All right, we'll open the meeting. It's 10 March uh 6 p.m. We'll start with the pledge of >> I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Yeah, >> call roll please. >> Mayor >> here. >> Council member Brian >> here. >> Council member Glazer >> here. >> Council member Rainville >> present. >> Council member Swenson >> here. >> Myself. Clerk Johnson Nash here. And sir, everyone else is excused for tonight. >> Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Uh moving on to approving the agenda. >> Mr. Mayor, >> go ahead. Council Rainbow. >> Mr. Mayor, I'd ask council's consideration in order to try to speed the meeting along with the planning and zoning items that we have that we would move items under number seven, new business, items A through D to the consent agenda. if nobody has any concerns. >> So, if I heard you correctly, I'm just going to try to summarize move number seven. Was it all items in number seven or just a certain one? >> All items unless somebody has a reason to keep them under new business. >> I guess Mr. Council member, >> I'd like to actually pull items under consent agenda. Pull items D and E and move them down to new business. As well as can we move up 5A to consent? Any concern with moving 5A to consent? >> Yes, sir. No, I don't have any concerns at all. Councilman Randel, would you be okay with 5A going to consent? >> Yes, I am. >> Well, before it goes to consent, I just I was gonna tell Ken, good work. Seems like you really went above >> above and beyond a lot of this. So, thank you. Thanks for >> Okay, so to summarize that, all of item seven went up into consent. We moved down which you considered counc um was it which numbers? >> Five got moved up. Consent Which ones were pulled out? >> CN or D and E >> D. So D and E would be moved out and that would drop into do business in the seven with those adjustments to the agenda. >> Mr. Mayor, make a motion to approve the agenda as amended. >> Second. Got a second. Any discussion? Okay. Roll call vote. Second with council member Rainville. >> I I'm an I. I >> council member >> I >> All right, motion carries. Agenda is approved. All right, so let's move on to the public forum. Um, did anybody sign up on the public forum or did you go take? >> No, sir. >> Okay. Would anybody like to uh talk in the We have a public forum that's open. You state your name and uh and your address and you can have up to three minutes to speak. Anybody floor? >> Okay, we will move past the public floor. >> Mr. Mayor, council member make a motion to approve the approve the consent agenda as amended. >> I would second that. >> Second from council member Rainbow. Any discussion? >> Mr. Mayor. >> Yes, ma'am. Go ahead. Um, I know we don't typically remark on consent agenda, but I do want to thank Dileia um for instituting letter C, the quarterly update for the recycling center. Um, that's something I've always thought we should have and Dia um took the initiative and put that together and we'll continue to work on that. Um, and it just shows what great things have been accomplished by staff at the recycling center and the initiatives that Dillia takes to try to get things um, moving smoothly and more efficient and cost effectively. So, thank you. >> Okay, so we had a motion to approve the consent agenda. We had a second. Any other discussion? Council B, would you start the vote? All those in favor? I >> council member Glazer. >> I I'm an I. Council member >> Hi. >> Council member Rainbow. >> I >> Okay, moving past. We will move to number four. Presentation by the Girl Scout troop. So, is there uh somebody from the Girl Scout troop that would like to come up and talk about uh what the plan is here? >> Yep. Would you stand right there? Yes, please. If you'd state your name, we'll start off with that. And if you live in Melvin, we'd love to um know where you live at. Um, my name is Maline. I live in St. Francis, so just a little bit out. Um, good evening, mayor and now city council members. We are members of Girl Scout Troop 18464. The members of our troop live in Nin and surrounding areas. We were presented an opportunity to build an American flag recycling receptacle for members of the Nin community to place their worn out American flags that need to be respectfully disposed of. As a troop, we have discussed the meaning of the flag and the process and reason for the disposal process. We have planned the build and have a date to build the receptacle and plan to have it ready for now. Then by midday, the receptacle will be made out of wood and have wheels so that is easily movable if needed. The lid will be slanted at an incline and easily lifted to place flags inside. It will be marked as a flag retirement bin and have a plaque that states it is dedicated to the city of Now Then from Girl Scout Troop 18464. Thank you. >> That's wonderful. >> Can I ask a quick question while you're still up there? >> Yes. >> So, where are the flags going to go after they're collected in the gift? >> So, they should be taken care of by someone who has volunteered to properly burn them by the city. >> I have that name. >> So, you already have a contact? >> We do. John Mstrom and he will be taking them to the lake for disposal, the veterans lake. >> What What is that? That's what I was asking before. Uh he does >> go ahead Mary if you know. >> So so John has a yearly um at least one yearly program that um part of that program is the burning of flags. He's lo located on 181st. He's on the west or south side. So, he's actually in Ramsay, but he's between Now Then Boulevard and um uh Bow Street on closer to Bow Street. If you go by, he's got a billboard in his front yard that usually talks about organic dirt, but that's where he has his service. He does um numerous things with the veterans groups in the area. >> Not a company, it's his personal retiring. >> Okay. when you're with John. He's a very nice guy. He does a very good job. >> Yeah. He's not available. The Alford Legion takes it too. >> Yeah. >> For their flag in June. >> Okay. Do we have any other questions for the drill structure? >> Mr. Mayor Counc did you state where this is going to be located? >> Um it should be located at the >> recycling under tree. It'll be exciting. >> Excellent. Thank you. Any other questions for the girls? >> Thank you for coming up and presenting. We appreciate it very much. >> Thank you. You guys can have a seat. Mr. Mayor C. >> If there are no other questions for the council, I'll make a motion to accept the donation of the American flag acceptable for the retirement of American flags by Girl Scout Troop 18464. >> I'd second that. >> I think you could have a second probably everybody on that. I don't know who was first. So, Natalie, I'm confused. All right. Got it. >> Good. Any other discussion on this one? >> Hearing none. Move to vote. Roll call vote. Starting with council rainbow. >> All those in favor? >> I swson. I'm also I council member Laser. >> I cry. >> Hi. >> Okay. >> Motion approved. >> There you go, ladies. >> Yeah. Thank you, girls. And you are welcome to stay as long as you want. >> All right, we'll move on to number five, which is public works. >> Ah, that's right. But I already got burned through. Moving on to Cindy. Uh, the longest planning and zoning agenda meetings I've ever seen. So, since I've been here, uh, we'll start out with you. I'll turn it over to you. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. >> Um, the first item on the agenda will be two different items for um, Kand Development. They have a minor subdivision proposed on Tiger Street Northwest. I'm going to cover each item separately and then ask you to take a vote on them. So the first one is approval of the minor subdivision itself. Some key items on this. So a copy of the subdivision is shown on the screen, but they are required to have buffers around the wetlands and install signs for those. Because of primarily that they'll need to enter into a development agreement with the city. um grading as shown on this um plan to achieve that 3-FFT separation between um modeled soil and where the house would be sitting would be completed by individual lot owners during home construction. And um they will need to provide deeds for both rightway easements for Tiger Street Northwest as well as drainage and utility easements for all the wetlands on the site. um at the same time that the subdivision is recorded. Um with that, I have no other comments and I'm happy to answer any questions. There's also a representative um online if you have any questions of the developer. >> We have any questions from the developer? >> Mr. Mayor >> C Rainbow. Go ahead, please. >> To Miss Nash, I I do have a question. Um, and maybe I'm just not reading it correctly. So, we currently have one property at just short of 30 acres. We're going to go down to three lots. I'm assuming are going to be average of 10 acres. So, we have two new lots. On page 99, number 12, it talks about the park and trail dedication fee of 2500 per lot for three new lots. Should it not just be two new lots or am I not getting something? >> No, it's actually three new lots. So, if it was a situation where there was an existing home >> Oh, all right. Okay. >> then it would have been too. >> Okay, I get it. Thank you very much for that clarification. Any other questions for Miss Stash or for a representative from Kland Developments? Make sure not. And this one already went to planning and zoning. It was approved in planning and zoning. Was there any other concerns that we talked about at all, Miss Nash? >> No, there were not. Okay. So, with that stated, uh, we'd like to take the first one, and this is on page 96. So, resolution 2026 approving minor subdivision for Kland development. >> Mr. Mayor, >> Motion, Mr. Mayor, >> no, it was on a statement. Council Rainbow, I should if you did not make motion, I would move that we approve resolution uh approving of the minor subdivision for K Kland development. >> Thank you. I will second your motion. Is there any other discussion? >> All right, let's move to vote. Roll call vote starting with yourself. Uh uh council member Relo >> I. I'm an Imber. >> I council member Ryan. >> Hi. >> Okay, send your next one or Miss Nash. Next one, please. >> Thank you. The next item on this is the development agreement. A copy of that is in your packet. Again, this is um a standard city development agreement. It's a it's relatively a small one because it's primarily related to those wetland buffer installations. And then >> 107. >> Yep. and then ensuring that people know that they'll have to do the grading themselves. >> So pretty straightforward. >> Mr. Mayor Counc make a motion to approve the developer agreement for between the city and Kland development. >> Second. Any any discussion? >> Hearing none. Council Brian, would you start the roll call vote, please? I >> custom Pleasure. >> I >> I'm also an I >> got C Rainbow. >> I >> You're just trying to make it more efficient. That's awesome. All right, so that one is approved. Um now we're going to go to 6B, Miss Nash. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. >> Starting on page 120. >> So this is a minor subdivision for Mr. Libert at 21881 Pinecker Road Northwest. Um, so I'm just trying to get this to be able to be shown on the screen. >> Yes, please. So, this is a a an interesting site because it's a it's a large parcel to start with, but um there are significant wetlands on this parcel which leave it with um there's an existing home in the north side of the parcel and then the proposed subdivision would create one new parcel where someone could um build a home. The parcel's large, but the buildable area relatively relative to the size of the parcel is pretty small. In addition, Pineker Road goes right through the middle of all of this. Um, and Pineker exists by use and maintenance. Um, so the city does not currently have an we have a prescriptive easement for it, but we don't have um formal written easements for it. the um in the findings document a few items to consider are that um condition number one on the minor subdivision. So the um survey was shown in a way that it indicates that 1 and 1/2 ft of fill could be added to the site to achieve the three-foot separation. that grading isn't shown on here like it was on the last version as it was on the Kaland subdivision for example. Um, but they have indicated that in words on here they're asking for you to approve it. With that, as part of that, I've added in the conditions that prior to the issuance of a building permit, an applicant for a building permit will need to demonstrate that the site is buildable and meets the requirements of section 10-3-5, grading and the placement of fill may be needed to comply with those requirements. Um, in practicality, even when grading is shown, like it was on the Kingland one, that is still something that we end up reviewing at the time of building permit anyways because someone might choose to put their home in a different location. They may not need 23,000 ft of fill um in area for example. Um, so for all those reasons, um, we still end up looking at it then and we don't tend to require people to pregrade the sites, but >> approving the building permit is what you're stating. Yes, at the building permit time. Number two, um your ordinance currently would require that there be wetland buffers established around these wetlands. The property owner has asked that this requirement be waved by the city council. Um the draft condition number two would have that requirement being waved on the basis that the Upper Round River Wershed Management Organization does not require this for a subdivision of two lots. um it does require it for three laps or more. So you could choose to wave that if you if you so desired. And that is addressing condition number two. Um number three. So this subdivision came in in the wintertime and whenever we're creating new lots, we're required under state law to verify that there are two both a primary and an alternate septic site available for those. Um while they have submitted soil warnings, um the winter weather conditions have not been such yet that our building inspector would be able to go out and inspect those sites. So we're asking that you approve this conditional upon that still occurring before reporting at the subdivision and we're hoping that he can get out there in the next hopefully even in the next couple weeks. Um other ones to note? >> Can I ask a quick question? So that would delay the whole process where the split is not able to go forward because we're waiting on that. >> Yeah, it's common that we have things that we're waiting on for different ones. So >> condition can we not conditionally approve it? >> This is a conditional approval. So it would go through >> it would still be able to go through. >> It would go through here, but then we just wouldn't we would hold it as staff and not allow it to be recorded until that's been verified >> so that we can verify that there are two septic sets. We'll come back. >> Okay. >> Um condition number nine there. The ordinance would require a trail corridor easement along Pinnker Road, but as um it's a little hard to see on the screen, but there are wetlands on both sides of Pineker Road. It would be a challenging location to construct a trail. Um the property owner has asked that that be waved by the council and condition number nine as written would wave that requirement but it would still require the park dedication for the one new lot that's being created. And then um condition number 11 with all the waiverss that we have, there would be nothing to record typically, but I do would recommend that we record this resolution so that any property owner would know that they're going to be the ones responsible for grading that lot if you give these different waiverss, especially related to condition number one, and that they'll need to meet those requirements. >> Mr. Mayor, please go ahead. M Nash, I I I met with um Mr. Limbert this afternoon and I he did mention also that he has met with the mayor out of the site. Is it is it true that that top soil will actually be scraped off um and graded in order to create a building path for a home up there? That soil wouldn't actually be added that um top soil would be removed and would have to be augmented with additional soil. I don't know what what will occur there. What I know is that the soil borings that we were provided were not very deep and it showed modeling at 18 in. >> Could you tell us what modeling modeling is please? >> Um it's evidence of where the water table has been. Now that could be a very historical really far in the past time frame of when when water has been at that location. Um, but it's that's what the evidence is and that's what your ordinance requires is that people show three feet above modeled soil. >> So, is it also possible to to get that same soil condition in soil that is rich in iron just from water from rainwater that happens to perk through this through the soil and then you know the the corrosive process process takes place if there's oxygen. >> I can't speak to that. that I'm not a soil scientist. Um, at the time of building permit, someone could prove something like that is the case, >> right? >> Um, and that there is for some reason something different there that there was some anomaly or something or why that modeling was in that location, but >> okay. So, so more thorough so soil borings when weather permits will >> or pometers there's there's different methods that could be done and >> what's a pometer? >> Another thing you I'm not exactly sure but again something that the engineers would address. >> Is there anybody in the room that knows what a pometer is? >> Can Mr. Libert tell us what theometer is? >> Certainly. >> What is a pometer? It's basically a well with a float in it that records water bump groundwater bump elevations where the ground water comes up and goes down within a soil strap. >> So typically that would be using a deeper boring is what I'm assuming. In this case, water table is 35 ft below the top of that ridge. Verified by the guy who drilled my wall. And your well is how far away from this? 500 ft. >> And much lower. Much lower elevation. >> Thank you. >> I can also speak to some other things of of the points that have been addressed here if you like. >> So, council members, is it okay if you address us? we have any other I think it's fine just go ahead provide some facts for us to preface I've spent 10 years of my civil engineering career in a soils lab I know quite a bit about soils um I've had soil companies work for me on projects for 25 years built a lot of stuff out of dirt in this particular instance when I had Arc Septic come to drill some holes for me to verify. Um, you know, they come out with a 3 to 4 inch augur with a crank on it. Try to go through. If anybody knows this property, they know that there's a lot of a lot of trees and a lot of vegetative top soil up there. State mandates 12 in for septic because we can use mounds. That's separation. Every one of my bore holes that have been drilled of the eight on the property have been classified as able to put a type one septic system in place. >> This type one, is that a mound system? >> That's a regular old drain tile. >> That's old septic. And you can mound up from there to to do whatever you do. Um, and I I I also want to be clear that when we're talking 3 foot 36 in of separation, the ordinance does not talk about a 3-foot separation from moled soils. It talks about water table. uh two different things going on with the septic design and the building design of the the two folks behind the table here who have been out there as you know from the deer trails and uh the sloughing that has happened due to trails and things over time. There's two to two and 1/2 foot of vegetative matter and root layer and below that is another 20 foot of sugar sand the perfect building material. I know that because the driveway I cut through that exact same ridge, um, I've had to try to stabilize a slope on there for two years with top soil and erosion control blankets and sand's hard to stabilize on a slope, but it's beautiful to build on and in because you've got perfect drainage. There's a ton of that there. I've got photos of it. A couple of you have seen it. Really good sand and the slough of the two two and a half foot of top soil gets off of there. The reason the modeling is shown uh on my report is it's an 18 plus. It's not at 18 in, but I was there helping her dig every hole because every hole that we're we're dealing with a a little 4 inch otter and she weighs all of 120 lbs. I know the tile spade taking 8 in rocks out of that hole to try to get down in there. Once you get through that vegetable, you literally hit sand. And uh had I known, I would have drilled deeper holes uh when we were there. But she says 12 in is all you need. We'll go to 18. And she's going to write her report. Um I hope that you can trust in my learned opinion and knowledge that this is a class A number one beautiful building site. And once the new owner who is already have has a purchase agreement with me to to purchase this property um gets there, they're going to strip the top. They're going to take trees down and then strip off and they're going to then take that sand and build a a building pad for their home. Um, so this is why I ask for uh non-conditional approval tonight so that a PI may be issued and we can move to closing. this uh has been quite a a strain on me for time and finances and I think a little common sense goes a long way and uh the better good of approving this for the city uh is is to approve it because the builder and the new owner are going to have to do a lot of soil reporting as is mentioned in previous project here by the time they get there I've estimated where I think maybe a house will go. I've estimated where I think maybe a septic system will go, but I'm not designing it. I'm just a guy trying to steal a piece of land off. Um, they're going to have to go through all these processes through the building requirement. So, I'm also going to answer any of the questions that you may have. >> I actually got a question from Miss Ash. So, I was just reading on page 134. was just talking about if a if a homeowner uh they bring in a licensed septic professional and they bring a report, we also as a city go follow up on that report. We send a city engineer out there just to verify