[0:00] [Music] I call the Rosemont Planning Commission [0:46] meeting to order for Tuesday, August 26th. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [1:07] Are there any additions to tonight's agenda? There are no additions to the agenda, Madam Chair. Okay. And I'm just going to confirm. I know we were expecting Commissioner Ellis, but we are still fine with quorum without him. Correct. Correct. Yes, we do have quorum. Okay, thank you. At this time, we will move to our audience input section. This is a time when anyone in the audience may address the planning commission for items that are not on the agenda. [1:34] Okay, seeing none, we will move forward to the consent agenda. The consent agenda contains our minutes from our June 24th, 2025 regular meeting. We did not have a June meeting, so that or a July meeting, so that is the only item on our consent agenda. Are there any additions or corrections to the consent agenda? [1:52] Okay, seeing none, I will make um I will take a motion to approve the consent agenda if someone would like to move that. Move to approve the consent agenda. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Moved by Commissioner Reed, seconded by Commissioner Bugai. All those in favor, please say I. I. [2:09] Opposed. Motion carries. I did abstain from voting on that as I was not here for that meeting. We have no old business tonight. So, we've got one item on our public hearing section this evening. It is a request by Excel Energy for approval of a site plan review to construct 140 foot private telecommunications monopole of an existing public utility station. I will turn it over to Julia. [2:33] All right. Um, so just a little bit of an overview of the request in front of the commission tonight. So, the planning commission is being asked to consider request by Excel Energy for approval of a site plan review to construct a 140 foot private telecommunications monopole at their existing substation east of Highway 52. Um, Excel Energy is looking to install this uh telecommunications monipole to continue their ongoing initiative to enhance the security and reliability of their electrical network. [2:59] Um, so the Monopole will assist in establishing their private LTE network uh for secure communications between XL Energy assets and that will take their communications off the public uh cellular spectrum. So this would not be open to the public. It's just specifically for XL Energy and their assets throughout this portion of the state. [3:18] Uh so a little overview of the site location. So you can see um that substation is outlined in red in that photo. So that area is approximately about 5.3 acres in size. It is located about a half mile east of Highway 52 and north of of 140th Street East. Uh you can see to the south is the FedEx distribution center site. And then to the east is going to be the Metropolitan Council uh wastewater um lift station. [3:44] And then um to the west is just undeveloped land. Uh so the existing substation has been in existence since the late 1990s um and has remained there since the late 1990s. A little overview of the site plan in um it's going to be located on the right of this slide. So XL Energy again is proposing to construct a 100 140 foot private uh monopole on the northern end of the existing substation site. So you can see in this um site plan. It's going to be located um in this northern portion outlined in red. Uh so the proposed monopole will also have three antennas near the top of the structure center line height of 135 ft. This will help with um having that LTE um for their assets. Again, um they need [4:30] the height to be able to get that to work. Uh commercial antennas and or towers are permitted with standards in the I1 general industrial zoning district, which this property is located or is um zoned I1. And then all existing structures within the substation um exceed the setback requirements um and meet the requirements of the zoning code. [4:53] I do also want to mention the max height requirement um for monopoles and towers is 250 ft. Um so the 140 foot um proposed does um not exceed that maximum requirement. Uh so a little overview of the access and parking on site. So the site again is accessed by a singular driveway that extends north off 140th street east which you can see outlined in that photo. Uh there are no designated parking stalls located on the site, but there is room for vehicles to park within the fenced area. Um occasionally there are employees that go to the substation just to check on um existing equipment or if anything needs to be worked on. There is area within the substation for parking. Uh that main access driveway is made of um asphalt and then the main substation areas um [5:40] consisted of gravel throughout the site. Uh no additional traffic will be generated from the monopole other than during the construction phase um which semis will be bringing in uh materials to construct that monopole and then three to five employees will be uh working on site to construct that monopole. Otherwise um it will just be the standard um you know employees going to