Okay.

Now call the June 26, 2026 meeting of the St.

Paul Planning Commission to order.

First order business is roll call.

Commissioner Grill, present.

Commissioner Hackey?

Present.

Commissioner Holtz?

Here.

Commissioner Johnson Becker.

Here.

Commissioner Martinson.

Here.

Commissioner Presley.

Commissioner Riley.

Commissioner Starling.

Here.

Commissioner Taggyov.

Here.

Commissioner Thomas.

Here.

Wonderful.

Thank you.

It looks like then we have roll call completed.

Next up is approval of the May 29th, 2026 plan and commission meeting minutes.

Do you have a motion on the minutes?

So moved.

Motion by Commissioner Holtz.

Do I have a second?

Seconded by Commissioner Taggyaf.

Is there any discussion on the minutes?

Alright, seeing none, we'll move forward with the vote.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Any abstentions?

Alright, the minutes pass.

First up today, we don't have any public hearings.

So next up would be old business.

That's the planning commission bylaws update.

And I believe Chris Hong is here.

Good morning, everyone.

I am here to present the um planning commission bylaws updates since the February 20th vote.

Um so the vast majority of these changes are all formatting that uh formatting changes that were needed because it was converted from like a typewriter or something like that.

Um and so um the the first copy of the bylaws that are in your packets is with all of the red lines, and that includes like weird spacing issues, and then the second version has the more like uh substantive um changes, and I thought I'd just uh go over them quickly because there aren't too many of them.

Um so the first in articles two and three, we um updated language so that the position of the second vice chair was removed because we'll only have seven commissioners, so it felt um unnecessary.

So we just have a chair, a vice chair, and a secretary.

Um in article four.

Uh we remove the information about the um the date and time of meetings in case we decide to take a vote to um change the meeting date and time, and then we don't have to also update the bylaws at the same time.

Um and since we had um previously voted back in February to remove the uh um uh the requirement that the annual report be completed in January.

I also remove the requirement that the um that the report be submitted to the mayor and the city council by March 15th, since it might be March 15th when we uh when we uh get the annual report.

Hopefully not, but um in article four, oh we're still talking about article four, in um article four section four on quorum, um remove the language of equivalent number to one or two because we're only ever gonna have up to two alternates.

So if three members are missing, we're not gonna have three alternates because we're only gonna have two alternates.

Um in uh section five.

Um we um updated it so instead of saying uh six or more excused absences, it's six or more um absences.

So excused or unexcused, obviously.

Um, and um section six just update to say um uh any member of the commission can call for a roll call vote, um, which is um what we've been uh doing anyway.

So um well it's been suggested to the chair to call for uh a roll call vote and um and um also in section six um will even though we just voted this uh last sentence in to include a um um a stipulation that uh commissioners need to uh state the reasoning reasoning for abstaining from a vote.

Uh we're removing that sentence because it's already in the Roberts rules of order, and so it is still required, but we're not putting it in the bylaws.

Um, and so that's it for now.

We have any questions?

Uh Commissioner Taggyff.

Thank you, Ms.

Hong through the chat.

Um just one.

Um there's the the regular meetings and special meetings.

Um the way that tends to operate I think in these sorts of bylaws is that you have you know you define a regular meeting and say we have to meet on this cadence or whatever and then the special meetings are sort of for emergencies or other things like that um and obviously when when removing the stipulation for every Friday the the word regular meetings is doing a loss of work um and I I think those two clauses together are supposed to prevent a situation where we could for example call a meeting with an hour notice and call it a regular meeting and then sort of you know vote something through without public notice I wonder I wonder whether regular meetings do have notice requirements of their own or if there's anything in there that the that essentially protects us without that language just want to clarify that's the case uh I think the director has a comment yeah uh thanks chair commissioner um all you know all of our meetings have to be noticed even a special meeting uh I think a few months ago or maybe like at the end of last year we had a special meeting in order to uh make a deadline for a project and we had to schedule that uh with the proper noticing so any meeting that we have is properly noticed.

Then I suppose my question is um should we remove the language in special meetings requiring at least three days of notice if if if notice applies regardless then do we need yeah do we need the notice in in that paragraph?

I think um so the discussion between regular meetings and special meetings and notice and both of those.

Chair and Commissioner Tegya um no matter what it says in the bylaws we have to abide by open meeting law and the state's noticing and the city's noticing requirements so the three days is a bit moot since usually we have to give you know we have to do 10 days public notice we have to get something onto the schedule it's usually you know like a two-week type of situation to get anything scheduled so um that might be you know something that could be removed or could stay but be moot.

Got it thank you.

Uh Commissioner Starling thank you madam chair um Ms.

Hong I have a I think similar impulse to Commissioner Taggyov though in the section on article eight on amendment where it says the bylaws may be amended assuming that the amendment has been emailed or mailed to commission members and I have some concern about the public notice dimension of that amendment.

I guess my question is should this language also have could slash should this language also have provided that the proposed amendment has been posted publicly and emailed and mailed.

Thanks Chair Commissioner Sterling.

Similar to my previous response where you know we must abide by all of the noticing laws and um I think sometimes the the actual practice and laws and what is in the bylaws you know conflict I think they're because these bylaws originate in such an old uh outdated way they're pre-internet uh we you know we've done our best to update them but I don't think that the the bylaws need to be more strict than our procedures but the bylaws could reflect our procedures does that make sense.

I think that makes sense I think I'm reacting to the precision that is in this language of emailed or mailed at least five days relative to I think the overall intent of public notice.

So when we get to amendments, I might suggest that perhaps this should be removed instead, provided that the proposed amendment has been communicated consistent with public notice procedures.

I'm just making a note as we go through it.

Chair, sort of in that same vein, and I think agreeing with Starling and maybe even taking uh Commissioner Starling and even taking a little further.

Um, I mean bylaws may be amended at any regular meeting with five days notice.

It and honestly, I mean these are our bylaws, right?

Um, it seems like they should be not super easy to change and be a little process laden.

Um, and uh if we're individually up to me, I would be, you know, if we're gonna have a bylaw change, it probably should be read out at a meeting and then eligible for change at the next meeting.

In other words, hey, these are the changes, and then on the next meeting we can adopt them that way, nothing can ever slide through, you know, in the uh um subtly on a bylaw.

Um, and I I think they're important enough that sort of that ought to be a standard, and I frankly have used um used it in the past when it's not as such, right?

In order to change bylaws.

Um, and I'm not sure that's a really good idea.

Um, so anyways, that would be my comment on here.

It'd be like, hey, we'd have to have like a first reading at a planning commission meeting, and then at the commission meeting after that, they could be modified.

Um, I see a couple other questions.

I just have a question for staff before we go to those.

Um, do we know what the other boards and commissions have for some of these items?

Like relating to notices and amendments and things like that.

Like I'm wondering if there's a way to just be sort of in step with how the other boards and commissions are operating.

Uh Chair, I I don't have that information offhand.

Okay, thank you.

Um, Commissioner Tagiaff and then Commissioner Tag.

Maybe Commissioner Martinson.

