Based on the context provided and the dialogue within the transcript, this is a meeting of the **Planning Commission** (a recommending body to the City Council). While many of the specific Commissioners (Sam, Steve, Bart) are not listed in your initial context list, they are identified by name by the Chair during the proceedings. **Harry Davis** is identified as the staff member presenting, and **Mark DuChene** (City Engineer) is identified toward the end. [0:01] **Chair:** Item one on the agenda: approval of the minutes. There was a correction that was pointed out on page three where it says "the chair would like to take a recommendation." Commissioner Jackson then made a motion, seconded by Commissioner... there's a typo, it should be just a typo. So, a motion to approve the minutes with that correction, unless there's others. [0:31] **Commissioner Sam:** I'll second it. [0:31] **Chair:** Sam’s got the motion, Steve’s got the second on the corrected minutes as we just discussed. All those in favor say "aye." (Chorus of ayes). All those opposed, "no." That carries. We took care of the minutes and so we're all set. Public hearings: there's one public hearing tonight and then we have a series of things on item for discussion that we'll get to in a bit. So the public hearing this evening is approving a zoning text amendment to allow cannabis business in certain zoning districts, and we go to Harry Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chair. [1:15] **Harry Davis:** Oh, there we go. Mr. Chair, commissioners. So, the request in front of you is for an ordinance change to allow zoning districts... you are all familiar, or if you all remember, we're a little familiar with this from our last Plan Commission meeting during the work session part of that meeting. So I won't go too far in depth, but for those in the public as well as those at home, the City of Faribault is reviewing some zoning text amendments to allow businesses within certain zoning districts as permitted or by-right uses, in some cases conditional. And then there's also a few other changes such as adding some definitions that are part of the Office of Cannabis Management template ordinance that they recommend new ordinances include. And the City Council has already recommended a 250-foot setback from schools. So those are all kind of wrapped up within this request. Like I had mentioned, Council had suggested broad sections of zoning districts to allow certain cannabis businesses, with some recommendations based off of the template ordinance. This is more of an in-depth, nuanced look from staff's perspective and sort of that recommendation from that nuance: "Hey, this cannabis business is a little similar to this business which isn't allowed in certain zones, but this business is similar to this other business and so it makes sense." What this is not including is any regulation on consumption, no policies or testing for law enforcement, not regulating anything outside of the zoning code. This is just land use. And there are no other additional regulations that are proposed by staff; this is just for the zoning code. Now, there are licensing codes that are going to be adopted as a whole separate thing—we don't even talk about that, that’s purely City Council. First part of the request is some new definitions. The full list of definitions are in your packet; I'm not going to go through it bit by bit. The second sort of bit to this zoning text amendment is the school setback, and it's 250 feet. This is the only setback that Council is recommending. And so what we're doing is being a little bit more specific about it being measured from building to building. We feel like that this is consistent with doing this in other sections of the code, doing it from building to building, and it makes it a bit clear to people. Okay, you know, if you have a school on a giant piece of property, a giant parcel, and you try to put a cannabis business within 250 feet of the parcel boundary, that's okay as long as it's still 250 feet away from the building itself. To get a little bit more nuance in terms of each of the individual cannabis businesses, here's the recommendation from Council which we saw last time during our work session. For the proposal from staff—from myself—you know, just being a little bit more specific about where cultivation is going to be allowed. So cultivation, from staff's perspective, we think that it makes sense as a limited production and processing unit or use, which we've already allowed within code with some great success downtown—10,000 Drops comes to mind, Madly Craig's comes to mind—people being able to reuse existing spaces in order to do cultivation. So something that might be like aquaponics, might be like an indoor greenhouse sort of operation. Where it doesn't make sense is C1; you don't find any other similar use like that. Limited use in production and processing is not allowed in C1. You also don't see farms in C1 as well, or