't have the website in front of me. I defer to Kathy. They can email Kathy or give her a call and it is not very hard to get set up. Um, you can choose an opt-in for email or text message. I would encourage all of our residents to go to the website and sign up for these push notifications and that way they're taking responsibility for learning what's going on in the city. [06:45] **Tom Ray (Chair):** So the question at hand is 500 versus 350. [06:45] **Jane Chars:** 500 is fine with me. It's the outer areas that still concern me. The ones—because we do still have a large lot of residents here that might get missed totally. [06:45] **Commissioner:** That's my concern. [06:45] **Commissioner:** Sure. But I think the concern from a legal standpoint/liability is that—how is that discerned? [06:45] **Commissioner:** Yeah, that's right. Then we get into... [06:45] **Commissioner:** So you've got to have your... [06:45] **Jane Chars:** But like this one city has two. It has so many feet and then another it goes on further. Was that West Stillwater Township? [06:45] **Sophia (Staff Member):** It was West Lakeland. Yeah. I didn't look at that as a comp city when we did the workshop because of population and it's a township versus a city. [06:46] **Commissioner:** It's a tough comparison. [06:46] **Sophia (Staff Member):** Yeah. It would be hard for staff. We wouldn't be able to run that on GIS, "10 houses down," that would not be realistic. [06:46] **Jane Chars:** Yeah. I went out to a number of the different communities and and Joyce basically encapsulated it in her note, but Grant is 500, West Lakeland is a quarter of a mile or the closest 10 properties. Baytown is 500, Afton is 300 for five or less acres or in their case 500 ft for short-term rentals. Hugo is 500. Marine on St. Croix is 300 to 500. Not sure why they have a range. Stillwater is 350. Stillwater Township is 500 and sometimes up to a quarter mile or a half a mile for specific projects and May Township is 500. So I guess with the surrounding—I guess I'd like to see it be more than that, but I'm happy that we're getting an extra 150 ft. Um, one mile equals 5,280 ft. And 500 ft is less than .09 miles, not very far down the street to be giving a notice in the country. [06:47] **Commissioner:** I mean, it's a two-part process that staff is recommending here. One, we're increasing it to 500 ft, which makes it feasible for the GIS map to tell you that. The other is the city's made it very easy to get notifications of public hearings. So, there's some responsibility and some onus on the residents for reading what's important to them. And the city's also taking a step to go 500 feet. Do I think more is bad? No. But I think we also—it needs to be easy for staff to do, and not overwhelm staff with extraneous work. [06:48] **Commissioner:** I'm happy that you guys took the step to take us above the baseline standards of the statute. So, appreciate the effort. [06:48] **Tom Ray (Chair):** Anyone else? So, the motion on the table. Do you want me to reread it the right way? [06:48] **Sophia (Staff Member):** Fantastic. "Motion to recommend approval of the proposed text amendment as presented by staff." [06:48] **Tom Ray (Chair):** Mike, you have seconded that? It's already been seconded. [06:48] **Commissioner:** Second. [06:48] **Tom Ray (Chair):** Let's put it to a vote. All in favor? [06:48] **Commissioners:** Aye. [06:49] **Tom Ray (Chair):** All opposed? Motion passes. Next item, zoning text amendments. Some housekeeping. [06:49] **Sophia (Staff Member):** Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so this is part of the 2026 planning commission work plan. Staff create these housekeeping items annually for minor ordinance updates. Um, usually for consistency and clarity purposes, nothing major policy updates. In these today we have five sections of code. I'll go through each one individually and I can stand for questions at the end. First section of code is 5-12-80D2 regarding the placement of trash containers at the curb. Last year, city council approved an ordinance change to allow waste collection to begin at 6:00 a.m. Since then, staff have identified another reference to this original 7 a.m. pickup time in a different section of code. So, the new code would read "containers must be placed for pickup before 6:00 a.m. on the day of collection to ensure service." Next section is 10-5-12-210 setbacks. Staff is proposing a change to clarify how setbacks are measured in instances where property lines cross public streets. So the new code would read "setbacks from roads where property lines extend across public roads: the setback shall be measured from the adjacent right-of-way." And this is consistent with current practice. So this is just getting it written down. Next section 10-5-12-400B, fencing regulations. Staff is proposing an update to the definition of a temporary fence. Currently the code defines temporary fence as a fence that is installed and removed on a seasonal basis such as snow fences, garden fences, and seasonal recreation fences. Staff's proposing adding a line here: "Temporary fences do not include construction or silt fencing approved by the city." This would clarify that the code regulating temporary fences does not apply to construction fencing. This is because we have some regulations on setbacks for temporary fencing that doesn't really work for