I'll speak just once.

Um, I think um coming back to the these points, right?

To me, if if if opposition is that the that these requirements are regulated already regulated by other laws, ordinances of city, I think the problem with putting them directly conflicting words directly into the bylaws is that when people are trying to decose what the rule is, typically they will refer to the most sort of proximate statutor thing first, and then we go out if there's no language or if the language refers and somewhere else.

So if I were as a member of the public, well, frankly, as a lawyer reading these, I would say, oh, this is the requirement.

I wouldn't then look out at city statute or other statue to say, well, maybe there's a conflicting requirement somewhere else.

Um so I think that's where the tension is coming from with both the language clause and potentially the notice clause that uh Commissioner Starling raised.

So I wanted to point out that I I would be for language that either omits those things if they already covered elsewhere or aligns them, yeah, explicitly refers and says, you know, notice as required in city statutes or something like that.

I think would be probably a way to resolve some of these questions.

I know I didn't cover your point, Commissioner Hulse, but so just to sort of summarize the areas in where we have um questions or areas where people maybe are considering edits, it's in regular meetings, special meetings, and amendments so far.

Um Commissioner Martinson.

I have a number of substantive suggestions for edits, but I was not sure if I should be addressing them to staff or if I should be addressing it in the in the discussion part of our voting today.

So wherever it's most appropriate, I'll add my commentary.

Okay.

Um are there other questions for staff before we sort of get into the discussion piece?

Oh, sorry, questions for staff, I'll wait.

Commissioner Starling.

Thank you, manager.

Question for staff is what is the timeline of this document after this body approves it.

I don't think I understand your question.

Um does it go to the city council?

Does it need, or is our vote the end of the process?

The director will answer the question.

Uh the bylaws end here.

Thank you.

All right.

Seeing no other questions for staff, um, I think we can move into discussion.

I would say maybe stay close.

Okay, I know there are several folks that have thoughts and feelings for discussion.

Maybe let's start with Commissioner Martins, since I know you have have items and you haven't spoken yet.

Thank you, Chair.

And these are some of these are topics that I probably would have brought up earlier, but that they it didn't enter my thinking until we had to be revisiting bylaws in another body on which I sit for reasons that I'm not happy about.

But it did cause me to rethink some things here as well.

So I bring them today with apologies for not having brought them sooner.

Um so bylaws as has been referenced already are sort of defining the life of a body of a democratic body, and they have both prescriptive elements and they need to have some proscriptive elements as well.

The prescriptive elements define our life together here around this table, and the deliberations that we engage in with the public and the decisions that we recommend to the city council.

But the proscriptive things are to prevent certain things like overthrow or overtake of the body by malign elements.

And so I think I think we've seen, and I'll reference national events that there's certain dangers in a unitary executive, and so I think some of this puts a little bit too much power in the hands.

I think of the chair and and the director, and so I want to reference that.

But I want other there's some other topics in here as well.

So I'm just gonna go down, they're not these aren't necessarily in an order, they're just in the order that they occur in the document.

So I think in in Article One, we don't have any statements currently about the number of commissioners nor the number of alternates.

I know we've discussed it and we've talked about having two, but I don't see them ref I don't see those numbers referenced anywhere here, nor do I see any discussion about the respective powers and duties of primary seats versus alternate seats, and that's something that we might want to we might want to have explicitly in Article One.

Um to Article 4.

Um this is to the concern about the concentration of power in the hands of the chair.

So the chair or the planning commission, so under regular meetings.

Uh the chair or of the planning commission together with the planning directors shall determine the the agenda for planning commission meetings.

So that concentrates all agenda setting power in the hands of a chair and the director, but it leaves little room for the voice of other commissioners who may want to put items on the agenda.

And so I'd propose that other commission members be allowed to propose agenda items via motion or written request with five days notice, for instance.

Um so the language might be any commissioner may request an item be placed on the agenda by submitting the request in writing at least five days prior to the meeting.

Such requests shall be included unless a majority of the commission votes otherwise.

So that that puts agenda setting power slightly back in the hands of the rest of the commission.

Doesn't damage the power that the chair and the director have.

Unless excused by the chair of the commission, the chair shall recommend that the mayor request the resignation of such member from the commission, and that's in the section on absence from meetings.

So absence from meetings is currently the only condition that's referenced that may warrant removal from the body.

And that power probably can be rested with the chair with the approval of the mayor.

But two points.

First, we may want to include a broader power of removal for cause, in which case we would need to define a clear standard of misconduct that would have to be found.

Second, um, removal for cause and possibly for lack of attendance should probably be determined by a vote of the entire commission, uh, not to be taken just as an action of the chair.

Okay, so that's that's that suggestion.

Um there's also, and I don't know where this would go, but there's there's no section that codifies how the public may participate in our deliberations.

And so we've had some discussion about the fact that that's also dictated by statute and other requirements that we have to meet, and maybe we just need to reference those.

But and obviously when we have a public hearing, the ground rules for comment are typically announced by the chair, but have you know having the procedures codified in the bylaws wouldn't be a bad idea uh for purposes of transparency to the public, I think.

Um, and I think oh the amendments, yeah.

So amendments of bylaws, I agree with member holst that um they should be hard to change, which this shouldn't be a simple easy thing because they are the life of the body, and they are the place that someone's gonna go to manipulate if they're trying to engage in a hostile takeover of that body.

We've seen it, some of us have participated in it, so it's you know, to to be it's to be guarded against.

And so requiring a simple majority is maybe fine, but in other bodies that I've served on, it's requires a two-thirds vote of the body in order to change the bylaws.

So that's something that I would want like us to consider.

And I think those are all my those are my comments.

Uh thank you, Commissioner Martin.

I'm gonna go to Commissioner Riley and then additional folks.

Um so I have three comments, one of which is really a question for city attorney.

Um I believe that statute is pretty clear on some of the aspects of what how planning commissions operate.

And so I think the first thing that you brought up may not apply, so it's a question for Josh to look at.

Um, then I think I agree with your two-thirds for changing the bylaws.

I think that's really thoughtful.

And I do not think that anything that might have to change in order to accommodate changing um public practices or interests by the executive who is the mayor.

So that is why the mayor has the power to make those decisions.

That is the chief executive officer of this city, and all of us are appointed by that person.

That person is the only person who actually has the power to make that decision, and that's I believe why that's written into these bylaws.

We should not have anything to do with whether people are removed from this body or not, because it is not our authority to invite them on, nor is it our authority to confirm them here.

It is the mayor's.

So that's I think an aspect of that.

But I do agree, bylaws should not be changed often.

It should be hard for them to change, and we should not include procedural items in our bylaws that may have to change in order to accommodate um the way the public and the mayor and other entities like to participate or change things, particularly when it comes to public participation, because that's an ever-changing thing, um, and I certainly don't want to hamstring uh the community's ability to participate in this body, nor our ability to work with the community, nor the department's ability to work with the community.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Alley.

Other discussion items.