greenhouses. Additionally, you don't see those kinds of uses allowed in public for manufacturing or processing product, whether it's hemp or cannabis. Council is recommending these districts but being a little bit more nuanced about it. Again, where the limited production and processing is, we think that it also makes sense. But where we don't have manufacturing or processing for a product like this, we don't have it in any of our Special Districts and we don't have it in C1, so we're not recommending those. When it comes to wholesale and distribution, Council's recommendation is like this, but we're being a little bit more nuanced about it. Wholesale and distribution is actually a conditional use permit in the Central Business District, so we're wanting to align that to be consistent, and it's also a use that's not allowed in C1, so we're not recommending it there. For retail and delivery, the only difference from what Council is looking at is that liquor stores, which we feel like is the most similar business to this in terms of regulation and in terms of impact, we're looking at this as a similar business, and it's not allowed in C1. For transportation, most of our trucking businesses are going to be located in industrial zoning districts. So that's where that makes the most sense. When we talk about a transportation or trucking business for cannabis locating themselves, we just don't see that in any of our commercial districts. So from a comprehensive plan perspective, we feel like that there are a lot of policies and guiding principles within the comprehensive plan that support allowing cannabis businesses in various different parts for zoning code. And so we do feel like that this is consistent with the comprehensive plan. From a zoning perspective, the criteria that we're using in order to adopt different cannabis businesses within certain zoning districts is by using similar uses what's already allowed in that zoning district. So it's also meeting a lot of those zoning criteria. Additionally, the DNR does support all of our suggestions because a lot of the uses that are similar are exactly what's already existing in those zoning districts. So in cases where we're adding cannabis retail to a certain zoning district and it's a conditional use, DNR supports that because it's just like every other use. So a little bit of DNR support there, but generally we feel like this is meeting a lot of the criteria and the DNR doesn't oppose the changes. So we are recommending that you approve the ordinance and recommend that to Council for certain cannabis businesses and zoning districts, for new definitions as well as the new setbacks. [8:48] **Chair:** Got it, thank you. Before we go forward, I'm just going to walk through the process. The members of the audience have been through now a couple of meetings. I'm going to repeat the process: we'll ask any clarifying questions to Harry; once we get our questions answered, we'll go out to the public; you've been through the thing, come up, give your name, represent whatever; at some point we'll shut down the public input, come back up here, have a discussion, make a motion to do something, and move that recommendation forward to the City Council. Do we have questions? [9:24] **Commissioner Bart:** I do, but I don't want to go first. [9:28] **Chair:** All right, go ahead Bart. (Pause as Bart reviews documents). [10:24] **Harry Davis:** That's a really good point there. So you know, you could craft a motion in order to sort of change that wording from instead of "building wall to building wall," it could be "property line to property line." You could do that. I think from staff's perspective, what we're responding to is Council's recommendation. So generally, I think that they're not interested in a lot of regulation. This is the only thing that they're being specific about in terms of this setback from school buildings to cannabis businesses. And so, you know, kind of reading into that, looking at how we have it elsewhere within code, my response was like, "Okay, well what if we just made it building wall to wall?" That was kind of the reasoning behind it. As for specifically what Council was looking for with that 250-foot setback, based off of talking to the City Clerk, she thought that it made sense to do building to building. She was in a lot of those meetings; admittedly, I was not. But you know, in your recommendation going forward, you can say property line to property line, or whatever works. I think that you make a really good argument, so I could see it. [12:05] **Chair:** So we can pick that discussion up in a bit. [12:11] **Commissioner Sam:** Great question, Mr. Chair. I think the City Council has been talking about this for well over a year. I don't know how many meetings they've had. Is this basically what they have requested of us to look at and give our blessing to? [12:30] **Harry Davis:** I would say that this is a recommendation from Planning and Zoning. The Planning Commission