work on um equipment here and there. [6:05] Uh so overview about the fencing, screening and uh sight lighting. Uh so the substation currently has a 7 foot tall steel chandlink fence with a 1 foot high vertical arm wire enclosing the site. Uh the city code does permit fences up to 8 ft tall within non-residential zone districts. So that does meet that uh requirement. Uh there are currently existing LED lighting throughout the site and no additional lighting is proposed with this monopole edition. And then the city code does require screening for electrical substations adjacent to parcels in residential, commercial or public institutional districts. Um there is the you can see that uh metropolitan council substation or um lift station is public institutional. There is um existing tree screening along the eastern property [6:51] boundary that goes north to south screening that uh public institutional zone property and there's also additional screening on the western side of the substation as well. Uh so recommendation from the planning commission today uh is a motion to approve the site plan review to allow XL Energy to construct 140 foot private telecommunications monopole at their existing public utility substation subject to conditions one and two. Um I am here to answer any questions that the uh planning commission has and I do know the applicant is present as well if you have any additional questions for them. [7:23] Thanks Julia. I'll start with just one question in terms of the semis bringing the monopole in and such. there's adequate space for the semis to come in and out of there and to get to get that without disrupting the rest of the traffic out there. [7:38] To my knowledge, yes. Uh I mean there is access. Again, the applicant might be able to speak to this a little bit better. Um but there is not much development and traffic up on this side of um obviously FedEx is not being heavily used right now as well. Um, so I don't see that being as disruption to the traffic flow within that area. [8:03] Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions from the commission? Okay. Thank you, Julia. This item is a public hearing item. So, at this time, we will open up the public hearing. Anyone in the audience who would like to speak on this item may do so at this time. Coming to the podium, stating your name and address for the record. [8:32] Seeing no one um approaching the podium, I will make a motion to close the public hearing. Second. It's been moved by Commissioner Kener, seconded by Commissioner Reid to close the public hearing. All those in favor, please say I. I opposed. Public hearing is now closed. [8:47] Is there any other further comments or questions from the commission? No. Okay. I will make a motion to approve the site plan review to allow Excel Energy to construct a 140 foot private telecommunications monopole at their existing public utility substation subject to the conditions one and two as listed in the staff report. [9:09] Is there a second? It's been moved by Commissioner Kener, seconded by Commissioner Bugai. All those in favor, please say I. I opposed. Motion carries. This item is a plan um this request for a site plan review is a planning commission preview item which means it will not go forward to city council. Our decision here unless denied or appealed is a final decision this evening. Um there there is a 10day um appeal window. So anyone that would like to appeal this decision this evening may do so within 10 days reaching out to city staff. [9:45] And with that that concludes our public hearing section this evening. We do have um one item in our discussion section. We have no new business. Our discussion section this item this evening has a potential amendments to the zoning code ordinance. And I will turn it over to Anthony. [10:01] Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the commission. There's just two sections of the code that staff would like some feedback from the uh planning commission on before moving forward with a formal initiation of a zoning ordinance amendment. Uh as the commission may recall, we did review a few uh sections of the code that uh could be updated uh that that would be kind of bundled in with this uh at a subsequent uh meeting date. So the first of the two would be fence standards specifically related to fence height in street sidey yards of corner lots and then uh educational services specifically dance studio uses in the B2 employment district. So, starting with the fence uh standards here uh to be reviewed and receive [10:49] feedback on. Uh as you can see in the image before you, there are three different uh fence heights depending on where uh the fence is located. Uh typically we see uh requests for 6-ft privacy fence in backyards. Uh that's allowed to wrap around from the uh front corners of the house to the side property lines and around the back. [11:11] Front yards only have a maximum height of 42 in. Uh but there is this uh uh limited area here in which a sideyard that would otherwise be allowed to have a 6ft fence uh is only allowed a 48in tall fence. Uh and that is