I I agree with your uh Commissioner Tegoff's uh earlier comments around aligning the bylaws with um state uh it seems like we've changed our city code more than a couple of times to make sure that it aligns perfectly with what the state ordinances are, and so um I just would like to send a little support saying that yeah, I think I think we should align, even if it's even if there is a state law might say A and our bylaws say B.

I think we should try to keep those two aligned whenever possible.

So for clarity.

So regular meetings, special meetings, amendments.

It feels like there's I'm just trying to get a sort of a read on consensus.

It feels like there are it feels like there's general consensus that those are areas where people maybe would like to reopen things.

Um there are.

Let's see what else we got.

And in the amendment space, the two-thirds vote sounds seems like some people had some interest in that.

Unclear about sort of overall feelings.

Um reasons for removal are the place maybe for more discussion and that that whole space because um to Commissioner Riley's point, we are limited in what we would do in that space.

Um a lot of that work is reserved for the mayors and the mayors at us.

Um, public participation, some of that is still sort of up for discussion, and then there's some conversations about making sure we align with um the overall state rules for planning commissions, making sure these fit in with that, which I'm I'm sure staff did did the work on, but maybe hearing that would be helpful.

Um then I would also be curious around um how we fit into other bylaws existing within the city, um, just because we're all operating sort of under the same structure.

I realize we have specific planning rules, but um making sure that maybe we're not wildly out of step with those, I think would be helpful.

Um, given the sheer number of things on the table today, and we have another item.

Um I don't know if this is a place where and maybe Ms.

Hong might be willing to come up before I suggest anything.

Um but given sort of the sheer number of items discussed today, um, I don't think we have a tight timeline on this.

Is that something you or the director can?

Oh, there's not exactly a timeline on this.

Uh these are rules for governing yourself, so um, um I can uh do some research on the topics that were brought up and uh presented at another meeting.

Okay.

We haven't made a motion or anything.

I just want to make sure we weren't in a place where you were getting a lot of heat to make sure that this was moving quickly, and obviously you don't want to spend all of your time working on our bylaws, so I'd like this to be maybe the last of our extensions if we can if we can do it.

Um but I think there's a lot of valid things that folks have brought up today.

Um I also just as a pet note, since we're doing it.

Um the parliamentarian.

If you can see if that could also be made to the vice chair, I'd be I'd be curious.

Um, sorry, what was that?

If the parliamentarian could be the vice chair, um, that would be fine as well.

Um, it's too much has been vested in the chair, I heard, so I just want to want to spread it out.

Um, but yeah, it seems like there's a lot of items, so I don't know if that's something um it's obviously up to you all to make a motion and see what you're comfortable with, but I just want to make sure staff was comfortable.

Commissioner Holtz, or sorry, Commissioner Hackney.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Um I don't necessarily know what my position on this would be, but just as a clarification, it sounds like what Commissioner Martinson is saying is not that we're taking authority from the mayor.

I mean, the language is the chair shall recommend that the mayor request the resignation.

Sounds like he's just simply saying, why not put it to a vote?

So it doesn't substantively change it, it just simply disperses the power.

And then commit obviously correct me if I'm wrong, but if I misinterpreted, but that seems like that's the nature of the request.

I think that's something that staff can look at as well and bring back.

Uh I also wanted to clarify for uh Commissioner Martinson.

Um the number of commissioners is in the city code, and that was amended last year.

Um, and so um if any changes are made to that, it would need to be through an ordinance change.

Okay, thank you for that.

So I'm wondering if we can I like it when if something is codified elsewhere if it's referenced in the document.

So if you if there's I mean it would be simply just to say the composition of this body is determined by this section of the city code and then reference it because then I can go look it up.

And I would bet other members of the public would too.

So thanks for that.

I mean I think that's along the same lines as as having reference to other controlling, um, you know, statute or ordinance that dictate our behavior.

Um I might have seen Commissioner Starling, but I'm also seeing Commissioner Riley.

I don't these may be dueling items.

I'm I'm feeling like we are likely to ask that this come back to us with amendments or proposed language to address some number of these concerns.

And then I am feeling uneasy about whether or not it comes back to us and then we would vote on it at the next meeting relative to settling on the language and then having the formal adoption vote at the next meeting, because I am sympathetic to Commissioner Holst's comments that a me that bylaws should not be easily amended and adjusted.

And he in coming into this meeting, I looked at like, you know, the dimensions that are capitalizing certain words and changing the spacing, housekeeping, I'm comfortable with that.

But to the extent that I think we are making some substantive changes, I would like to propose a I think I am acting actively proposing a two-step process from here.

So I think staff would be comfortable or the director would be comfortable if we brought if they brought options back with research, um and did it more as a presentation and then a subsequent meeting with um with a vote if that's if that fits uh the request.

Um and I think when when the motion is made, maybe we can we can include that.

Commissioner Riley.

Uh thank thank you.

I was gonna say something similar to Commissioner Starling, but uh make a specific request that um when this comes back that we have in its entirety the existing language from the code of ordinance that describes the planning commission and the ordinance that establishes the planning commission, that is because that is distinct from the bylaws, which are we are sort of optional.

We don't have to have bylaws, we're not a nonprofit.

So I'll just make that clear.

And then I'd also um like any part of the city's charter that indicates that there's supposed to be a planning commission.

I don't think that actually exists, but just in case there is, I think we should have that in front of us as well.

Um, and then the last bit uh might be helpful for um staff to send out the portion of the League of Minnesota Cities handbook for planning commissioners that might help resolve a lot of the questions and concerns here.

Um it's very valuable, and I recommend we all have read it at some point, serving on this body.

Uh but that also calls into question the statement that the planning director made that um this stops here because I think that councils are supposed to adopt them, and this is a city of the first class that's a charter-based city, so I have no idea.

But just to verify that that is accurate, that'd be helpful too.

That's it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Riley.

Um if anything, this discussion does prove how interested in the topic we all are, um, and how how well we want these to work.

Um, so I do appreciate that.

Um with that, uh, does anyone have a motion or more discussion?

Um actually I just um I wanted to um solicit some kind of um feedback on what kind of process you you'd like to see for amendments.

Ms.

Hong, do you mean in to be put in the document?

Correct.

Yeah.

Thank you.

I think maybe we could we can provide it here if folks have it in the moment, but if you want to do some research and send it via email.

I'll have my email as well, so that can be you can always email that over to me.

I can I can probably state really quick.

In other words, you're asking what the process ought to be if we have an amendment to the bylaws.

Is that correct?

Yeah.

So I mean I kind of already touched on it, but it would probably it would be you know, read out at a meeting and then voted on the next meeting, and then furthermore, it'd be a two-thirds of the commission uh majority, like a supermajority to make an amendment to the bylaws.

So not two-thirds of attendance but two-thirds of the body.

So that would that would be what I would suggest.

So, follow up question for Commissioner Holst yeah um would that amendment be true for the rules of procedure as well as the body laws themselves for the bylaws just for the bylaws okay so rules of procedure could be simple majorities yes thank you anything else all right would anybody be interested in making motion or uh commissioner starling I'm thank you ma'am chair a question when this body fully settles into its permanent number of members how many is that seven seven plus two nine seven plus two alternates but only seven voting in a at an opportunity.