is required to take a look at any zoning code, even if Council doesn't want Planning Commission to review it; it has to by our codes, I think even by statute, and there needs to be a public hearing for it. So you know, I'm not going to say whether this is or it isn't what they want; I think either way, this is a requirement that it has so it's providing you an opportunity to make changes to the code. [13:19] **Chair:** Now I'll jump in on mine, in no particular order. Tailoring on the more of refreshing my memory: what else in the code would have this type of setback? I seem to remember a discussion a few years on pawn shops. [13:38] **Harry Davis:** Yes, pawn shops do. [13:42] **Chair:** I remember a very heated discussion back in the late 90s on adult entertainment districts. I think at the time we ended up not doing a radius; we restricted it through zoning districts. I'm just trying to get my head around, other than pawn shops, is there anything else that's got the radius? [13:58] **Harry Davis:** For sure, that's a great question. Let me do a quick search and see what I can find. [14:06] **Chair:** Okay, while you're doing that, then the other one's a lot easier maybe. In your presentation, there was something on one of the options being allowed in a TUD District. Historically, we hardly allow anything in a TUD. So I'm just kind of refreshing my memory: what is allowed in a TUD? [14:26] **Harry Davis:** Yeah, and honestly that's a really good question because I myself, since starting here, have tried to figure out exactly what a TUD is supposed to be for. It seems like it's a holding district. [14:37] **Chair:** I was going to say, maybe I can answer it. How the City of Faribault has used "Transition Urban Development" as long as I've been around is if property is annexed into the city, it comes in as TUD. It may sit there a month, it may sit there a year, it may sit there 10 years, but it's in essence kind of an urban reserve. That is maybe the more practical naming on it. And I had a discussion five years ago when we were going through the comp plan update to match up how it's actually used. So that's why it just struck me as odd that we'd allow anything in a TUD. Doesn't it just come in as an urban reserve and then we switch it to the user's zoning? [15:20] **Harry Davis:** Mr. Chair, so that's a slightly easier question for me just because I do have it pulled up here. Under the TUD District, agricultural uses, farms (not including commercial feedlots)—that’s permitted by right. Nurseries and tree farms—permitted by right. And wildlife management. It looks like playgrounds, public and private parks as well. So it kind of is almost a holding district in a way. You could potentially... someone out there could try to argue that a bunch of greenhouses or potentially like a nursery of some sort fits. And so that's why I think even from the DNR... the DNR, for example, in the Shoreland District is allowing a cultivation facility. [16:11] **Chair:** Thank you, that actually did answer my question. So there's a world where something could go into a TUD and sort of look like a greenhouse. Okay, you've answered it. Ed? [16:27] **Commissioner Bart:** Couple questions. A little piggyback on Sam a little bit: is the City Council going to decide how many locations within the city? Who's going to be responsible for inspecting the facilities? Is it one owner, or can they own more than one facility? [16:51] **Harry Davis:** Mr. Chair, so those are good questions, none of which I am the authority on. I think the City Clerk last time did speak to some of those questions. I don't know if there is going to be a limit or who exactly is inspecting them. I think the idea is that if the city takes over the licensing and location requirements for cannabis businesses, they will be the ones inspecting it, although again, I'm not sure. I'm not the one making those rules. But I'm trying to recall exactly what the City Clerk said last time. As far as I recall, I don't recall City Council putting a limit on it, but I do believe that the city will be doing the licensing. [17:45] **Commissioner Bart:** Really why I'm saying is, he talked about 250 feet, whether it's building or property. It really falls in the same rules and regulations or guidelines: who's going to own it, where they're located. Now we're here talking about zoning. I guess our job is just to say, "Is this okay for this zone?" and that’s it, period. And then as they come through, Council takes care of the licensing. [18:14] **Harry Davis:** Yeah, well the state is pretty vague; the city can set their own limits. [18:23] **Chair:** My understanding... yeah, the state legislature in the rules that they've set up for rules and regulations, I think it's like a minimum number or something like that based on population. [18:41] **Harry Davis:** Right, City of Faribault or whatever it may be. [18:45] **Chair:** Plus or minus multiple who-know-what. I guess is the long answer. Are we done