it. >> We send somebody with Ron River out there who does the subjects to verify that. >> Okay. So even though so is that even a process they that they should do or should they just wait for run to come out there that they need to do the pre-work and >> they do the pre-work and they provide the so and then we go out and verify that those are suitable. >> Any other questions for for Mark? Mr. Mayor Council >> I actually I don't have a question for you that Mark is for uh planner Nash. I'm just curious. I I don't know what a wetland buffer actually is. Is it just a an imaginary zone that you can't build on or is it signed? Like do you have to put up a fence? Like what is it physically? >> Great question. Um so what it is in your ordinance is that it varies depending on um the results of a function and values assessment of the wetland. So, a higher quality wetland has a wider bumper. Um, and then that has to be have natural vegetation there. If it's not already established, somebody would have to establish it. And then you put up signs marking the edge of the wetland buffer. And then, yes, it's a no no area. >> Um, one more followup question. So I I unless I misheard you, but I think you were asking for an unconditional approval. And I'm just curious how that would work if if we did do an unconditional approval and then this subject and soil stuff didn't work out. I mean, there would be an unbuildable split off lot that can't be undone then, right? >> Correct. It would have already been subdivided and recorded. There wouldn't be park dedication granted. Basically everything that's in that's a standard condition of the cities also wouldn't be met with a non-conditional approval. >> And this is probably outside of your scope, but do you know if someone is purchasing that plot with financing? I mean, that seems like something that would kill any financing if you're doing with a mortgage. Do you happen to know if that is a mortgage killer? >> I can't speak to that. It may depend on a case by case situation too. >> Your your your first comment was regarding the >> help me out again. >> The wetland buffer. >> If you zoom into the drawing, you'll see that a wetland buffer titled WB is drawn around all the wetlands with the appropriate setbacks. There's multiple setbacks from the wetland and WB is established. See all those lines around the wetland to be able to get in. >> Does it look like Constantino? Is that what it looks like? >> Pardon me. Is it the three dots going around? >> Zoom in. I'll zoom in on the fly. >> I'm I'm holding blind. I'm sorry. >> I must touch the screen. >> No, it's on me. >> No, Jack. I'm assuming this is wetland buffer right here. >> Wet land. Wetland buffer and setback for building. Yes. And I was I was just curious because I legitimately didn't know what that was in my house and now then it's built right on the like I'm sure it had I I have other things to talk about ordinances at different dates and different times and and and such. Um secondly, you were speaking about mortgage. Uh the person who I have a purchase agreement with is a cash buyer in this particular instance. >> All right. So, can we go back, Miss Nash? Can you summarize the uh conditions that you're putting on it? And I'd like you to summarize them. We'll probably talk through one by one to see if it makes sense or doesn't make sense. >> Sure. >> And if I may address one other item. >> Yes. >> So, it was stated that the ordinance does not require it to be that many feet above model soil, >> but on the screen is the ordinance requirement. So here is the minimum of 23 paragraph one here minimum of 23,000 square ft of land area with a 3ft separation between the final separation and the highest zone water table. Paragraph two defines how you get to the highest zone water table. It's to be determined by soil bars indicating mon soil. The minimum boring depth shall be six feet. And then there's some slope characteristics as well. And finally that The city engineer may allow deviation from these separations if the applicant submits evidence certified by a licensed geotechnical engineer. The less lesser separation can be achieved. All of this is not related to the septic system which I don't disagree with the applicant on. >> Um the soil borings were done by a septic consultant for the purpose of the septic according to their report. So this is six feet for the borings, >> six feet six foot borings to determine where that model of soil is for the purpose of of determining compliance with section 10-3-5. Um now that said the conditions that we have in here is number one is that um basically that you're sort of not reviewing that anymore. This item even though it hasn't been demonstrated and that prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant would for the building permit would need to um demonstrate that they can meet those requirements in that separation. Num. So that one does not hold up anything with reporting. >> Okay. >> Number two is waving the buffers. So although it was the buffers are shown. Are >> you on page 123 by chance? So everybody's track. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Although the buffers are shown on the survey by adopting this um the buffers wouldn't be established. They wouldn't be signed. So they might be shown on here but in the reality they're not going to be completed like they would be in other developments of three lots or larger. So that also doesn't hold up any reporting. Number three is related to that septic review and that would hold up recording until our septic consultant can get out there when the frost is out of the ground and verify that. Um so that one would have some delay to reporting. Number four is just a standard condition that you have special requirements in your city code related to driveways and so whoever is building the driveway needs to meet those. >> So it doesn't hold up anything. >> That wouldn't hold up anything. >> Nope. >> Okay. >> Uh number five, that is an ordinance requirement about no future divisions of the property will be permitted by the same owner without the written approval of the NAV then city council and through the planning process. that is a condition and doesn't hold up anything. I mean, that's an ordinance requirement today. >> Um, number six, again, that's something you can't do. No wetlands may be impacted during construction. Um, they haven't received any permission to have any impacts to wetlands, so that >> it's not holding up anything. >> It's not holding up anything. Um, number seven, not holding up anything. That's the they'll have to put up their address placard. Number eight um is related to the deeds for Pineker Road and I believe we have a graphic already of the road easement area. And so either that to the extent that that would hold up anything um would take whatever time the applicant has to have an attorney draft that or I can ask our city attorney to draft that and he has a form and he's done that several times and normally responds to me within a half a day. >> So it could be done in a very timely manner or >> extremely timely. >> Who has to pay for that? If we go to the city attorney does the applicant >> it gets passed through to the applicant. Okay. Um, number nine, the only delay related to that payment of the park dedication would be however long it would take to bring in a check for the park dedication. Uh, number 10 is just a standard condition that we have that all costs associated with the review of the application are the responsibility of the applicant. And number 11 is just that we would record this and that would just be on staff to report this resolution. So the only one that would take any time is number three related to the subjects. >> Can I ask and and you probably know this the best. Council Blazer, what when is the procession work? Is that six weeks? Is that eight weeks? I I've been I've been drilling holes with a a with my ski loader almost all winter long. So there's very little frost now it especially in areas that that aren't being driven over >> um and have you know reasonable sun exposure. >> Do you think it's possible that we can get soil warnings now if they hide just I'm not saying but if they had skits here like you do they could go up there and getting it up the hill might be a little bit of an issue do soil warnings. Yeah, I'm I'm confident that a a track machine could get up there and and drill through that now. >> Okay. So, the question going back to the council is if we put this condition on it, we just we may not know when it's going to be done, but is there a company that can go out there and do that? Does the city engineer meet about on site and look at review it at that point? >> So, Rem would just go out and take a look at them. They would coordinate with them as necessary to go out there. >> Mr. much more. >> Um, what is like the worst case scenario if all of our all of your guys' assumptions are are his assumptions are wrong and whatever this modeling is, the water table reaches a higher level than we hope. Is it just the destruction of the septic system or is it pollution of the >> It's also where the finished floor elevation of the house can be um you know water intrusion into a home. you can get perched water cables in some locations. So, sometimes you do end up with some unusual situations related to water that you're not necessarily expecting. Um, that's the there there could be significant grading I suppose in a worst case scenario that somebody's not anticipating. >> Can I ask you a question? If I understand the process correctly, is it is it you who would hire someone to come out and do the boring and then the the watershed people would go out and verify it? Is that the process? >> So, they've already provided borings for the septic as part of their application. So our R river cons construction would go out and verify that the soils are suitable >> based on the borings that they provided on their own review of the site Mr. to be in compliance there is wrong river people go up >> yes >> you don't even need any additional warrants >> as far as my understanding is we don't unless unless of course they were not finding the same you know having concurrence with the findings of their >> do you know like feasibly how quickly they can get out there because I you know I I don't want another instance where we're delaying you know projects I I think we've got sort of a rep for that and I would like to avoid that but I'm leerary of voting to approve it unconditionally but if we vote it approved conditionally I mean I would feel better about it if I knew that Rome River could get out there like within a week or something. >> My understanding is that Rome River can get out there relatively quickly once the conditions are suitable and um road restrictions went on already the other day. Um Andy indicated to me that he thought they'd be able to get out there very quickly to get these and he told me to obviously we have a number of them that are in the same winter scenario. Um it's not just this subdivision, it's every other one except for Kand that was on your list today. >> Um because they had theirs done before um winter hit. So um >> M >> I just have to have Andy prior. So, >> go