So with that I'm playing out in my head that the two thirds vote would then have to be six out of seven it's a great question Commissioner Starley.

Chair if I may yeah so I I don't think we can have a vote with more than seven people at any given time because the way it's set up is seven people are eligible to vote right so I think it would be five out of seven but I think this is an important point right because it's like what is it is it nine is it seven what's our denominator here right um certainly when I was thinking about it I was thinking of two thirds of seven um you know which would give us five but but we should probably have some we should have some clarification on that right that's got two thirds though yes two thirds is more than five two thirds of seven is more than five the data yes the data folks in here so six is six is four six seven sorry I'm almost 50 yeah yeah that's in the in interest of keeping things moving.

Perhaps we put a pen and we we think about the intent and we look at what a couple options are there.

I mean it could just say supermajority and then whatever the number is doesn't matter.

Right for the record five is seventy one percent of seven so which is more than two thirds I think I think for the purposes of this discussion we should flag it and make sure that we what we're doing fits well into the bylaws um and maybe is is appropriate um for what other bodies do that are seven um there are enough in this situation that there should be an example yes I I'll draft some options and uh present them to files more you all wonderful thank you so much for the Commissioner Tag yeah.

I think if we're ready maybe we could propose um to lay this item over um until such time as um staff being able to propose the um the suggested uh amendments uh the draft in response to the discussion today and perhaps allow time for a presentation and of course second all right so yeah I think it's a national a motion by commissioner take yaff a second by commissioner riley is there discussion on that motion I'm just gonna say one thing um if you have further thoughts or feelings, please send them to staff before the following discussion um just so that they've got time to try to incorporate them um into their presentation um and so we can keep this thing rolling because while it is important, I want us to get it right.

I also want to make sure that Chris is here.

It's not our bylaws.

Alright.

Thank you.

Any other items for discussion?

All right, we'll move forward with the vote.

All those in favor aye aye all those opposed.

Any abstentions?

Alright, the item passes.

And this is laid over.

This item is light over.

Next up is golf course zoning text amendments recommended recommendation to city council.

And Nelly Jerome is here for that.

Okay.

Good morning.

This is a golf course zoning text amendment.

I'll just go through the proposed amendments, the uh background about um how this is coming to you, and then um the staff recommendation.

So these are the proposed text amendments.

Um it's just amendments to uh lines C and D.

Um it is removal of the restriction on mini golf, and then it is um an adjustment of the previous wording for prohibits lighting for night use, and the proposed wording is um uh golf courses that are equipped with lighting for night use shall not operate after 10 p.m.

Um there is an alternative version of the text amendment that I put at everyone's um chair that um the an alternative wording is in red, and then there's an alternative um resolution that uh both of these um proposed amendments were reviewed by um CAO, so there they're both possibilities, um, but there's an alternative for you to review um a little bit of background.

Uh the city council is initiating this amendment, and they are forwarding the proposed amendments to planning commission for your review.

Um it is based on a request from the Department of Parks and Rec to update their operational plan for Highland Golf Course.

Um, the changes would allow for a regular closing of 9 p.m.

Um and then a one-hour cleanup, and then the lights will be all out by 10 p.m.

Um the it is unclear why the current wording is the way it is.

We found um an old version of the zoning code from over 50 years ago that still had this requirement of no lighting and no mini golf.

Um there are no similar restrictions for other outdoor sports there's a lot of lighting um throughout the city at parks, um, and I'll also note that Como golf course has lights that they use in the winter um for cross-country skiing and various winter activities.

Um the proposed changes um do not conflict with the 2040 plan, um, and they also do not have any effect on the existing lighting regulations, which um apply to all properties in the city and require downcast lighting and no spillover and similar um standards, so there's no changes to that.

Um staff is recommending that the planning commission recommend approval of the proposed amendments to chapter 65.230, which was initiated by city council.

Um alternatively, there is uh the alternative text that you could discuss um or make other changes uh or recommend denial to city council.

So that's the gist of it.

Um there is uh Andy Rodriguez is here from the parks department if you have questions, but I can answer questions.

Um it also looks like maybe we got a letter from the Highland District Council.

Yes.

Uh yes, that did come in.

Um shoot, I forgot to pull it up here too.

Um, did everyone get that letter as well?

Yeah, give me the email.

Do you want my copy?

You can't buy email too.

Oh, um I'll flag that you have a question while she's kind of pulling it up.

Uh Commissioner Riley has a question, but if you have anything else on the HDC letter.

I not at this time, but I will.

I'll still pull it up.

Oh.

Hi, hi Anton, are you here to provide some comments and stuff?

What's it?

Are you here to provide comments or to answer?

No, I can answer questions too while maybe pulling up just to be going.

Commissioner Riley, you had a question.

Um I just had a question about the um the comprehensive plan consistency.

I'm super in favor of this, but I was wondering if we could if there's a um a more specific economic development policy that could be added to the thing that and associated with how you know parks are a value valuable part of our people come here to recreate, and there's an economic benefit to folks coming here for that.

I can't remember though whether we ever got to that point in the 2040 plan.

And perhaps land use seven is the one that policy seven is the one that gets us there, but I just thought that might be a nice thing to um to address.

Uh there's also the clause uh about um, you know, strong strong parks.

Um I guess parks 25 has that economic benefit in it, but I mean it's just a just a thought if there's a concern from anybody at all.

That's clearly there doesn't seem to be, um, if we could sort of highlight that um some of the equity and economic benefits associated with green space and access to recreation spaces year round, but that's otherwise.

I think this is great, super excited.

Good job.

Make things better.

Thanks, Commissioner Riley.

Um Commissioner Tag, yeah.

Yeah, I just want to understand this um pitch and pot thing a little bit more.

Obviously, the lighting seems to make a lot of sense.

I am curious about kind of how we tend to regulate other similar uses to what would be a miniature golf course, because I I understand I did a little bit of digging and it seems that um the idea might have been that a golf course reads a bit more like a park and therefore is okay in a residential area, whereas miniature golf course might feel a bit more like a top golf and might be more intense use or something like that.

So I'm curious about how how we regulate things like that, sort of you know, other outdoor sports.

If somebody wanted to build say a top golf or something similar, um, would this allow them to do so in the middle of residential area, whereas previously we might not allow that.

So I think that's that's my it's the I guess chest and you know, like understand why something is there before we say, yeah, this sounds great.

Uh yes, Commissioner Take off, chair.

Um, any new uh golf course would require a conditional use permit, so this um the mini golf wouldn't you know have anything to do with the uh like a top golf or similar implants use.

They would have to go through a conditional use permit process and probably others.

Um I don't know why they were banned in the first place.

There is no plans to have a miniature golf course on any of the current golf courses.

They are allowed um unrelated to golf courses, so there's just a ban of mini golf at golf courses.

Okay, so we could, for example, have a what's called a mini golf in a residential area anyway, just not as part of an existing golf course.

I can answer that.

Uh yeah, that's that's correct.

I mean, we have miniature golf as part of um K Wonderland inside a building.