only when this sideyard area abuts the front yard of an adjacent uh property. [11:36] Uh the this has been in uh provision in the code for quite a while. Um it is a common request uh that we do receive from residents that uh to build a 6ft tall fence in that uh sideyard area. Uh as you can see, if someone's looking to have a completely enclosed 6ft tall fence, they really would be limited to uh this area here in yellow. [12:03] So, here's a couple examples of those types of lots found throughout the city, they're they're kind of everywhere, uh, but they aren't while they are not, uh, I would say common, uh, they are also, um, not unusual either. So in the older parts of town where the streets are more grid patterned uh you can see this case where the streets on the right hand side uh the the houses front that street uh the backyard and the street side yard abut the uh front of this uh property. [12:35] Same as here uh in this property. Uh, and then over here, this one actually does have a fence in place, although it would be a 4 foot tall um chain link or rod iron decorative type fence. [12:52] So, staff did review some of the other city standards to see how this is treated in other areas since it is is a somewhat uh regular request that uh uh comes to before staff. Of the five listed there, none actually regulate the street sideyard height. We're the only city uh of that list that does regulate the street sideyard height. Uh all the others allow for sixoot fences in this um street sideyard area uh to fully enclose the the side and rear lots. Uh Lakeville does require a 10-ft setback from public rights of way. Uh, also note that the public right ofway would be uh where these property lines are shown. [13:38] Uh, so people aren't really allowed to build a fence right up to the curb as it is. Lakeville requires an additional 10 ft back from those property lines uh when it's along a public right of way. So, as I said, um, uh, it is common to receive an application to build a fence in that area and we do have to tell them no. Uh we do know that there are existing fences out there that are over 48 in uh in those uh street side yards abuing front yards. These are usually installed without a permit likely as a replacement of an existing fence. Um sometimes fence contractors or homeowners don't realize they need a permit to just replace a fence that's already there. Um and then uh there is one uh situation in my in my tenure here [14:26] with the city where a parent had received a grant from the county. they had a kid with um who was on the autism spectrum uh who would tend to uh escape from the backyard. Uh they were the city approved a fence as an accommodation uh under the ADA act. I think it's staff's desire to avoid having these kind of one-off cases. Um, I think the general feel is that if we're the outlier here, and there's nothing wrong with being an outlier, uh, with regards to our code, uh, but if we are the only outlier, it, uh, doesn't seem like it would hurt to start allowing six foot fences in that street sideyard area. Um, also, uh, note that even though there are these fences that are above 48 inches in the street sideyard, we've [15:12] never received a complaint about that. No one said called and said, "Hey, my neighbor put up a a fence here, or my neighbor has a fence here that uh um doesn't uh belong there, is too high." I don't know that people necessarily uh know that that's the standard or um they're just not that frequently. Those lots just aren't that frequent throughout the community. Uh so the impact is somewhat low uh in making a change such as that. [15:39] So, um I guess the the discussion would be uh is the commission comfortable with amending the code uh to allow six foot fences in those street sideyards um or should we I guess the other option would be to just kind of keep it as is. [15:56] Anthony, what's the setback? So, you said 10 foot in Lakefield. Is it 5 foot here or what is We don't have a setback. You can build up to but not on the property line. Okay. Um, we do require a 2 or 3 foot setback from sidewalks or batuminous trails to allow for storm removal or snow, excuse me, snow removal, snow storage, and uh, maintenance. [16:18] If I wanted to build a fence to separate my neighbor, I can build it right on my property line, our property line between the two of us up to Yes. You can't go on the property line because theoretically half of it would be on your neighbors. I think I always thought there was a five foot setback. [16:36] Yeah. Just as common. No. And there is a there is a drainage and utility easement that is 5 feet on either side of the property line. Um fences all fences are um a condition of their approval is that they don't impede drainage or alter the grade. So there is that easement area, but you can build a fence in there so long as work doesn't have to occur within the easement. [16:57] I guess I would look at it as um we have three different fence heights. Why not just be consistent and have one and make it six foot if nobody's really having issues? Well, the one the one way that it is regulated in other