with questions so I can go out and do the public hearing and then come back and we can pick up the discussion from there? Put a pin in it for now. We'll officially open up the public hearing. If any member of our public has anything you want to add? You've heard a lot of checking the boxes tonight. This is how I have to do it. Now that we've opened the public hearing, I have given the opportunity... if there's no one from the public, we close the public hearing. Now back up here for discussion. Maybe... I usually don't go first, but I just want to close the loop on where Bart was going with the distance. I find those radiuses really onerous to manage. I'm just not a fan of that radius. An example would be... I mean, we'll use cannabis because we're talking about it, but one cannabis business goes into the downtown business district and is open and doing fine. A year or two later, somebody comes in and buys a building downtown and opens up a charter school. The 250-foot bubble then makes it harder for cannabis business number two to come in. There's just all sorts of scenarios. And staff, as we've seen week after week here, you guys are really kind of outgunned and outmanned right now. You don't need to be running around town with a yardstick measuring 250 feet, whether it's from the building or the property line. I think you raised an excellent point, Bart. I'm not challenging what you said; I'm just not a fan of the 250-foot rule. That's where I'm coming from. And I really like that basically this gives the City Council what they were looking for, except for C1, which just makes it more consistent. I usually don't go first, but that's just where I am. Other discussion? [20:55] **Commissioner Steve:** No, I’m good. [21:14] **Chair:** Other discussion? [21:18] **Commissioner Steve:** Mr. Chairman, I think the staff has done a great job of laying this out with the charts and descriptions. I'm comfortable with this, and I move for approval as staff has put on there. [21:28] **Commissioner Sam:** I’ll second. [21:35] **Chair:** Sam’s got the second. So the ordinance approving zoning text amendment to allow cannabis businesses as presented. We've got the motion, we've got the second. Is there a discussion on it before we vote? [21:54] **Commissioner Bart:** I would like to bring up that I still feel that we're still talking about an amendment. While I'm not against the substance, it should be some more similar distance. Again, just because we want to be similar so that the community at large sees that. And I still think that this should match what we do for other things. [22:36] **Chair:** Here's why I asked about the pawn shops. [22:48] **Commissioner Steve:** Well, the question is how many are we going to have? And we'll go to retrospect of what Bart is saying. Again, we're just talking that they can put it into this zone, and we have no say with the regulations. That's not our job tonight. Our job tonight is to simply say it can be in this location. Council and the state is going to set up things. It's just like when we've approved, let's say, a liquor store to be someplace. We don't do anything with regards to the regulations of that liquor store; we say it could be in this area. That's where I'm looking at it. I shouldn't look beyond that at all. Go ahead, Bart. [23:34] **Commissioner Bart:** And I do agree, this really... I'll disagree a little bit. I think the state is going to set the regulation, but City Council—the City of Faribault—needs to agree to guidelines that are going to be approved. [24:05] **Harry Davis:** Mr. Chair, I appreciate it. Harry and then Bart. So, I'm searching everywhere within our code, and I'm now realizing that, you know, I don't know if I was talking to the City Clerk and we just had it wrong or what. Looking at how liquor stores are permitted, it is measured from lot line to lot line. So, you know, I could see something where... and really it wasn't that City Council specifically said it had to be "building wall to building wall." We could easily do "lot line to lot line." [24:34] **Chair:** Thank you. Then Bart’s got the floor, and then Sam. [24:48] **Commissioner Bart:** Okay, first, I already know where you're going. I'll make a matching amendment that the 250-foot setback be measured from lot line to lot line to match what we do for liquor stores. [25:02] **Chair:** So that’s now the motion. I don't think we need to amend it. Clearly the person that made the motion and the person that made the second are just clarifying that they would like that language to be 250 feet from property line—lot line to lot line—to match the liquor code. Got it? But we have to say it. Okay, so we're all clear on what the motion is. Motion and the second. Thank you both for that and for the clarifying question. [25:47] **Commissioner Sam:** If this is your motion, it says school or church? Does it match that language? [25:52] **Harry Davis:** Mr. Chair, I mean, this is completely up to the motion maker. If we