Um I think in this case, just the research.

I was able to do this bit with very slim, but for example, like the pitch and putting, which is specifically called out here, was a shorter version of golf.

It was like a hundred yards or something like that maximum per hole, and you only have three clubs.

So it was uh I was trying to me, it seemed like there's probab there could be equally something like golf purists at the time didn't want to see that encroaching on uh, you know, and taking up the space that they could be used for like a real golf course.

So it doesn't make it make sense to me in terms of like a zoning um limitation.

We don't care really in terms of zoning if somebody's playing softball or t ball on a baseball diamond, it just seemed like why I had a lot of questions like you, like why do we even care about this for zoning?

Um and I think it was just a like a relic uh of the time where somebody has some influence and managed to get it banned, but I don't see like pitch and putt having some kind of out uh whatever, some kind of impact that would you know hurt the community.

Yeah, I think that if I may, um I think that's that's how I'm seeing it too.

Um I do want to make a tiny distinction.

Pitch and putt, I think the language seems to suggest that pitch and putt is a miniature form of golf, whereas I think we're talking about crazy golf or whatever.

Which which is, you know, the the little the Kangwan thing is like the uh an amusement park thing.

I think they're talking about like a smaller version of regular golf, or something like that, which is still sort of golf like.

I don't know.

I'm I'm just curious.

I I uh yeah.

My god, thank you, Andy.

Yeah.

Um good to see you all.

Can you introduce yourself?

You're awesome.

You should work for the parks department.

Uh, yeah, is this what the parks and rock commission is like?

Because we're all very interested now.

Yeah.

Um, can you introduce yourself?

We need commissioners on the parks commission, so let us know.

Um a pitch and putt is a a shortened version of of golf designed to be easier, um, more beginner friendly, just like I almost like a practice kind of situation.

That's how I would describe it.

Um typically most holes are very short, like 30 to 100 yards.

We have one at Highland National.

Um that uh the first T program uses specifically for young people and then others that just want to practice.

So very entry-level, small um kind of setup.

Got it.

That's really helpful.

So it's not the little thing the kids play.

Correct.

Okay, cool.

I think we're confused.

No, that's wonderful.

Thank you so much, Andy.

This is really helpful.

Yeah, I'm happy to answer any other questions that you all have for me on this item.

Um while we have the director here, are there any other golf related golf lighting related questions?

Just if if I may, um so uh golf courses that are equipped with lighting for night use shall not operate after 10 p.m.

So is is is the point here to make sure that the golf course slash ski area is not being used after 10 pm or to make sure that the lights are off.

Because I don't know that I'm super clear on that.

So I'd like the director to respond, but I think my understanding was that we would they would cease operations at 9 pm and the 10 pm would allow for staff to clean up and organize the facility.

That's correct.

Um, and just to clarify for you all, I know in the language says golf course, and this at Highland we are focusing specifically on the driving range.

Um that is where the lighting is installed.

And maybe this question will come up, but um for other facilities, other things outside of Highland, it would be incredibly cost prohibitive for sort of lights to start going up in every golf course across the city.

Correct.

So if I may, if you don't have lights, it looks like we can operate till two o'clock in the morning and run a lot.

I can chime in on that and just say the parks close at 11.

So it would require specific director approval to operate any form of park program after that time.

Okay, well then I stand corrected to 11.

So but still it it it if you don't have lighting, this doesn't apply to you.

And I don't know if that was the intent.

I go ahead.

I suspect that the 10 pm has something to do with the city's noise ordinance.

So that ceases that means you ever in the city it's quiet time after 10 p.m.

So this would allow enforcement of rowdy people on the golf course lighted or not.

I mean I think there needs to be a I think there should be a terminus based on my I'm not disagreeing, is there should be some sort of terminus and this seems to make sense because of the noise ordinance.

Right.

I'm saying this says it doesn't apply to to places that don't have lighting.

And just for context, it's always been a a standard practice for us to cease operations around 10 o'clock.

It's the shall.

The shall is probably the problem.

I see what you're saying though.

Right.

Yeah.

So uh just to clarify, and and perhaps we can let the director go if there are no other questions specific to him.

All right.

We may call you back up.

All right.

Something needs to be clarified.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Um so folks uh maybe have questions or discussion items related to the wording of not a pencil.

Um D.

Are there other areas or questions for staff for things that maybe outside of that area?

Okay.

Oh.

Uh, Chair, I will say too that we're kind of in an unusual situation where um council has proposed language to us the edits to us, but um planning commission is welcome to suggest edits back to city council.

So if there are some edits like that that you'd like to send suggest to them, uh that is fine.

Okay.

Um maybe while we're on D, this is a good place um for Nelly or Nelly and Josh to clarify the two versions of the language that are available for D before we maybe start proposing other things.

I was with you all, I thought it was vague as well.

Uh, where the second version came from, trying to clear that up.

Um is it is it true that this ordinance 65 23 is uh regulates public and private golf courses, so it's just not limited to public golf courses.

And my uh concern was that it was vague and shall not just say with the original.

Do you not operate after 10 p.m.

mean if they have like a restaurant and bar, technically mean they have to close at 10.

So, so the there's an alternate set of language with red text that should be as part of your packet that was proposed by the city attorney end of day yesterday.

Um so I think that was the updated proposed language.

If there are so questions with the updated proposed language, then maybe that's um a good place for questions for staff for clarification.

Any if any of the folks raising questions have have additional questions for staff, or we could move into discussion if you if you want to discuss amending or changing the language.

This is the one I was talking about when I was talking about noise ordinance and outdoor, like I think this is very I assumed this was where we were going because you can't have an event in a golf course inside the building if you have the other language, so this is the language that seems to make the most sense.

Um so maybe uh just because people have a couple versions of them floating around.

Um I don't know, Nelly, uh Mr.

Um, if you'd like to read the the updated language or or pull it up, whatever might be easiest for you.

Yeah.

Um so I have I have the language with the red text and um the language on the screen is the proposed amendment.

Um so the proposed amendment is golf courses that are equipped with lighting for night use shall not operate after 10 p.m.

And the alternative with the red text that you all received just today is golf courses that are equipped with lighting for night use shall not up shall not operate outdoor activities after 10 p.m.

And this applies to all golf golf courses private public, and there are I think four public golf courses and one private golf course in the city currently.

Thank you clarify them the action today?

Because I know it's a recommendation.

Yes.

And we came in with something.

So just maybe for folks.

Yeah, I can always pull it up.

The recommended the staff recommendation is that the planning commission recommend approval of these amendments to golf course standards and conditions in zoning code chapter 65.230, which were initiated by city council.

So the there will be a public hearing at City Council, but today you're simply making a recommendation back to council.

So if we want to include the red language, we would recommend approval with changes.

Yes.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you for that.

Uh Commissioner Tag.

I wonder if it might be possible to address Commissioner Holtz's concern by just um striking the terms that are equipped with lighting for night use.

So it would read golf courses shall not operate outdoor activities off to 10.

Chair, whetherless or not, essentially.