cities, they do have a 42 or sometimes 36 foot height maximum in the front yards. I don't think we would want six foot privacy fences in front yards, but from a side and rear yard, um, one one height would be a lot clearer. M Anthony, on the the list of cities you you had there, was there any rhyme or reason to why those cities were picked? [17:34] I noticed some of our neighboring cities, Apple Valley, Egan, Farmington, and Verro weren't on the list. Um, I guess I would defer to Julia. She kind of did the research on that. I don't know. I don't think it was a matter of picking and choosing. We just try to pick similar cities of similar sizes that are somewhat scattered throughout, kind of building out, built out. Maybe they've been through this before. So you look at Woodbury, this is probably old hat to them from about 20 years ago. [18:00] Similar types of style. So yeah. Okay. There was no exact science to it. Okay. I just didn't know if maybe they weren't listed because they Yeah, we only picked the ones that that reflect what we want to have happen. No, no, it's pretty random, I would say, when we do this kind of thing or sometimes the codes just don't make sense or are hard to read or something like that. We try to somehat similar fall into the trap of only picking our adjacent and neighboring cities to do so. [18:25] Grab a few neighbors, grab a few others out there that have staff that are able to get back to us on some of these things. Okay. Right. So, the the request here is really just to allow that that change for the the side the side fence, right? Still maximum 48 in the front yard. 42 in the front yard. [18:41] Do you know what the original rationale was for why this was? Well, um I think it could have something to do with um making, you know, so that it isn't a a tunnel or a or a privacy fence along one side of your front yard. I don't think people really care that much about that to be honest. And our lots don't really look like this too much anymore. [19:09] Our streets are curved and a lot of times a corner lot is more pieshaped or um you know as you can see here they're not they're not always perfect squares so it doesn't necessarily impact them all that much. It probably happens more often you think. I mean right across the street at my neighbor's house is just just like that and and I'm pretty sure they've got a sixoot fence. No problem at all and they're never thought twice about it. So I've got no concerns at all with this. [19:36] Yeah. I think another thing when we've been thinking about it too is that you have to go up a couple steps to get into everyone's house anyways. So if you're looking out your front window or whatnot, you're already elevated somewhat when you're looking out. So it isn't like a it it's not like it's a 20 foot tall fence kind of, you know, boxing you in. [19:56] Yeah. I think to me it's an additional two feet. It's not like it's not like it's doubling going from four to eight or anything like that. I think it's an additional two feet. It is. Some of these pictures you show are probably a little bit old. I mean, maybe the one house on the first picture and they're we've got some smaller sideyard setbacks recently. So then obviously if you can build a fence all the way up to the to the front, but the front yard setbacks we haven't done. It's just sideyard. So I think like that was the other thing I was thinking like is it going to with the sideyard setbacks being different, is it going to feel like it's more intrusive? But I really don't I don't think anyone's going to pay attention. [20:35] Thank I haven't got any complaints and there's no intent to add that additional footage like Lakeville has for that setback. No, keep it keep it the same as what we have. Yeah, I only mentioned it in case you guys wanted to talk about it at all. But yeah, looking at the first picture actually that it's next to the sidewalk itself. So I can clearly see like there are few next to my homes who probably have six foot because I'm 6T when I'm walking by the fences are like kind of my tall. [21:03] I think that gives them a good privacy. It's just when I'm walking by the sidewalks it's just a privacy for them. But from the houses next door like second stories, third stories you can actually see them. Yeah. It's not a 20 ft as you Anthony is mentioning. I think it should be six foot because between the properties it's six, right? [21:20] You can Yeah. If it's just a standard um if it's just a standard situation like this, you could have a sixoot fence right here. It's just this one spot. That's the question. Just the front yard. [21:35] So if you're abudding the front yard. Yeah. And and this this image also is a little deceiving because the property line is not actually on the curb like this kind of implies. Um, as I had shown here, the the setback, the fence would be stopping like in a situation like this, you know, the fence would be stopping 13 ft from the curb anyways. [21:59] So, this property line like I'm assuming the magnets are installed there, right? Yeah. So, if they're installing the fence, they're looking for the