include churches, it becomes a bigger discussion that, you know, I don't know if Council is going to go for that. They've just called out schools. [26:08] **Chair:** Got it. So just making sure I got it clear: Steve’s got the motion, Sam seconds, that we're matching the 250-foot language on lot line to lot line. And actually, Harry’s research in this conversation picked up my vote. As long as we're matching what we're doing with liquor stores, fine. I just didn't want this weird carve-out on the 250. Now that it's matching what we're doing for liquor stores, that picked up my vote. I'm fine with that. The final thing is, I'm not wrapping my head around what the City Council wants; I don't care if they met once or 15 times. We're a recommending body to them. Yeah, they had to get their head around it and everything else, but who of the seven served on this board? The other five know nothing. So we've done a good job of working through this, and we've got this to a good spot. Got a motion, vote. All those in favor say "aye." (Chorus of ayes). All those opposed, "no." That motion carries. To City Council next Tuesday, Harry? [27:35] **Harry Davis:** Actually, this will be delayed a little bit. This will actually go to a City Council work session, I believe beginning in October. I think it's October 1st. [27:45] **Chair:** But we're done with it now. [27:48] **Harry Davis:** But we are done with it, and the City Council will have it at a future date. [27:54] **Chair:** All right, moving on. Request to be heard: is there anything there, or can I jump into the items for discussion? [27:59] **Harry Davis:** Mr. Chair, you can jump right ahead. [28:01] **Chair:** Jumping in: 5A, denying the variance for 153rd Avenue Southwest. This was continued from two weeks ago. [28:03] **Harry Davis:** Yes, Mr. Chair. So the item in front of you... I'll skip forward just because we're all familiar with the request. Basically, the update is that the applicant did provide a reference survey that they kind of somewhat showed at the last meeting, which is now actually within your packet as well as a few additional items. The new documents don't change staff's review of the proposal. We still don't feel like there's enough there in terms of meeting criteria to grant a variance. So we're still recommending denial based off of that. [28:43] **Chair:** Got it, thank you. Do we have questions for Harry before we go to the public? (None). We'll open it up for public input. Anything to add for us? [28:49] **Cory Newbie:** Cory Newbie, 153rd Avenue Southwest. What it is, is... before I was at you guys just talking about the setback... I am... what the city staff is looking at. Yes, I can fit on my first 16,000, I have 42 feet. I set it back for the first big concern, hoping we can come to terms. I look at it, I've stood on the property and that's our principles for division or guidelines... some support. The VA's not here, but still using this. I had submitted a February 6th... oh, now I'm being specific. How do you have proof? I was saying from your guys' second site plan or a couple other items... this is Ron Ciban’s old... is everything... hard for me, I still go back and try and... before I looked at this property, I was looking at TIFF properties following those guys. How... that's it for public input. [34:37] **Chair:** Back up here to the Planning Commission. [34:41] **Commissioner Steve:** Mr. Chairman, I've heard the two and a half feet. So we're saying that it would be seven and a half feet would be the setback? [34:49] **Harry Davis:** No, Mr. Chair. I think the request would be to go down to two and a half. So the variance would be, instead of 10 feet, it would be a seven-and-a-half-foot variance. [35:01] **Commissioner Steve:** Part of me has some concerns. I drive past this property, and this property is not being maintained. I mean, nobody's mowing it; it's like a weed farm up there for a main arterial street going past it. I've got concerns about what this is going to look like in the future. Part of me is... I've got some real concerns about giving variances. We're talking quite a variance, from 10 feet to two and a half. I’m very nervous about it. [35:46] **Chair:** Other discussion? I'll hop in on a couple of things. I do think we probably just need to clear our plate tonight on this one. And like I said two weeks ago, we've been really cooperative and creative over the years on old churches, and we get it. But I think this is a bridge too far with the variance, even if it was seven and a half, but I wasn't in favor of going from ten to two and a half. Obviously, that's... I would, at this point, be in favor of... I would support a motion to deny. But I think the key is, and what's nice is there's five of us tonight, so somebody's going to make a motion to do something. It's going to move. Good with all that discussion? Thoughts, Sam? [37:02] **Commissioner Sam:** I really wanted this to work at the start, but I just think... I support you, but