So I think we could do I mean the city council asks us to look at this and give them feedback on it.

And I think this thing needs some help.

What truly is the attempt?

Do we want to make sure we people aren't doing activities outside after 10 pm?

Yes or no?

Um do we want to have lighting on at night, yes or no?

Do we want to allow indoor activities at golf courses like the Como golf course pavilion or whatever it's called?

It's not the pavilion, but the Como the club up there, yes or no, right?

And then should we even call it a golf course if we're using it?

I mean, how do we want to reference this, you know, uh for wintertime skiing?

Because it I I think we all kind of understand that we're going cross-country skiing on golf courses, right?

But but I just I think we want to have a little better clarification on what is exactly that we want to make sure doesn't happen.

Is this a problem because we have got lighting shining into neighbors' houses?

Is this a problem because there's people outside after 10 pm on the golf course because it's an issue for inside the clubhouse?

So um, and then with that, I would suggest that we rewrite this so that it matches what our what this body's intent is or what the intent is of of the of what its actual intent is.

Okay, um, so that was a it was a few items from Commissioner Holtz.

Um I I see Commissioner Starling, so let's go to Commissioner Starling and then maybe we can come back.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Building in what Commissioner Holst said, there's another version of this, which would be golf courses shall not use their outdoor lighting after 10 p.m.

So is the question of 10 p.m.

around noise or lighting.

I don't think it's the activities as written, because as written it says if there is a golf course that has no lighting, then they can do whatever.

And I don't think that is that starts to feel inequitable.

Um I see Commissioner Taggyff, I think I'm supportive of the direction Commissioner Starling is moving in.

Um Commissioner Tag.

I agree.

I think to try and speculate it's probably the the assumption that unlit golf courses could not operate anyway.

So that's probably the probably the the two are together is the sense that if you light it, that enables you to go past the the loss of lights, and therefore you need to regulate the time you could do it.

That would seem to be the most logical reason it's written that way, but again, I'm speculating.

Okay.

Thanks, Commissioner Tagiev.

I did see the director sort of move closer, and I don't know if that was in preparation to respond, or if um there are additional notes, it's up to you.

Um, okay.

If you want to just hang out, we can keep working through it, or if there's something you want to add, feel free.

No, I um you remind me of the question.

I'm sorry.

Um I think we're we're all circling around um D with the lighting and just making sure we're not adding any uses that we're not thinking of or disallowing some uses that currently exist um with the language that we're adding there.

And Commissioner Starling is maybe talking about reframing it because really D is all about the lights, um, and maybe trying to specify that golf courses that are equipped with night light or lighting for night use should not use their lighting out night lighting after 10 p.m.

something along those lines.

Yeah.

I would just reiterate that our only intention at this time is the Highland Driving Range and the winter activities that happen in that space as well.

So there is no plan to light an entire golf course or anything else in the future.

So just want to note that that it's specific to the range.

Commissioner Alts.

So one of the challenges we I think we run into is a as a commission is is we're although it may apply just to the driving course or intentionally, is that when we write it, it applies to everything everywhere, right?

So when we change zoning, we realize like, well, we might want this cute little shop in here, but it could also apply to the next and the next and the next and right next to the next.

So when we write something, we want to be pretty careful that you know we consider most case use studies.

And I I think sort of the question, at least I'd want to ask, and maybe others on the commission would want to know as well, is is the intent here to make sure um I well I guess I mean it seems like this has been considered in the scope without within the driving range, but maybe it hasn't been considered within the scope or around golf courses in a broader perspective in the city of St.

Paul.

And you know, um uh 30 years from now when we're not here, you know, we want to still make sure this still kind of makes sense.

They can go ahead and fix it then if they want to, but we want to kind of make sure that it fits for all all use cases for all golf courses.

And if we want it limited just to the driving range, then we write it just for the driving range.

Right.

So um we're not at the the point of making motions, but I'm just gonna say something out loud that could be a potential for D if people were discussing it.

Um we could say something along the lines of golf courses shall not operate night use lights after 10 p.m.

And that might narrow the scope of what we were discussing just back down to the lights, um, which was the the use of D to begin with.

Sure, oh sorry.

Commissioner Alts.

Outdoor activities, I just want to make sure that we're we we don't restrict say an indoor activity like the parking lots like like you'd mentioned at night, for example, like if the clubhouse was open to 11 that that we could still have the lights on in the parking lot, for example.

I I just want to something we touched on a little bit earlier.

So, golf courses shall not operate outdoor night use lights after 10 pm.

It's getting a little wordy.

Yeah, uh director.

Thanks, Chair.

Um, I think Director Rodriguez, the intent of Director Rodriguez's uh text here is, you know, as he's mentioned specifically for the driving range.

So we could make this very very specific um to the driving range.

So we could say, you know, lighting at, you know, golf driving ranges limited to 10 p.m.

Um, would that affect the uh operation of any other parts of the golf course or the rest, you know, if there was a restaurant or a club.

No, no, it's just specific to the range, and you know, the the clubhouse is a considerable distance from the driving range and everything else.

So I consider that kind of a separate piece within the site.

So, just a suggestion I wanted to throw out for you to chew on.

Just to complicate things, there are lights for that are used in the winter for Como, uh, when the golf course is used for skiing.

So, if we narrow it to what there's still the question of is it still a golf course if it's covered with snow?

It's probably just but um anyway.

So the facility is always a golf course, correct?

Like the the land is called a golf course, no matter what activity you do on the golf course.

Yeah.

And Como is currently limited to the 10 p.m.

lighting rule?

Correct.

Yeah, the lights don't I think go off around eight o'clock, nine o'clock at the latest, but that's a primary ski location for the city of St.

Paul, our only public ski location.

Um, and then at Highland within the confines of the range, or you have cross-country ski trails and other things.

All right, I see Commissioner Riley, then Commissioner Holtz.

I was gonna try and come up with a motion to lay it over, but I guess I I don't know.

Here are some things that I would like to make sure comes back to us.

Something that allows all three golf facilities to have lights for whatever use they might need them to use in the future, right?

So we have three, three we still have so you golf classes, okay.

Four, and this would apply to public and private.

Right, because there's one private, but we have three.

I'm more concerned about ours.

Thailand Como and Failing.

Right.

So I and so in the future, because I wrote down some more policies that I think could apply to the resolution here.

Um I'd like to see something that comes forward that would allow there to be lighted golf and or ski facilities of some sort at those three publicly owned, if not run golf courses, that limits the time that outdoor activities can take place.

If that means it just refers back to our parks ordinance, that seems reasonable as well, rather than complicating things um in the zoning code to Commissioner Hall's point, like so.

Want everybody to be able to have lights.

I want those lights to not impact the people around them.

I mean, right now you could go to Phelan and you can use the new lights that the county put on 61 because that is nuts.

I hate it every day.

Um, and uh that you know sort of ties to the city's noise ordinance, the lighting standards that we already have, because I think that's clear in the memo, right?

That the lights will have to meet the city's light standards, but let's just make sure that whatever we get in front of us, we understand that those things are being met with the intent of this.