magnets that will be like those 13 ft inside, not on the border, right? So, should be good. [22:15] Yeah, setback is not necessarily needed here. Yeah, it sounds like the consensus is Yeah. All right. Well, we'll take that into account when we bring this forward again. Um, okay. The second item is related to uh educ educational services as a use in the B2 employment district, which is what our business park district is now called. Um, this is specifically related to the Biscane business park. Uh the planning commission had reviewed a site plan for KDP Keystone Development Partners uh to build uh multi-tenant um office warehouse spaces uh down there uh for rent in the Biscane Business Park. [22:58] Um they had as they've been marketing the property, they've been asking us about different uses and things like that. And one of them was a dance studio that wanted to uh locate in their building. And um as you can see in the definitions here, uh educational services is not a permitted use in the B2 district. And specifically in the definition, it calls out dance and music instruction, which I would think would be a dance studio. Um it is also interesting is that indoor commercial recreation facilities like Conquer Ninja, which is also in the Biscane Business Park, are allowed. um they're a little bit more recreational and less class-based I guess or instructionbased. Uh but you can see from that definition that uh there is a [23:45] lot of other uses within a indoor commercial recreation facility uh that would be allowed in the B2 uh zoning district. So um staff looked at the codes of different cities listed here. Um, again, just kind of uh picked randomly or or sort of randomly. Um, more so what staff did was do a search for dance studios on Google Maps and see where they're located in different cities. And what we found is that they're actually in a lot of business park type development in multi-tenant uh office or or strip type things uh in their business parks. Uh you can see here too um on the bullets, Maple Grove calls out dance studios in [24:31] their definition. Um they also refer to teaching or training facilities um you know fully enclosed. But um here's some examples of what I found around the metro uh Woodberry Dance Center. That's a business park uh type development right there. Uh here is in uh Apple Valley just north and west of Pilot Knob and County Road 42. Um I guess one of the big more more visible businesses I think is like Riverwood Church. Uh but as you can see this is a business park um business office park. [25:05] The the different cities have different types of zoning or different zoning district names. They'll either call it like limited business, light industrial, business park, office park. But you can see there's a number of um dance studios in there. Betty Joe's Jazzer size um uh TGS gymnastics that's uh you know that could be an educational uh thing. And then Lebanon Education Center and then uh lastly here in Plymouth that you can see there's an example where they have three dance studios in that business park area uh as well. So when when considering uses in zoning districts, it's kind of important to think about the external impacts of a use like that. Um it's staff's opinion [25:52] that it's all kind of occurring inside. Um the only concern would be that there's a lot of parents that maybe come at once. Uh there are parking requirements that must be met. Um and specifically with Keystone Development Partners, they do have additional room to add more parking. um if that's if that's needed. Uh but uh the first things first would be actually determining if that is a use that the planning commission saw could fit in this uh zoning district in the city. So um there's two paths forward. You could we could just add educational services as a permitted use in B2. Uh which would include learning centers or tutoring businesses as well, which um while they are found in some of these business park [26:37] type ne uh developments are more more likely to be found in a B1 or general business district. Um, it's not the goal here to remove this use from the B1 district, which is our typical uh uh commercial areas like along 42, uh, but to more look at adding it to the B2 district. Another thing that could be done is just updating the definition of uh commercial indoor recreational facility uh to include dance studios. [27:06] Uh, we wouldn't have to change the use tables. Um, but uh we could also remove dance studios from the definition of educational services. uh so that it um isn't called out specifically as something that would would not be permitted. So, I guess the feedback we're looking for, staff is looking for from the the commission is uh do you see this as an appropriate use in the business park district um and then staff can drill down on how we uh get to that through the code. [27:39] It seems really straightforward. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I look at that list of everything but dance studios. I'm like, h poor dance studio. Yeah. And I I guess I'm just not sure. I mean, I whether it's basketball training facilities or cheer facilities, you see them in those types of business cards. I wouldn't limit it to uh to dance studios, I feel like opening it up for all these. If if you just add dance studio, then somebody else is going to need it for a very legitimate reason, too, or be asking for it as well, too. [28:08] Well, and when the conversation started with um KDP, initially I was like, "Oh, yeah, dance studio, of course, because Conquer Ninja is in the other building in that business park. Yeah, they're they're allowed." Because in my mind, uh some sort of training facility like that. Uh would be the same as a dance studio, you know, padded floors and mirrors and things and whatever. But um then I drilled in down and looked at the code just to make sure and and uh yeah I saw that our definition of education uh services called out dance studio specifically. So uh and that is not listed as a a permitted use. So so thing things like like a batting cage type facility or something would already be list allowed because it's an indoor [28:54] recreation, right? It's just that we call if we hadn't called dance studios out in educational services, it probably would have fallen into the other we would have assumed it fell into the other bucket most likely. Yeah. Yeah. And and to be honest, dance studios aren't specifically called out in other cities codes. And I'm assuming that if the question came up, the staff in those cities would say, well, you know, it's kind of like this other use that's already allowed, so that seems feasible. [29:24] if that makes sense. I think you can also make like that it the educational services one calls out self-defense, right, as well. And I feel like sometimes that self-defense also falls in that indoor recreation, you know, they're multi-use type building or a karate studio, right? Right. Like is that self-defense or indoor recreation? Like where where does it go? So I no major concerns. [29:47] Are educational services allowed in the B1 as well? They are. Y'all would still be allowed in B1, they'd now be allowed in B2. Yes. Our indoor So if we left dance studios as part of educa or as part of educational services, they'd be allowed in B1 and B2. If we pull them out and made them part of indoor commercial recreation, then are they only allowed in B2? [30:11] I think I think so. Okay. You know, it's it's how we interpret the code, too. I mean, if it just said educational services and someone said, "Hey, I want to open a dance studio here and we would probably say, well, you're teaching," which would fall under educational services. Uh, it's not always so specific as this. [30:35] Right. Right. I mean, I I feel it's fine to to just allow all educational services in B2, whether it be tutoring services or anything of that. And and also uh to note that in educational services like a tutor um I can't remember off the top of my head the different names of the you know there's the chains that go around that learning RX and stuff like that. Those are not schools and staff is not recommending that schools or implying that schools would be allowed in the B2 zoning district. This is something separate from a a school. [31:10] Right. Right. And it kind of calls that out educational services excluding schools. I mean technically on the educational aspect you could say uh skating rinks are educational because you're teaching teaching them lessons and swimming lessons in the swimming pool. So it's it could be all be educational if that's the way. So I would opt for the second option that you listed here to just include them is probably the more simplified way to go. [31:38] Okay. to include them in in that item that uh he Yeah. number two there, update the definition. Okay. I actually and I lean towards the first one of allowing all educational services in B2 tutoring and and if if somebody wanted like if White Swim School wanted to build in a in a B2 industrial park, like I would be fine with that, too. [32:04] Yeah. I think opening it up for me. I mean, because we'd still be excluding arts and crafts and if somebody from arts and crafts and self-defense, right? Then you're in the same position. I feel the same about all of them that they it fits within that use and then they can be in B1 or B2. They're not like we already allow them in B1, which is more of a commercial district. I feel like if they want to be in this more business park district because it's a little bit less chaotic and rent may be different for them, not as high traffic, like whatever. I I feel that that's fine, too. I also think when you get into some of these business parks, you get a mix of uses. So, some of them are going to be more heavily daytime users and some are going to be like the dance studio is going to be more nighttime. So, then the parking and stuff kind of works out too [32:49] because you've got your daytime rotorooer and stuff like that that are kind of running your 7 to five shifts and your dance that's more in the evening. So, it sounds like the commission is open to allowing more of these uses in the in that type of yesterday. Okay. [33:05] Yes, I would