I think that there's just too much there. I’ll make a motion to deny. [37:24] **Commissioner Steve:** I’ll second it. [37:30] **Chair:** Steve’s got the second on the motion to deny the variance as presented. Was there any discussion? Mark, go ahead. [37:52] **Mark DuChene:** Mr. Chair, so I think we're talking about like a parking agreement. We do have provisions within our code that allow that. It might be a conditional use; kind of like there needs to be an agreement between businesses on when they intend to use that parking lot. So if things happen on the weekend, you know, and there's nothing happening at the school, maybe that works. I think at the same time, you know, if we do have something where there are times that conflict between the school and the property... at the end of the day, that’s Bethlehem Academy, which I think is kind of what you are talking about. [39:00] **Harry Davis:** Yeah, I'm just trying to clarify which property. Bethlehem Academy—it would be up to them. But at the same time, they would need to have an excess amount of parking before they can start giving up additional spaces. So there is a way to do it, yes, it just requires a little bit of calculation. [39:24] **Chair:** Other discussion? I've got a motion, I've got a second. We'll vote. Again, I'll just clarify because to make sure on the double negative stuff: the motion and the second is to deny the variance request. All those in favor of that motion say "aye." (Chorus of ayes). All those opposed, "no." That carries. This now moves forward. Is this next week? [39:45] **Harry Davis:** Yes, this will be next week. [39:47] **Chair:** Okay, thanks. The next one up on items for discussion: The Rebound again. Comp plan amendment, zoning amendment, the 400 block of 20th Street Northwest. Harry, an update? [39:56] **Harry Davis:** Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. So you guys are probably familiar with this one. We did spend a little bit of time discussing this at our last meeting. And basically, the update for this one is: okay, if we are going to recommend denial of it, that's fine. The requirement based off the state statute as well as our own code is that we have findings to give to City Council before it moves forward. So that's kind of why we're back. Based off of the feedback that I got at the last meeting, I put together a set of findings within each of the different resolutions. The resolution for a comp plan amendment now includes findings that were supplied from you guys sort of more towards recommending denial. And then the ordinance actually changes to a resolution, because you can't pass an ordinance to deny a zoning map; you pass a resolution to recommend denial. So that has now become a resolution. We are needing to make decisions on both of these resolutions tonight. So with that, based off your recommendation from the last meeting, I'm recommending that you approve the resolution which recommends denial of the comp plan amendment, and then approve the resolution which recommends denial of the zoning map. [41:25] **Chair:** Thank you. Do we have clarifying questions? (None). I’ll go to the public... (No response). Back up here to the Planning Commission. You're going to need two separate motions. Before there's a motion, I will say that one of the most scathing things that was ever said to me was "the last opinion you heard was always the most important opinion." I have taken every stand on this one. I drove by this neighborhood yesterday, and there are strong arguments. It's a spot zone, and they hate spot zoning. But that neighborhood seems to be transitioning more residential. It's weird, the ones that trip you up, but this one has... I have been all over the map on this one. So I am genuinely looking towards others for leadership and direction on this one. I don't have a good feel. [42:35] **Commissioner Steve:** Mr. Chairman, we had the owner of the scrapyard in here talking about that he'd like to expand that. I know the Rice County Fairboard is looking to utilize, and they have been utilizing, the racetrack area for Mexican rodeos, and there's proposals to do more racing down there which is not conducive to housing. And I realize they are somewhat landlocked, but I mean if you're looking at the direction of where that is, it is landlocked and they've invested a lot in that area. I could see them even buying for more parking. I mean, there's just a lot of industrial use. So that's my reason for saying denial. [43:18] **Chair:** Other discussion? I need two motions. The first one would be on the comp plan amendment, and then the second on the zoning map. [43:30] **Commissioner Steve:** Chairman, then I move for approval of the denial of the comprehensive plan amendment. [43:40] **Commissioner Sam:** I will second you. [43:43] **Chair:** We’ve got a motion and a second to deny the comp plan amendment. We're all clear on what the motion is. We'll vote. All those in favor say "aye." (Chorus of ayes). All