ahead. >> Mr. Mayor, my a question I have is if we do an unconditional um what's the liability for the city if we allow them to go forward with this and then it's found that maybe they can't put a septic in and now this buyer has purchased a plot of land that he can't build on. Are we liable because we allowed it to move forward without having the documentation necessary to show that there is the um requirements um met that that the the requirements of our code is are have been met. >> Does anybody know the answer to that? I can give some comments. One, he's looking to split his land. That's what he's asking to get there. >> So he can all the new homeworker bring in soil if needed. Yes. Do you have anything to add to that? >> Yes. And construction practices were not it'll never be constructed by bringing fill in up on top of a hill to meet 10351 for 3T of separation to water table. The water table simply isn't up high on this knob which sits 25 ft above the edge of the wetland. Never in the history of that ridge has water table ever pumped up and went up there. It would be Noah's ark flooding. And this really is in reference, I I I kid you not, to one sentence in an ordinance that is not required by the state. It's a 12 in for state septic requirements. And even then, you can build a mound and and do whatever you want with the mound to gain whatever separation you choose. That's that's how it's actually done. >> Mr. Mayor, I just I wanted to clear up something for Council Member Swinson, and that um I'm fully confident that somebody like myself, because I my equipment is isn't affected by road restrictions, could go out there tomorrow with the proper piece of equipment and drive up the hill, do the soils now because there's there's no reason that you're going to be able to punch through any little bit of frost that might still be there if there's any frost there. So that could that could be done. >> Did I misunderstand? I thought you said no more boring needed to be done. >> That's my understanding. Normally we give the soil warnings to Run River. They go out there and check um so barring there being something that they're not concurring with the findings. Um >> I was there shouldn't be anymore. >> I was under the impression they had to go down further to verify where if and where there was any models. So that is to meet the terms of 10-3-5 which is not necessarily specifically related to septics. So that is more related to um a determination that the city had made regarding buildability of parcels. >> Mr. N question is interesting that might be able to help me out. Can you pull up the ordinance again? >> Yeah. I have a sneaky feeling I mean go down to number four. Do we still have a number four? >> We do. >> Okay. There was there was a provision talking about about hills about when hills and nles are involved. And how does that port right? >> I think that must have been removed at some point in time because it's not >> right. I don't see it now. That's why I'm questioning. So the the ordinance on the website's not doesn't seem to be correct. >> Um >> because we at one point in time we talked about if it literally says I'll just read it for for reference in well- drained areas such as hills or nles where the modeled soils are within 3 ft of the surface which is exactly where we're at right now and 23,000 square ft of area has 5T or more of separation between the surface ground and the standing water. So assuming the standing water is 10, 15, 20 ft below as I'm understanding this, >> 30 ft >> that the building official may allow the basement floor to be set within 3 ft of the standing water. So to me, if you're on a hill and as long as you're within 3 ft of standing water, it wasn't an issue. So I don't know how that gets translated into the way the ordinance is written now. But it seemed at one time it this shouldn't be a problem because we must have been an exception for when models could have existed within those first three feet but it's way up on the hill. So I don't know if that is where the I I know I remember I remember conversation about the pometer thing but I don't know how that applies or would apply now as far as putting a establishing a permit. >> And Mr. Mr. Mayor, go ahead. >> Just for clarification, condition number one has basically if you approve this basically dispenses with them having to have that to show that of separation. The item that is under discussion is really whether or not our septic people verify that those septic sites meet the standards of Minnesota rules. And that's Minnesota rules. It's not now rules that we have to there needs to be a primary and an alternate set for every >> Can I have you pull up the updated drawing? We were operating off from a previous drawing where the septic sites were are spelled out in the new version right over the top of my bore holes. >> Yep. >> Just give me a minute to >> This is really coming down to verification. She's already brought some dail and it just needs to be verified. One simple step. >> The state requirement is 12 in. We did 18 in and got approval from the leading subject person in this region who does all of this work. Um I understand verify but at this point in time we know so much about what's there and what's underneath there. I just ask for a little trust and we talk about offset to the city. Um, if it turns out to be a a cruddy site for my new owner, they're going to sue me. It's in the contract. We're not going to come to the city. And like I said, had I thought better of it, I would have built my house up there when I first did this, but I was in a hurry for for a pad. This is a great site. Um, and it's full of buildable sand underneath that couple feet of root barrier and vegetative barrier that's up there that is showing a bit of rust marks, which is why that's what the silver report shows at 18 plus inches. The water table has never been that high in that ridge. Did you want to point something out with subject system? >> Mr. Mayor, >> Council Rambo, go ahead. Um, I I just want to comment on the applicant's um stating that the potential purchaser of this pro this property uh would not sue the city. He can't guarantee that. And any attorney is going to put anybody's name on a lawsuit that they can possibly put on there. And I I I I don't I'm leerary of of approving something that isn't already proven. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. by Mark. This is where septic one and septic two where we've got the bore holes approved for type one septic systems by my our septic that company. Um, and I'm I'm not giving legal advice. I'm not an attorney. So, I'm sorry if it came off that way. Not at all my my intent. What I do know is there are areas where deer have created trails this deep and over the course of years rainwater has taken and sloughed off that top soil. So there's a big pile of pop soil down at the at the bottom of the hill and that trail is filled full sand. You have both seen it. I've got a photo or somebody else would like to see it. That's what's in there. So um can I ask a question while there where is the borole that was only that had evidence of modeling? >> Do you know is it by the building side or where the subject is >> without getting my report open I just four holes we did one two three and then we did some more back in here. Every one of these and this is much lower in elevation was still a curve for type one systems. You can look at contour lines and see the difference between you know the elevation of 925 and 948 up here on top. What I'm saying when it comes from a construction constructibility standpoint, people are going to come in here and they're going to take these trees out and they're going to lower this grade and they're going to take this beautiful sand and move it back into here and have their I don't know exactly where they're building the house. I have no idea where they're going to going to put the septic, but I have to go through this process to prove that out and I'm doing the best I I can. I'm not a developer. Let's go back to this. So, number three was the point of contention. So, options are we can approve it as council to um benefit the resident in this place and then we could split the land or we could say we put a conditional on it. Uh I like where council member Glazer was going and say why can't we do this in a timely manner? So can we do a an approval on this a conditional approval tonight and request um rum river to come out there and it's Tuesday we got Wednesday Thursday Friday chances of getting somebody out there to me would be pretty easy to get out. I don't know what your schedule is but why can't we do it in a timely manner and not delay this for the resident. So I want to be conscious of both. I don't want to put the city at risk. I I do agree with Councilman Rainbow's statement, but at the same time, why can't we do this in a timely manner and the resident isn't waiting? He submitted the stuff is through planning and zoning. We have some conditional stuff. I understand that. Anybody like to make any comments on that? >> Mr. Mayor, I I guess I'd just like to say the word unconditional has been being thrown around. I I haven't heard that that there are conditions put on this and um I >> you just named 11 of them. >> Pardon? Yeah. So there there are conditions on it. It's not unconditional. Um and so I I don't see any reason why we um shouldn't approve this, you know, barring river going out there and saying that there aren't parkable sites for a type one subject. that then you can still do a non system if necessary. >> You're saying the risk is very very low back to the city or not? >> I don't I don't foresee any risk. I I'm also, you know, I think something granted we're not paying Mr. Libert as as a uh um uh civil engineer right now, but I'm I'm relying on his 30 plus years of experience in that field and and and managing large number members of of very professional people working for large engineering firms. >> Great. Council member Brian, do you have any comments on this? >> Well, I was just curious. Um I think I I think you know if we're if you know looking at those elevations the the where the house is proposed is 20ish 23ish feet above above the the wetland in the back. So it seems like that shouldn't be an issue and even the proposed sites in front are 10 ft. So I would think if we that if we just know we need to get that done in a timely manner that I don't I don't think the subject's going to be here that one question I had was and I'm just trying to get clarification um is we talk about subdivisions having to pay the park fee. Um, but I'm just trying to understand our definition of the sub subdivision, how this is clarified as a subdivision, because there are no um road improvements, street improvements. Um, and that to me is how I'm reading the the definition of of subdivision because we're just breaking out the one line. So the definition is the separation of an area, parcel or track under single ownership into two or more parcels where the creation of the leasehold interest necessitates the creation of streets, roads or alleys or residential or other use. I don't see whether we're necessitating the creation of streets or roads in this case. Am I missing