Um, and if the council's okay waiting, although it sounds like they want they're not because they want lights to be able to happen for the rest of the year calendar year.

Um if there's a way we can get this out of here with that information, and everybody can agree that that's kind of what we want, right?

We don't want neighbors impacted and we want the parks to be able to operate the way they want, maybe that's our recommendation.

So I do want to flag we're talking about I and I I to all your points, Commissioner Riley, I agree.

Um we are talking about four conditions within only the golf course section, and we know that in in all the other sections of the code, we are um, and particularly in the parks area, we're dealing with a lot of these things already.

So I think we're talking narrowly about the zoning portion, and we're really talking specifically about the lights.

So I think if we open this up to other things, then we're opening up other sections, other documents, other areas that are maybe outside of our like I not outside of our purview entirely, but I think outside of the scope of maybe what we're here to do.

Agreed.

I'm just I just I there's there are golf courses that have driving ranges and no lights, and that have skiers and no lights.

And so I want to make sure that in our rules for golf courses, all of them, right?

Even though the intent here is for Highland to operate a driving range, those not all of the golf courses have the same amend are amenitized in the same way.

So we'd I don't want to inadvertently create a situation where they can't be in the future in the zoning code.

So if we generalize to golf courses, so we don't do gener we don't do anything else because the facility itself is a golf course.

So golf courses the facility shall not operate night use lights or public oper a specific phrase for the lights for the exterior for people to use for outdoor activities after 10 p.m.

Does that meet the overall lighting goal there?

Because then that doesn't dictate other activities, it's just the facility and the time.

Commissioner Holds.

So I I think Director Robinson actually I think made this pretty simple for us in a lot of ways.

I mean, we just changed golf courses to driving range.

Is the only driving excuse me, mask question?

The only driving range public or private in the city of St.

Paul is at Highland, is that correct?

Okay, we got a we got a yes from the plan from Parks and Rec, we got a no from uh Commissioner Riley.

So go ahead.

What happened to the driving range at Phelan?

Phelan has um it I classify Highland in a different category.

Uh yeah, I mean it's right, like the flashlight light thing.

From a revenue standpoint and other things, but if you want to get technical, we have two.

Yes.

Technically.

There's two.

Yeah, very different.

Very different setup.

I'd say Highland is a lot more formal in terms of how it's all.

Back to my original point though.

And in agreeing again with Director Robinson ultimately, I mean, I don't know if we need to put restrictions on golf courses overall.

I don't know that we're having a problem or a complaint or an issue.

Um we're just we just got a concern around the driving range, so can't we just change golf courses to driving ranges that are equipped with lighting for night use shall not operate after 10 p.m.

and then put a period at it?

Commissioner Holtz, I think other folks here maybe don't want to reopen the issue of lighting would it come back again, um, or if it's used for other purposes, so limiting it to driving range maybe means that we might be having this conversation again in the future.

While it seems like it might not come back.

I think folks are trying to sort of open and close the door at the same go.

I hear what you're saying.

I just didn't I if we're having complaints around it, I'm not aware of it, but you know, I don't follow it, so okay.

Commissioner Starling.

Um my concern about Commissioner Holst's comment is that if we call out driving ranges in the text, then anything else does not have restrictions on anything other than whatever um citywide noise and lighting code there are.

So if we're ready for language, I would suggest that this be golf courses shall not use any outdoor lights for night use, outdoor activities after 10 p.m.

Well, I'm gonna pause there.

We should do it.

Okay.

Putting me on the spot.

Yes.

Uh can you read it again?

I mean it's only a recommendation, it's counseling.

So I don't know.

I'm looking I'm looking at the the red text version.

Golf courses shall not use outdoor lighting for night use.

So it's moving the shall not for outdoor activities after 10 p.m.

What's tripping me is that as it's written, it is limited to the golf courses that have the lighting, as opposed to any golf course using lighting for activities.

So I kind of like it better when we were just focusing on the light and we just wanted the lights to be turned off.

Yes.

That's what I'm trying to that's what I'm trying to get you.

We weren't making references to activities, such as like cleaning.

Golf courses shall not use shall not operate operate night use lights.

I have a version golf courses shall not use their outdoor lighting after 10 p.m.

Is that too general though?

I think that has the I'm sorry, Chair.

Yeah, Commissioner Riley.

I just don't want to cause a problem with parking lots.

So perhaps it's golf course lighting.

Does I don't know, golf cars lighting for recreational activities?

That way you're specifically looking at the activity and not at the light or the use.

But to be honest, why can't we just strike D altogether and forward that to the city council and let the rules associated with the city's lighting and sound and everything, because we do everything by complaint based anyway, do that because really the problem is that we can't light them.

Take out the clause and we can light them and then we can set rules for how they get policies and procedures we have to follow for lights.

I think there was some interest in limiting the lights to 10.

Um and so I I think I I'd rather not strike it.

Um if I it's obviously it's up to the body.

I I see Anton as well.

Yeah, Chair.

Uh in response to Commissioner Riley's suggestion, I just wanted to point out that we have lighting for outdoor activities all over the city.

Every recenter, um, uh not golf course, uh, turf, yeah.

Yeah, baseball, baseball fields.

Do those have, so may I ask a question of the department director?

Uh do all of the sections of, or perhaps this is for Mr.

Jervey, I'm not sure.

But um so we have a lot of a lot of different kinds of parks and recreation spaces in the city of St.

Paul.

Most of them have had lighting added over time.

Things happen in the parks even at night.

This parks department has to get its own noise variances if it's going to be loud, right?

Like they don't just get special dispensation.

So is there some other facility, for example, the um, you know, the turf field uh off Maryland and Rice Street or right, so Arlington Fields or all any of those other arc arc rate, all those things.

Is there language for those kinds of facilities that you can borrow that would match?

That way they're all the same, and this one just has golf courses, whereas the other ones have turf or baseball or whatever.

And then if there's not, that then I think gives credence to the suggestion that we just take this clause out altogether.

Yeah, we don't regulate them in zoning.

It's an operations question.

Parks has their own public process that they go through when they update operations at parks.

It's transparent, it's accountable through city council and the mayor's office.

Um I from a zoning standpoint, I don't see a problem with uh just deleting, recommending to delete D altogether.

I do want to flag it went to the Highland District Council, and part of what they signed off on includes D, um and their recommendation includes D.

Um without going back to them.

I I I do just want to flag that that was part of the recommendation from the district council and the in the area that might be impacted by it.

I don't know if the time impacted their decision making, but I do want to flip that.

Commissioner Starling.

I would like to make a motion.

Great.

I would like to make a motion to um our verb is to adopt propose um adopt the proposed language in front of us for the text amendment to section 65.230 section C and delete subsection D.

Second.

There's a motion and a second.

So motion by Commissioner Stirling, Commissioner, second by Commissioner Riley, um, I do see the secretary rapidly taking notes, so I'm gonna pause for a second.

Um is there discussion on the motion?

Commissioner Riley.

Uh to your point, Chair, thank you.

And to your point, Chair about the Highland District Council's recommendation.

I very much appreciate um their um resolution.