those opposed? [43:58] **Commissioner Bart:** No. [44:00] **Chair:** That carries 4 to 1. Now the second one: the zoning map amendment. [44:06] **Commissioner Steve:** Motion? Okay, then I move for denying the zoning map amendment resolution to be approved. [44:17] **Commissioner Sam:** I'll second. [44:20] **Chair:** I had a motion and a second on the resolution to deny the zoning map. Discussion on that? (None). Vote on that. All those in favor say "aye." (Chorus of ayes). All those opposed? [44:38] **Commissioner Bart:** No. [44:40] **Chair:** That carries 4 to 1. That's it for items for discussion. Is there anything routine business, Harry, you've got for us? [44:53] **Harry Davis:** Mr. Chair, no. I forgot to put in any planning and zoning updates, so I could cover that now. [45:04] **Chair:** Sure, just combine six and seven. Go ahead. [45:07] **Harry Davis:** Yeah, so just to give you an update: the three items that went forward did pass their first reading. For the resolution for the 2040, not the Highway 60 plan, that was adopted. That is now a plan that I'm doing some slight amendments to; I have some particular things that I want the consultant to change, just small technical fixing. So that is now moving forward. Our plan for Highway 60, the vacation that went through for that Johnson Ryland property out there, that went forward. And then the zoning map amendment did amend it so that it was just the water treatment plant going forward instead of the wastewater treatment plant. Water treatment plant had its first reading. So all those are moving forward. Things that are coming up: we actually don't have... we potentially don't have any planning and zoning items for our next meeting. So one thing that we could talk about would be if there's anything that we do want to try to tackle during the next meeting. We could just talk about it today, or you could send me emails with ideas going forward if we don't come up with anything today. Those are all the different options. [46:42] **Chair:** Good point to go back and look at that priority list. I'm being serious—that was kind of a prioritized list. We could pick up the top two things on that. [46:58] **Harry Davis:** Mr. Chair, we could definitely do that. I think you'll be surprised to see that we haven't got very far on that list, I could just tell you that right now. I think part of that is being a one-man show. But I think that we could start talking a little bit more if there's a planning concept or idea. I could do some research on it, come back to the group with a presentation on it so that we could talk about some of this. We could do that, and then that way maybe at the end of it we do have a Planning Commission recommendation for a zoning text amendment or for a zoning map amendment or other sort of amendment. We could do that. [47:45] **Commissioner Bart:** This, I think, would follow along land use, and I've talked about this for a long time but we've not done a damn thing about it. We talked about affordable housing, and maybe I was looking at it the wrong way, but maybe we can come up with a way where if a developer had land and he wants to zone it that way, we could allow a smaller lot size or do some things that would be able to create some starter homes. [48:10] **Commissioner Sam:** Mr. Davis, could you just prioritize those and send them out to us? [48:30] **Chair:** Sam, that's more eloquent than I was going to say. Let's just pick up right where you left off. How about if we've got ideas, send them to Harry. Harry and I can get together this week for a quick phone call and then kind of see where we want to go. That list would be really helpful. [48:58] **Commissioner Sam:** Yeah, I would agree, the list would be helpful because that was right before my time. [49:05] **Chair:** Yeah, I'm sorry, I didn't even say that part right. But yeah, have Harry and Carrie send the list out to us as soon as you can. Folks can review it, email into Harry, because again I'm just trying to help manage your time. I don't want to throw something at you that's going to take more than you can tackle right now. But if the group's okay with it, get the list out, everybody look at it, throw some stuff to Harry, and then Harry and I decide if we need to meet in two weeks. Okay, does that work for everyone? [49:38] **Commissioner Bart:** If it makes sense, we can meet. I have no agenda. [49:43] **Commissioner Sam:** Oh, can I ask about the vacation of a property? [49:48] **Harry Davis:** Mr. Chair, you certainly can. I think in the rush to get things done, I wasn't able to put that on the last City Council agenda. That will be on the next one. Just some time issues here, so we'll see what happens. I'm reaching out to Delato. [50:24] **Chair:** That's it for the updates. We need a motion to adjourn. [50:28] **Commissioner Sam:** Motion. [50:30] **Commissioner Bart:** I’ll second. [50:32] **Chair:** All those in favor of adjourning, say "aye." (Chorus of ayes). We are adjourned.