something? Um, you have always done that for all of your subdivisions, including minor subdivisions, except for the ones that are listed further in that definition for cemetery lots when they're 20 acres or more. Um, and those ones that are exempt, >> right? And if you read the going off of the first two first two sentences, the first part, it it gets into that, but then it does talk about not a subdivision doesn't include if if we're not adjusting streets. So, I'm just curious if that applies here or not. Like I said, you have these are minor subdivisions and you've always treated all of them. From my understanding of the record and your checklists that have been prepared for years and used and past resolutions that that has been required whenever anybody if you're creating extra lots, I don't know how you would meet a nexus test under law to charge a a developer like some of the other ones we have later tonight that are going under the planning process with say park dedication but not other people who start creating single new lots. >> So it sounds like that if that's what we're going to do, we need to change our ordinance to match what we're actually doing. >> So I think that's a correct statement. >> So everything that we've done, every every land split we've done or lot we we have charged since I've been here since >> Right. And I just was reviewing the def review reviewing our subdivision definition because of this and I'm going well this isn't technically a subdivision. Okay, >> good. I came into this six and a half months ago thinking that there would be the ability to do a simple split. Uh provisions here and there within the ordinances talk about an administrative split. Um was shot down immediately and it's a subdivision. And now because it's a subdivision, I have to go through all of these requirements. Um, which I've I've done as far as I I could possibly do now. Um, I agree. I I I think it's well overstated to take a general 40 and generally cut it in half and it would be no different than me building 40 houses than building nothing and just trying to cut my land basically at half. But I I've gone down this road for a long time now. It's it's uh I I I I can't withstand more delay. That's all I can say. So, we got to get back to number three because this is what comes down. Do we approve it with the condition that he gets approved and then it's done and then he's able to split or do we wave that as a council and that's really not comes down to that question. Other than that, everything else is conditional. It's not going to delay his time and that's what he's asking for. >> Mr. Mayor, >> Council Member Rainbow, go ahead. >> Again, I I am not an engineer. I'm not a septic compliance specialist. uh any of those things. Uh my job is to protect the city and if we pull number three out of there um I cannot support this. >> My job is to protect the city. >> Miss Nash, if Mr. Lford came to us and said, "I want to split my land. A sportsman wants to buy it and use it for hunting." Would would we do a simple administrative lot split? And would would he have to have it surveyed to to show that there's a buildable site if if he came to us with those conditions? >> Um, interesting that you mentioned that. So, you have had conditions in the past where somebody has said something like maybe not that example, but um there have been ones where somebody has said that we're going to keep it agricultural and not do anything with it. and then the city approves it that way and then that gets reported and then we have situations like um occurred last year with Mr. Boltz who then bought one of those parcels to build a home on. So it had not been approved by the city council. Your ordinance then has a process where all lots or all all parcels that are going to be used for housing have to be approved by you. So then we had to bring Mr. difficult situation here to the council for approval and additional steps to get that done then at that time which also means that anytime anybody is applying they bring in a building permit I have to review the records to see how you did or didn't prove that parcel to be in existence so we spend a lot of time doing that >> so my my question was more of a hypothetical not not from somebody that is potentially you know doing something misleading but if this was just being split and the land was being sold as is >> if if it was like two 20 acre parcels >> 220s or in this case, you know, it's it's a 35 it's 35 acres being split. Um is in in the future if somebody wants to build it on it, isn't it on the onus? isn't the owners on the on the property owner at that time then to you know prove septic and prove that there's a buildable site and and so forth then can't can't we not trust that this this potential buyer that Mr. Libert has has assumed that you know there some responsibility is going to fall on them to do this. >> I under a buyer beware theory we could argue that um certainly however most people who are buying parcels out here are are doing them frequently with the intent to build a whole house on them. So, I think um we've had a number of situations where trying to create that simple process for people um results in delaying items that typically um the original subdividers developer would have borne and pushes that on to the next bucker >> instead. >> Mr. B, I want to make one more. I'd like to make one point, especially for the benefit of of people that were on the previous council in 2024, that >> a property owner came to us with a situation with the driveway and that council made an exception that we potentially should not have that you should not have made. >> Mr. Mayor, >> it does it does happen. We we have as a council, we have the responsibility to make practical judgments in situations like this to move things along in good faith that that that there are conditions in place that have to be met in in the future in order to build a house. I see no reason why why they can't approve this. >> Mr. Mayor, >> hold on. Couns. >> Okay. Um, I just wanted to point out in the subdivision definition that Councilman Ryan read, I think you uh misread it if I'm reading the correct one that um part about necessitates the creation of streets, roads or alleys only applies to the creation of a lease hole and not to parcels, tracks or lots as it's written. So, I just wanted to make that point. Um, and then I I I agree with a lot of what Councilman Glazer said. I think we got to get out of the way, make some common sense decisions here. If there was, you know, some if this had no foreseeable end date and it wasn't just a matter of getting Rum River out there, I I would be less inclined to approve this conditionally, I guess. But because all that has to happen apparently is for Rum River to go out and approve it. I mean I would be okay in the circumstance approving it conditionally because I think that condition should be satisfied within days or weeks. So I think it makes so let's take that down the path. So say remember to go out there as soon as they have something proven then the P can be scored off and he can move forward. >> Right. As soon as I would get that notification from Ron River that they have approved that, then we would move forward with um with recording and I will even say in the meantime he can have his deeds prepared and have all that sent to me. So I've already pre-approved all of that. >> He's ready to go. >> We're we're we're doing it at closing. All of all of the recordings are going to be handled at closing which can occur tomorrow upon approval. Um, the sticking points three, what I again the consense approach, they're going to have to go through and figure out where they're going to put their septics once they get out there and do their layouts. Anyways, we know there's good materials there. Um, I I I just I just hold up to your comments. We've got you on. Anything else from the council for >> Mr. Mayor? Council member, >> um I I agree with council member Glazer. We made his decision we should not have and hopefully that won't come back to bite us. Um I am uncomfortable um again uh with this request to remove this and we are now determining something based on a workload of Room River that we don't know what their staffing levels are. We don't know anything as far as when they can get out there. Somebody told me, I got a text the other day said, "You're lucky you're not home. We're getting 20 inches of snow." So, you know, I we can't assume Rum River can be there this week. We can't assume they can be there next week. We're not Rum River. >> Thank you. >> We can't assume that. We don't know. So, if your situation was where it was delayed a full month, that change your decision. >> Can you start building now theoretically? I mean, do you have to wait for the process? >> You got to understand we we've got a close on the property, >> then I mean, they've got their builder coming out in two days. They're going to start their their layout stuff, but it's all upon approval here. And it and it it boils down to a sentence and the the the whole thing is um they have to start their their building permit process which all of this is going to be addressed in that phase as well. It's it's double duty. I've verified it. Now the the ordinance is saying we want uh consultant verification and then the homeowner is going to go out there and say well we want it laid out here and they're going to have to go this through the same septic approval process. So now we're triple and uh just unnecessary knowing what we know about septic designs and mound systems and like you said you built right on the edge of a wetland. >> I I must >> Oh well well however um that that's still occurs today and and people can have 15t mountains if they've got bad soils. I mean anything can be accomplished. a resolution like a motion resolution one way or the other. >> So, Mr. Mayor, go ahead. >> I'd like to I'd like to make a motion to approve the minor subdivision 21881 Her Road Northwest. with you got to give a little bit more. So the number three is contingent. So would you like to remove the >> what what's the term I should be using this Nash? >> Um if you >> eliminate the condition. >> So if you adopt resolution 2026 that's in your packet then that would include the resolution along with the findings of fact as written. If you would like to change any of the findings of fact and conditions, then you'd need to specify what you would like to be different. I guess please remember too I've asked for waiverss this February 23rd on the conditions at that point in time. And I've had a few of those since that's happened. But the remainder, you as a council have power to wave the remaining conditions. >> M Mr. Mayor, I I'll go back and I'll I would like to make a motion to approve the minor subdivision for 21881 Picker Road Northwest removing the the conditions um so Mr. Lebert can move forward with the closing >> to receive a P. So, specifically number three. Is that what you're suggesting? Because that's the one that's holding us up. >> Yes. >> Okay. Is everybody clear on what the motion was? >> Okay. I'm going to start with uh any other discussion. >> Yes. >> Second. >> Second. >> Oh, Second. >> Sorry, guys. Um I would like to start the