I'm really happy that they participated in the process and had time to do that.

Um, and I believe that you know they were given something to react to, and if they would like to have the time limit brought back, they can come and comment at the actual public hearing.

Um, so that that would just be sort of my my thought.

I don't mean to dismiss the recommendation um at all.

Uh and I think they'll have another opportunity to bring that forward, and perhaps the council is better positioned to make that decision.

Um thank you.

Any other discussion on the motion?

Uh Commissioner Martin.

Thank you, Chair.

So I I appreciate the I appreciate the idea of removing clause D, but I my concern about it is that I think this is gonna lead to an enormous amount of pushback from I'm I'm thinking back to the public hearings that we had when the lighting went in down at that driving range and the amount of um the amount of public testimony that came from people from around the golf course.

So I do think um my worry is if we remove it completely and we don't say anything about have setting some sort of 10 pm limit.

I like a 10 p.m.

limit because it sets a consistency across seasons and as someone who doesn't experience these spaces as golf courses but as skiing facilities I think I'm not opening this topic now but I think we may it might warrant being opened at some point to ask whether or not the zoning code should be referencing these as park spaces that are used for golf and skiing purposes as opposed to referring to them as golf courses because as far as I'm concerned they're not golf courses they're skiing facilities.

So separate issue but I but I worry that if we don't set a limit on 10 o'clock which is a consistent thing across seasons for skiing or for golfing that leaves things open for seasonality and for I think we're gonna get a lot of pushback from the public.

So that's why I don't think I'm gonna support removing that clause.

Sorry.

And I think similar to Commissioner Martinson's comments I think the nine o'clock closing the 10 o'clock we're using nine to ten as cleanup I think some of that also for the folks that are surrounding the facilities might found that might find that helpful um and so I I also am concerned about the removal of it just for um the the comfort of people uh participating in the discussion already and then the the users around the facility Commissioner did it um I I can appreciate that neighbors of recreational facilities um might have concerns and what I hear is uh an interest in protecting those feelings the feelings of people who chose to live near these sites over the need of the city to do its job and to treat something very different from all the other things that are very similar that are lit and so I find it frustrating that people want to treat a golf course different from all the other lighted facilities that we have in the city when making an ordinance change and I would suggest that that is not what ordinances are supposed to do.

They should treat similar things similarly and if we are going to consider golf courses different from all other things then we should be considering all those other things separately and distinctly and I would hope that we would get um amendments to future code language associated with outdoor recreation that has a similar provision to it because otherwise we're just protecting people's feelings we are supposed to be talking about facts.

Director uh question um say we pass let's say we pass this without D on it I mean to what degree is the city council advised as to the reasoning of the planning commission as to why they did something right in other words oh here it is they scratched it out or is there I I presume but I'd like to hear um there's like some discussion and hey we talked about this we talked about that we talked about the other thing and at the end of the day they decided that XYZ because of ABC is is my second scenario more accurate.

Sure Commissioner Holst yes so we so this process we will take any comments edits etc information that the planning commission uh resolves to uh send to the to the city council we will explain it to them I think we can attach a memo um that uh you know provides us some summary of the discussion um I also know that uh most of the uh city council members regularly watch planning commission uh videos uh so that they can understand like the essence of the conversation um so you know we will um we will try to do our best to get as much, you know, context of what this conversation entailed to them yeah um I also think this is um, I think I'm like actually really enjoying this conversation.

This is very bizarre fun for me.

Um, that's why we're here.

You know, like it uh something like this, you know, on its face can seem simple, but when you get into it, there's a lot of nuance and complexity and questions.

So I um really happy that you've all been exploring all of that and thinking about it.

Um wanted to provide a note on schedule.

So the next meeting, the next planning commission meeting is July 17th.

Um, and so if today is not the day where there's consensus, I think that's okay, and we can get to, you know, um, we can um you know punt it to the next meeting and maybe you know, some questions could be answered, um, or if you know if it works out today, that's also fine.

Um, and we'd be able to get uh those uh comments to the council in time for the public hearing that they're going to hold.

Sure, okay.

Thank you for for answering that question and and sort of to I I guess dovetail on Commissioner Riley's um comments as like you know, I I'm leaning towards the all or none, and you know it's you know, uh the director of parks and rec should be able to manage the lighting at the various facilities without maybe the direct input of the planning commission.

If we find out that it's too much of a problem, then we want to do it broadly, but not piecemeal.

Right.

So kind of seconding, I guess essentially uh Commissioner Riley's comments.

Commissioner Tay, yeah.

In the same vein, um, it seems like the original language was in there that says we don't want to like golf courses for night use.

That was to regulate use of facilities later, you know, when this technology came in, whatever.

And I think the reason it's being modified, the reason the Highlands are council have laid in, etc.

is because they looked at that and said, Yeah, that's what that's something we want.

It sounds like the discussion today has said that this control they're looking for.

This this, you know, restrictions below exists elsewhere in the code, and we don't have a solid legislative reason to regulate golf courses differently from any other outdoor facility.

Therefore, with appropriate commentary to city council, yes, we struck it, but we did it because this D is already covered elsewhere in the code, and we didn't see a reason specifically regulate.

Seems like a reasonable way forward to get us there today instead of in uh mid-July.

So I'll be I'll be supportive of the motion is um as written.

Okay, thanks, Commissioner Tag.

Yeah.

So um I think with that other folks here are gonna be comfortable.

I think just the note around this was what the discussion was, and there were sort of mixed feelings here, I think is helpful um for briefing um the city council.

Um, but yeah, I I can come around for that.

Um other questions, comments.

I'd like to make a comment.

If you look at the history of golf and golf courses, they were exclusive to white men.

And as they evolved over time and technology's evolved with lighting and what have you, um, we we have this old language that was very exclusive for white men and not anyone else.

And now golf is embraced by a much more diverse community, and um, and for the city's sake, um it does bring economic benefit.

And so I don't think that uh golf courses should should be uh treated any differently than a soccer field or a baseball field or or any other outdoor activity.

Um I think that is a reflection and a remnant of a very exclusive and white male-centered sport, and so therefore I support striking D.

Thank you.

Uh any other questions or comments before we move forward with the vote.

All right.

Seeing none, we can move forward.

I don't think we need to do a roll call.

We'll find out.

Uh all those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Any abstentions?

All right, the item passes.

So the recommendation will move forward with the city council with D-struck.

Um, but we'll include some commentary um from the council or from the commission on our discussion.

Thank you, everyone.

Not for that item.

We still have stuff on our agenda though, don't wait.

I saw people getting excited.

Uh, next up is site plan review.

Um, the site plan review committee meeting scheduled for June 23rd was canceled.

The next regularly scheduled meeting was Tuesday, June 30th.

And there are items on that agenda.

The first being 2400 Childs Road.

It's quite a few things, so I'll let you look at the item, but it looks like addition, expansion, partial demolition, and site work.

And then 209 Page Street West, new construction, restroom and storage facility.

And that is site plan review.

And then next up are announcements.

No announcements from the director.

And with that, we are adjourned.