agree for that. Brendan, you were kind of on the other side. Are you okay with You know, I I could go either way, but I was going to probably leave it up to these folks. Any experts on how to go about it to whichever is more simplified? [33:20] You'll be reviewing it all again and seeing the actual text of the code and the changes at the September meeting. We're gonna lump the other uh ones in there with it. My guess is the first one obviously requires a few more updates to tables and things like that. [33:36] I think it adds the letter P to the table in one part of the thing. So, it's but I also feel like we should do it right and not patch it now and come back in 12 months and have to patch it again. I agree. Okay. So, those were the two items. Okay. Um if there's any else um we can talk about it now otherwise anyone else have any this has been very helpful for us to hear from you guys and this kind of fits under that theme of why we had done that uh two-year process of updating the zoning code in the first place to make it more user friendly easier for staff and the general public to interpret more efficient more consolidated and really kind of passing that practicality test is you know we're sitting here debating well what's the difference between a a a [34:22] karate studio and a dance nothing from how it impacts there. So, let's fix it from a technical aspect so we can have an easy answer as as staff when we have these businesses that are approaching us. I think it also makes our job a little bit easier too when the code is cleaned up. I I will say in our in our conversations with applicants or potential users, it seems like they are reading the code more. There's fewer questions that we get. it's easier for them to go through the code, everything's organized a little better. So, um while we have been going through some of these um fine-tuning um exercises to different sections of the code, overall um it is night and day compared to our last one. [35:07] It's just so much easier to use. The part part I like to think about more from an economic development perspective too is the calls and questions we aren't receiving. Because let's say there's a a broker or a rep out there that's reading our code and says, "Well, it looks like you're not allowed here, so I guess we're not going to even pursue Rosemount at this point because your code code doesn't allow you." So, that's a call we never received because we've been self- selected out of a process that we weren't even able to have a conversation of. [35:37] Well, good. Any any other discussion items? That's it. Okay. I had a couple just reminders. Our next meetings um September 23rd, October 28th, and November 25th. November 25th is the Tuesday before Thanksgiving. So if any of those dates don't work for you, please let staff know right away. [35:56] And then just an early plug for our December meeting because it is not on the 4th Tuesday. It is December 22nd, which is a Monday. Um it's the Monday before the 4th Tuesday, but it's a Monday, right? Julia is looking at me strange. Oh gosh. is the Let me get my calendar out here. [36:13] Or did I write that down wrong? We were able to maybe do the Oh, that was the question. Uh the 23rd is a Tuesday before Christmas Eve. [36:30] Is that was that a date that the commission wanted to have a meeting? I thought we had it like last year. We did. We did because of how it fell because Christmas Eve was the Tuesday. So, we moved it Monday the 15th or something or the calendar. So, are you asking if we want to do it on the earlier than the 2? [36:47] No, we did it on the I think we did it on the 22nd. The calendar online has it as the 22nd. Yes. Or the final not online. The final calendar we got emailed in like Marchish, February, Marchish time frame has the 22nd because in previous years we would have done it the week like we would have done it on the 15th. Mhm. [37:06] So, uh, we're still doing it the week of Christmas, just the Monday instead of the day before Christmas Eve. Yeah. So, just apply. So, if anyone has conflicts with that now, if we let staff know if we need to move it, but that's what we had decided at the early part of the year. So, those are the dates coming up. Um, also, there's some other events coming up um in the next few days or next few month, next month. Um, tomorrow is the quick trip ribbon cutting at 10:00 a.m. The event starts at 9:00 a.m. [37:35] runs 9 to 11 with the ceremony at 10:00 a.m. Um, everyone should have also received um an invite to Dakota Aggregates digin event on September 11th. Um, the RSVP for that is due September 4th if you plan to attend that. And then there's an Emerald Trail School dedication with students and staff on September 24th. I did not write down the time for that. So, if you need the time, um, reach out to staff. [38:00] I think that one's in the afternoon, but we can we can confirm that if you don't have it. Yeah. So, if you if you didn't receive the invite for that, let staff know and they can get that to you. Anyone have anything else? No. Okay. With that, I'll adjourn the meeting. Meeting adjourned. [Music]