construction fencing when it has to be put at the property line or beyond for construction activities to take place inside the property. Next section 10-5-12-920 permitted conditional and interim uses in commercial districts. Currently residential uses are listed as a conditional use in the commercial district. Staff is proposing striking those, making them not permitted in the commercial district. This would be consistent with the 2040 comp plan. Currently the commercial land use definition specifically excludes residential uses and we want the city code to be consistent with that comp plan. And then lastly, 10-5-12-960 commercial district design standards. This section of code references another section of code and it's currently referencing the wrong number. So staff would update that from 10-5-12-830 to 10-5-12-840, which is the correct reference to the review procedures. A public hearing was published at the city's newspaper on January 16th, 2026. We have not received any public comments at this time. I have a recommended motion and I can stand for questions. [06:51] **Tom Ray (Chair):** All right, we have a motion to open the public hearing? [06:51] **Commissioner:** Make a motion to open the public's hearing. [06:51] **Commissioner:** Second that. [06:51] **Tom Ray (Chair):** All right, public hearing is open at—call the question. Oh, call the question. All those in favor? [06:51] **Commissioners:** Aye. [06:51] **Tom Ray (Chair):** I didn't think there'd be much opposition, but it is procedure. [06:51] **Commissioner:** We're working on it. [06:51] **Tom Ray (Chair):** I know. It never ends with me. All right, no one is opposed. We will open the public hearing at 6:51. And I don't see that we have anyone to provide any public comment. [06:52] **Commissioner:** Motion to close the public hearing. [06:52] **Commissioner:** Second that. [06:52] **Tom Ray (Chair):** All in favor? [06:52] **Commissioners:** Aye. [06:52] **Tom Ray (Chair):** All right. No. Any opposed? We'll close the public hearing at 6:52. Do we have a motion on the table? [06:52] **Commissioner:** Sure. "Motion to recommend approval of the proposed text amendment as presented by staff." [06:53] **Tom Ray (Chair):** I will second discussion. Um the garbage hauler thing, I don't have a problem with that. Garbage haulers like to work early in the morning before traffic gets too bad. So I'm okay with that one. Setbacks: if we're already measuring our setbacks from the adjacent right-of-way on lines that extend across public roads, it makes sense to get that in writing so that it's clear on what we're doing. Temporary fences: I, as a construction person, I'm glad we're not including temporary construction fences and silt fencing as we oftentimes are required by the county to put it in the right-of-way. And then the one for residential uses in commercial districts, I was surprised by that. I didn't know that we allow that, but if it's consistent with our comp plan, then I'm all for it. And the commercial district design standard: It's good that we're referencing the correct code instead of the incorrect. And I think that just about covers why I'm in favor of this. [06:54] **Jane Chars:** I think you have it backwards. I think they're removing—Right. We're removing the residential out of commercial. [06:54] **Sophia (Staff Member):** Correct. It would not be permitted in a commercial district. [06:54] **Jane Chars:** Are there any currently? [06:54] **Sophia (Staff Member):** Uh none that I'm aware of. We do have a mixed-use commercial district and this wouldn't affect that district. [06:54] **Commissioner:** I like the catch on the 830 to 840. [laughter] [06:55] **Commissioner:** So if I bring my garbage cans out at 7 a.m., am I in violation of this? [06:55] **Sophia (Staff Member):** To ensure service. You can't complain if you don't get service. [06:55] **Commissioner:** If you don't want service, put them out late. [06:55] **Tom Ray (Chair):** To ensure service, right? [06:55] **Commissioner:** Yeah. Noted. Okay. If you like to gamble. Well, you know, it's kind of a private business deal, so I'm wondering how far we're digging. All right. Any further discussion? [06:55] **Jane Chars:** Make sure you take them in by 8:00 p.m. [06:55] **Commissioner:** They don't blow away. [06:55] **Jane Chars:** They usually blow away the night before. That's the problem. [06:56] **Tom Ray (Chair):** Oh, that's—your HOA will gonna give you some rules around that as well, generally if you have one. All right. Any further discussion? Uh, let's take a vote. All in favor of the motion on the table? [06:56] **Commissioners:** Aye. [06:56] **Tom Ray (Chair):** Any opposition? There is none. The motion passes. Thank you. [06:56] **Sophia (Staff Member):** Thank you. [06:56] **Tom Ray (Chair):** Next item on the agenda is any new or unfinished business. [06:56] **Sophia (Staff Member):** We have no unfinished business. I have no city council updates and your next meetings will be February 9th and February 23rd. [06:57] **Tom Ray (Chair):** Fantastic. And I don't believe I need a motion to adjourn. [06:57] **Sophia (Staff Member):** No, that's on you. [06:57] **Tom Ray (Chair):** It's all on me. Careful, the power we've given you for a whole another year. Uh and with that, we will adjourn the Lake Elmo planning commission meeting for Monday, January 26, 2026. Thank you very much. Thank you.