vote. Um starting with council member Bryant. >> I council member Blazer. >> I am also an I. >> Council member Swson. >> Hi. Council member Rainbow. >> Nay. >> Okay. Motion carried. Done. >> Mark, your is complete. You're going to get a P. Thank you. Okay, we're going to move on, guys. We spent a lot of time on that one. A lot of good debate and thank you for the structured debate on that. So, moving on to number C. Uh, approval of resolution 2026 approving the interimm use permit for an extended home occupation for a tire service business at 21 360 Zion Street Northwest. Mr. Council member, I'll make a motion to approve the approving the interim use permit for the extended home application for a tire service business at 21360 Xenon Street based on the um findings of fact and decision with the conditions set forth. >> Perfect. I would second your motion. Any other discussion? >> I just have a question. >> Sure. >> For Cindy, it curiosity. I know with like the setting up a grow operation for uh marijuana and it it reclassifies land that it's on into industrial and I'm wondering if that same thing applies to these, you know, on property businesses here. Does a portion of land become taxed as industrial or is real estate residential? >> So, great question. And so it it it's in statute that if somebody's doing cannabis anything on the property that that automatically is um I think it's reclass commercial. Um as far as any of these types of operations where it's an extended home occupation, that would be up to the tax assessor whether they reclassed a part of a property as commercial or industrial accordingly. Um to be honest they frequently do not but once in a while we do see some that they have. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions? Um we've already got a motion on the table. Any other comments or questions? We do have Mr. Fawsome in the audience. If you have a question for him hearing none, we'll move to vote. Council member Rainbow start with you. All those in favor? I >> I I'm also an Imber >> I member Ryan I motion carries. Thank you very much sir for being in attendance. >> Thank you. >> All right 8B approval of resolution 20206 approving the interim use permit for extended home occupation of landscaping concrete snow snow removal business from 8704 190th. Page number on that one, anybody? >> 172. >> 172. 173. >> Do we have Mr. Jones in the audience? All right. All right. Mr. Jones, do you want to come up and tell us about this? What you're asking for? Yours is definitely different than the last one. >> Um, you just want to go over the same stuff with for Yes, please. >> Um, basically, it's just uh we have our equipment there. Um, all of our equipment stays on site for through the winter and the summer. We were planning on parking in the back of the uh building area that we're going to be taking down. I believe we agreed to nine uh machines and two trailers on that. Uh, as far as nothing regarding with the salt, uh, the salt sales are done. Um, we don't really have any deliveries that get brought or anything like that. So, as far as noise complaints, anything like that, it's We aren't really doing much at the place. >> Um, so just talking from the planning and zoning committee, they were talking about um for a conditional use permit or this say in this case uh it's not a conditional, it's a >> and I interim uh use permit that parking vehicles outside was not permitted by city ordinance. Um so big discussion with how many skid steers would be parked. They could be parked outside. Um but they can't be seen from the road. Not um so what what the resident said is shouldn't be a big concern from the residents. Um so that was the big conversation that went back and forth planning and zone and I think they agre they agreed that leaving nine outside would not be a concern planning and zone came out of it. So their recommendation was proceed. Did I miss anything miss? >> I do not think you did. Yep. So they they did say that he as part of their conditions that that concrete pad in the back could stay and um he could store one flatbed trailer, one dump trailer and n >> would you post that picture up there? So it's on page 178 so you could see where this piece of concrete is behind the pole building. I think that would be helpful for everybody to see. This was uh probably 15 minutes of planning zoning where I went back and forth and just good overall discussion on it. >> Sorry, I'm having trouble making this The other thing that was probably and Mr. Jones, you can talk about this. Um, there was some some other discussion in the planning and zoning and things that didn't go so well earlier. Um, and you were taking actions. Can you tell us what you've done to correct some of those deficiencies? >> Um, the one was assault sales, so we eliminated that. Um, we also have a Minnesota Water Pollution Control Agency held its place showing that there was no, but we were set up correctly to be doing that. Um, obviously we didn't have the interim use permit to be able to do that. So, we stopped that. Um, the only thing was to get the permit to demolish the structure what what we're talking about putting there in the bottom right hand corner. >> So, if you guys can see that it's right here, Miss N built to close your property line. That was the issue. Correct. >> And it was built without a permit also. >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay. So, we have multiple things there. So, he's trying to take steps to be proactive and write the wrong issues that he had in the past. >> So, is this the pad behind him where the skid series would be parked? >> No, right by the No, keep going. Right where the building's getting taken down that pad. Yep. So, not there, but that Yep. Cuz you won't be able to see and that building will be gone. That's all got concrete, too. So, it's our shed. Um, it's only got two sides on it. Um, and that's where we would put the equipment. You can't they obviously got all the trees that are there as well. Um you can't see anything. The neighbor that would see anything obviously she was here for the meeting. Um she said the same thing. Um I got the approval for the permit. I just once we finish everything then I'll pay that and get that done. I believe it's to be done by the June 1st or May by May 31st. Um take it down. >> Mr. Jones has followed all the rules of the abatement strength right. So that that's really as we come up the platinum um I will support this one comment I do have for you sir >> made a comment that um vehicles coming down the road would be similar to um garbage trucks coming down the road >> the big trucks that were coming down the road and coming down all all hours of the night u garbage trucks don't come at night um you did disturb residents I took multiple multiple complaints on this so to think that you did not have an impact on residents >> I met about why >> it's not a correct statement. No, hold on. Let Let me finish. It's not a correct statement. You did have a resident that spoke very highly of you. You had multiple others even in the same meeting that we're concerned about. >> So, what I would ask you is if we approve this that you take in consideration your neighbors, other people that drive on the street and big trucks do have an impact, especially at 2 o'clock in the morning, >> especially when they're lined up down the street. Okay? So, taking this very seriously. I appreciate you coming in here and being proactive, but you need to hear that feedback because I've heard my phone ring 15 times because of this. This is not this is not something that to me was acceptable to other residents that would buy. >> So, I appreciate you stopping it >> and being here and presenting it and that takes a lot to go. So, I appreciate that. >> But I do want to express that >> this this was a big thing. >> Right. Okay. >> Now, you can go. >> Absolutely. So, my thing when I was trying to say about the garbage trucks, I was talking about the weights of the trucks. I wasn't talking about the noise or any of the light pollution stuff like that. The trucks that were coming late at night, I apologize that they were plow trucks, right? Like regular, you know, not city. I'm sorry. Personal companies plow trucks though. We didn't have deliveries at 2, 4, 5, 6 a.m. anymore. So, I will say that. Um, but when I was talking about the garbage truck, I was talking about the weights on the roads. Um, nothing about as far as disturbing my neighbors. I'm always trying to do my best as far as that. I did have problems with the neighbor across the street on multiple occasions. Um, that's not here for discussion. Um, but other than that, I said we've done what we can. I've tried to follow everything seriously. Um, >> thank you for being proactive and coming here. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. Other questions for Mr. Jones? >> Mr. May, >> go ahead, sir. I like to make a motion to approve the inter interim use permit for an extended home occupation for landscape concrete snow removal business at 8704 90th Avenue Northwest. I'll second your motion. >> Any other discussion, Mr. Mayor? And then that's it, >> Mr. Mayor. >> And the conditions presented, right? >> Yep. It would be the findings presented. Council Randle, go ahead. >> Um I I do have a question. Um on page 175 number nine it says all materials, equipment and parts used for the business shall be stored in the accessory structure. But on his application page 187 like fourth paragraph down it says there's a pole shed 40 by 60 not used for the business. So where are items going to be stored? So, Councilman Rainbow, um, so if you look on page 175, number 10, it talks about the equipment that would be on the concrete pad. I suppose she did not see the screen when I was pointing out the screen. >> It was up there before. >> M. Mr. Mayor, I understand that those vehicles will be on the pad, but number nine talks about materials, equipment, or parts shall be stored in the accessory structure. But on page 187, he says the 40x60 pole shed, which is his accessory structure, not used for the business. So, where does he plan if if he if he has extra skid steer tires, where do they get stored? Where does anything associated with any of the three things that this business is going to do? Where are they going to be stored other than the items mentioned in number 10? >> Mr. Jones, can you answer that? You had talked about selling some >> basically we had put that we don't use it for business right now. If we have to, we will. But we were trying to get the um to be able to be allowed to put those nine machines on that pad. If we were not allowed to put those nine machines on the pad, then we would have utilized the 60x40 >> Okay. So, are you saying you will be using the 60x40 shed? If you have anything that needs to be stored associated with your businesses other than the items listed in number 10, >> correct? >> All right. Thank you. >> You're welcome. The other thing that Mr. Jones talked about is reducing the number of skid seriess. Right now he has nine. He's reducing the number. Do you want to talk a little bit about that? >> Um, actually we have more than that, but we're reducing to nine this year. Yeah. So we have 13. We had 15. We're down to 13. Um, we have three that are for sale right now. Bring us to 10. And then we rent a bunch up during the summer. So probably be less than nine on the pad. But I didn't want to sell myself short there. >> Council, does that take care of your question? >> Yes, it does. Thank you. >> Okay, so we got a motion. We got a second. Any other discussion? >> Okay, I'd like to start a roll call vote. Start with council member Rainville. >> All those council member >> Swson. >> I'm also an I. Council member. >> Excuse me. >> I Okay, motion passes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Moving on to the next one. >> Let's make sure I get the right spot here. Palamino Estates. Uh planner Nash, you want to take us through? Looks like we have multiple on this one. >> We do. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. There's two applications related to this one. The first is a conditional use permit related to the flag lot, which hasn't updated up there yet. So you can see this is a fourlat subdivision. Um there's the existing parcel would be lot one which has all the existing buildings and has access directly onto Highway 47. The other three lots that are new are proposed to come off of 210th Avenue and that causes this lot number three to be a flag lot. Your ordinance requires a conditional use permit for flag lots. from the findings and facts and from the planning and zoning. Can you provide uh that was concluded on that please? >> Right. That was recommended for approval by the um planning commissioner and before you could act on the preliminary plat we need to know that you would approve this conditional use permit. So this will be the first action. >> Mr. Mayor >> you sorry >> I'll make a motion to approve the conditional use permit for the flag within the plant known as Palamino Estates >> second got a second any other further discussion hearing none move forward to vote council Brian you're first >> I council member Glazer >> I I'm also on I counsville >> I >> okay first one's complete The next action is related to the preliminary plan itself. Um, this has a number of conditions on it. We typically include conditions on our subdivisions. The key ones that are included within here to discuss are um exempting this property from providing a trail. You have ordinance requirements related to providing trails. Um, so that is number one on the conditions. Number two, >> can I ask what page when you're saying that's 2034? Thank you. >> Uh, condition number four is that lot one currently, which has all these existing accessory buildings are not in compliance with city ordinance related to accessory buildings. The developer has applied for a variance related to those. He's also adjusted the lot line slightly from the version that went to the planning commission. So this lot now has 5 acres. So the item that they're still out of compliance with is related to square footage total of accessory structure. So that's what the variance application is that'll be going to planning commission yet this month. um they are still in the process condition number five of dealing with their wetland boundary review and function and values assessments. So that will need to be completed before they apply for our final plaque because that's going to be what determines what those buffet lifts need to be under your ordinance. >> So we're trying to approve a preliminary plaque. >> This is preliminary. Yep. >> But with that it's got to be condition five before you can get >> Yes. And so we'll want them to do that before they submit the final PL application so that you have something that's approvable when you see it. Um we are still waiting on any comments from MIDOT. So we've included that as condition number seven. Um if MDOT were to say something like um that they need to have additional rightway, they'd need to expand the rightway for example as shown on there. Um, this one also has septic systems and has that winter condition where we have not yet reviewed those septics for compliance. So, they still need to do that still needs to be done for this as well. Um, each lot has to have a primary and secondary and um they'll have to enter into a development agreement with the final plot, but you'll see all of that with the final plot application. Those are sort of the main um comments on this one. Can we just touch base on the amount? So if you see where plot one is which is the existing house and property big conversation that came up during P&Z was what is a square footage? I think it was a little bit less than 5 acres at that point. Now it's been adjusted but 5 acres you're allowed 3200 ft and he's going to be over but do we know how much over at this point? >> Um it's it's still it's more than that that he can have but he it's he has the right number of accessory structures. He's over in the square footage by three or 4 thousand square feet. >> Sure. Would you come up and go there and just talk about the condition of the buildings? And what I want to talk about is this is very similar to Leicester Stage where this was flipped onto a smaller one. They did have to tear some buildings down, but not all of them. But the condition of the building, sir, if you can talk about that, please. >> Yeah, absolutely. I do believe that uh my survey has showed that there's almost 6,000 square foot of buildings on the property when I purchased it. Um, one of those buildings is quite large. It's that large barn. Uh, it's 5,000 of those square feet right there. Um, so to be in in adherence with your guys' statutes, I would need to remove the barn in order to be compliant. Um, there was somebody at the planning zoning meeting who, you know, was was happy to come up and say that they don't think the barn should be removed. Um there was a council member who stated that they didn't feel like the barn should be removed that potentially that'd be quite a drastic action for a pretty historically uh positively uh you know good aesthetic barn that we've got today. >> I think you had words of affirmation from multiple people to say it's a nice barn and shouldn't be removed. >> Yeah. And I I do believe that that would be a little bit of a travesty of the statute to to have that barn be a victim um of compliance in this situation. >> What are the other buildings other than >> uh well there's a detach garage that serves as the primary uh garage for the for the farmhouse. There's that large 5,000 square foot structure and then there's just a kind of an old corn crib if you will that's really uh not of significance. So this may ask how many acres is lot is lot one >> we have uh we have a variance uh coming up at the next P&Z to make it 5 acres and we did that as an effort to say instead of going from a 4 acre lot that only is entitled to so many square foot of buildings. My thinking was that if I did move that up to five acres now, I'll be a lot closer and I'd show a great effort to the council to say now this variance isn't so far back. >> And and how many square feet of detach accessory building do you have? >> This property contains approximately 6,000 foot of buildings. Isn't Isn't the allowable square footage for 5 acres 6,400 ft? >> It is. I actually in my staff report I flagged that it's about 7,800 square ft of accessory buildings and that was based on calculations I made. >> So that's Oh 7,800 C. That's okay. I was going off memory. I apologize. >> Yeah, we talked about it in there. You had you had the piece of paper that said if it's 5 acres it was 3,200. So we pulled this up and talked unless something dramatically has changed. I'm not tracking. >> You're going to make me watch my new bar. That was a um So they were under five acres before. >> Did we look at it incorrectly when we were opening it? >> No, they were under five acres before. >> Okay, that's what it was. >> Yeah. So >> when we get to over 5 acres changed it okay that's where the the difference was at 4.8 acres. >> Right. So 2.5 to just under five is 3200 ft. >> Okay. So that's where >> right? So by and only two buildings allowed. >> Okay. So by changing this to five acres, they no longer need a variance related to the number of accessory buildings of three. Um they would still need one from the total square footage which is 6,400. >> And you said this is how many square foot of accessory buildings? >> It's about 7,800. >> Okay. So it's substantially closer than >> Okay. I just want to bring it up to councils that are tracking that. Do do we have other old farmsteads that are 5 acres with large accessory buildings exceeding our square footage? >> What are any of the are any of the buildings um blighted or dilapidated that they have to that they're a safety issue? >> No. >> Mr. Mayor, for me, this is one of those common sense things that How old is the fire? over a hundred years old. Sir, those buildings have been there for over a hundred or you know around a hundred years is what is the harm in they can't add square footage. What is the harm in allowing them to maintain the square footage and moving forward with this? >> I was just trying to use the comparison. They had some buildings that were on the road that had to be torn out. We >> we did. We said, "Hey, it's fine. You just keep going. Go ahead, Mr. Mayor. >> That's exactly what we're pointing to, >> but that was part of a separate variance application which he has applied for now. Um, and your ordinance requires that when anytime anytime somebody changes their lots, i.e. they're subdividing. They have to meet the ordinance applicable to their lot. So, any accessory buildings they have have to meet setbacks from, say, side lines that are created new, and they have to meet the requirements for the amount of square footage. Otherwise, you'd have everybody building an unlimited amount and then doing a subdivision. So, the findings that the council had made back with the Leico estates east was that it was the historic farmstead. There was value, aesthetic value, historical value in keeping that >> and the council then granted that variance. >> This would be a very similar thing. Yeah. Okay. That's I was on the exact same page as you on this that to me it's okay to have more. It's a historic farm. Tearing a building down that if they're all in good condition doesn't make sense. Um, and I would rather grant the variance than make you go tears on a building that is is fully functional. So that's where I was going with it. Um, any other comments on this one? So we're back to preliminary plot. Any other conversations plot? >> Mr. Mayor, council member, there are none. I'll make a motion to approve the preliminary plot for the development known as states based on the um findings of fact and the conditions therein. Second click second. Any other discussion hearing? None. I don't remember where I left off. We'll start with council member Rainbow. >> I council member Johnson. >> Hi. >> I'm also I council member Blazer. >> Hi. >> Council. >> Hi. >> Council member Rainbow. You're coming back soon so I don't have to do roll call votes anymore. >> I'll be back in April. >> All right. Thank you. All right, sir. It's approved. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Preliminary plot. Vanessa, we'll see you at the next P& meeting. >> Absolutely. >> All right. Thanks. >> Thank you. Okay. Next one on Viking Estates. We got a few more of these to go through yet. >> We do. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. >> You're up. >> So, this one has five items I'm going to need you to look at. I'm going to walk through them one at a time. The first one is related to a comprehensive plan amendment. If you refer to your screen, the area that the amendment's being asked for is is this part in the southwest corner of the intersection of of um Highway 47 and County Road 22 that is currently guided in your comprehensive plan as commercial. Um the rest of the site that's in that same kind of quadrant of the intersection is rural residential transition. They're asking for this to be regided from commercial to that rural residential transition. Um I'll just make note that the property on the east side is part of this P as well that would remain commercial. >> So what does it look like right now compared to this? Is this all yellow right here right now? >> No, right now this is what it looks like right now. >> That's what it looks like right now. So at if you approve this comp plan amendment, this 500x 375 ft area roughly would change to yellow. >> Thanks. Quick question. Why is that commercial right now? Is it because it's at the intersection >> busy corner? Is it just >> I was really hoping for another bill. So >> Mr. Mayor I make a motion. >> I'll make a motion um approving the red designation of medical corner plot from commercial to uh rural transition rural residential transition affairs. >> I'd second that. >> Got a quick second. Any other discussion >> hearing? None. Council Brian, we'll start with you. All those in favor council member Laser. Hi. >> I'm also an I. Customer Switson. >> Hi. >> Council member Rainbow. >> One more time. Customer Rainbow. >> Hi. >> I I just didn't hear >> I didn't hear. >> You got some cute hearing. That's good. You're doing well. >> All right. Thank you. So, first one's approved, Miss Nash. >> Thank you. Your second item is to adopt an ordinance approving resoning for this. It's basically the same thing, changing this from commercial to that rural residential transition. Now that is dependent upon the previous item that has to be the comp plan amendment has to be sent to the Met Council for their review process. So we can approve the reasonzoning conditionally upon Met Council approval of the previous item. >> Why does Met Council have anything to do with now? >> Because you're in the Southern County metro area. So your comp plan? >> No, they don't. They have to they have to agree to right now today as it stands. They have to agree to what what we what we so so they get they get a say. Sir, did you have a comment for us? >> I did, Miss Nash. I thought the Met Council waved it if the city >> the the Met Council waved a just a jurisdictional review of the adjacent jurisdictions. So, we still have to send it to the Met Council. >> That seems contradictory. I thought they were waving it upon your approval. >> No, they they waved us review. So, normally in a typical process, um, we would have to send this comp plan amendment out to all of our neighboring jurisdictions and a bunch of other interested agencies, DNR, MindBad, etc. Um, for their review and comments before the council takes its action here. We always have to submit them to Met Council for >> Okay. Um, now I will ask them if they will agree to review this administratively given the size of it, >> but we do have to submit >> and timely. >> Mr. Mayor, council, >> I'll make a motion to approve the ordinance reszoning the property known as Viking. Is that the one page 232? Viking estates or am I >> 223? 223. >> Yeah, the one on 223. >> What's number two on 223? It might be another one. >> Sorry. We have approved >> adopting ordinance 2026 approving the res of the um RT area. >> Second. >> Any discussion? Okay, let's move to vote. Starting with council member Brian. >> Hi. >> Council member Glazer. >> I also I counc. >> Council member Rabel. >> I And may I now that we voted, may I ask council member Bryan if he would include the summary publication in his motion? with the rebolt and that would >> Yes, ma'am. We We'll try to include the summary. We know what page it's on. Maybe we can start with that >> 232 including Yes, it should have improved the publication. We need another one. I'll do it. >> Do we need Do we need to add that or are we good with proceed? >> I'll make a motion to approve the publication. >> Thank you. Second. Let's move around. Do the same thing to vote. Yourself. >> Council member Blazer. >> I also counc. Council member >> Hi. >> All right. Good. Thank you for catching that. Okay, Miss Nash. Number three. >> Um, number four is a variance and it's specifically related to this lot number one here in the lower kind of southeast corner of this. The way your ordinance is, it would have to by ordinance front technically on street B, but there is this wetland here that doesn't allow for that to happen. So, it's going to need to front here instead. But then your lot depth requirements would be that it has to be at least 300 feet deep, which this lot is not that deep, you know, through the vast majority of it. There's probably some locations over here if you go this way that are 300 ft deep, >> but it would be more in this area that we'd measure. So, that is what the variance request is for is related to specifically lot number one being able to be oriented like this. Any discussion? >> Mr. Mayor, council member, >> I'll make a motion and pro approving the uh resolution to approve the variance for Viking Estates. >> I'll second. >> Second. >> Well, we got multiple seconds. Perfect. Looks like everybody's on board. I'm just kidding. >> All right. So, uh, any other discussion with that, Council Member Ringo, we start the vote. All those in favor? >> I. Council member S. I also I counc Blazer. >> I c I >> Okay, next. >> And last but not least is the preliminary plot itself. Um so the whole preliminary plot is shown on your screen here. They're creating several lots, two new streets as part of this. they will need to submit a final PLA and then some key um conditions within the um draft resolution and findings in front of you um on that list. Number one is that because the Met Council has not approved this comp plan amendment, so it it doesn't quite meet the requirements yet. This is conditioned upon their approval. >> Um outlaw A is not buildable. LA is this one on the southeast quadrant of the intersection. Um we haven't done >> that's commercial. >> That's commercial. So at such time as somebody would want to do anything with that, they would need to um bring in a plot to replat that either with some additional land or at a minimum to replot it as a lot and block and have their grading plans and everything so we can look at storm water and all of that associated with that. Um condition number four, they um have not yet um completed the wetland and values wetland function and values assessment as required by city code. So those need to be completed prior to the submitt of the final plat. Um, on this one, we also still have DOT comments pending and so once those are submitted, we'll get those over to them for inclusion and addressing as part of their final flat as well. Um, soil borings will still need to be reviewed by Rome River for the septic sites. Um, because again, everybody has to have the primary and the alternate sites. And then the rest of the conditions I would in the packet I would consider um standard and normal basically that they need to address all the comments um revise their plans etc etc and and eventually submit that final >> PL Nash for my for my own information if this comes up in the f in the future again as it might how long does it take for the met council to that process the approval process is >> um so that depends on the scope and magnitude of the comp plan amendment. If it was something that was a really large scope and magnitude they go through an actual more detailed review process that ends up at the Met Council board itself there some smaller ones and I think this will hopefully qualify for that there they will do administratively >> and then it's usually just a couple weeks. >> Thank you. I think they asked that at TNZ this couple weeks ago because it's smaller. >> Is there any other questions uh for member five here? Mr. Mayor, >> is the Met Council approval just sort of I mean is it just assumed? Is there any chance they're going to turn it down? I heard you say council I think Councilman Glazer that No, I think it was Councilman Brian that they have to do whatever we do. I don't have the exact wording that's currently in state law regarding the city of Neland, but it I know it involves that council that was specifically added just for the for us. So, >> I'm trying to find it. >> I was just curious, >> Mr. Mayor. Go ahead. >> Um, typically on something of this magnitude when I've submitted them in other communities, I have not had them not approve it. So I do anticipate that they vote. We just which is why I'm comfortable doing conditional upon. >> Okay. Any other discussion? Would anybody like to make a motion? Mr. Mayor, >> I'd like to make a motion to adopt resolution 20.6 approving preliminary plat for Viking states with u along with findings of factor decision. >> Second. Good. Quick. Any other discussion? Sorry. Mr. >> Yeah, Mr. Mayor, I I I just want to um there was a lot of discussion on Facebook about this. I don't know if there's anybody in the audience um that is concerned about it. Um, this is the first decision we've made as a council on the RRT and a history as to why these are allowed it to be developed at 2 acres versus the 8 for 40. Um, in 2018, a now then resident who is also a developer, not the current property or the Mr. Rodmacher, uh, property owner, Mr. um requested that his land which borders Oak Grove be annexed into Oak Grove and allowed for because they allowed for less density in their zoning codes. This party was also a able to get some other property owners to go with them and the Oakrove mayor and council of course wholeheartedly approved exuming this these pro this acreage into their city. Um the matter then was assigned to an administrative judge for a ruling and based on advice of our attorney. Um one of the items was including the cost of fighting the case and the possibility of being um subjected to paying both parties legal bills. Um when we we settled um initial estimates were in the area of about $100,000 and there was no cap on that. um this area that's this RRT um to try to help settle concerns um is about 2 and a half% of the acreage of now then. So it's a very small area and it only pertains to this RRT area. Um, so this isn't something that can be um had done in other areas of the city. So, and a lot of people don't understand or know what that was. So, I just want to provide a little bit of background. Thank you. >> Thank you. So, we're going back to vote. Council member Randle, you're first. All those in favor? >> I sw I. I'm also I counc. Council >> member Ryan. All right. >> Okay. Motion passes. I think that completes yours, Mr. Ro. >> Thank you. >> All right. Next, Miss Nash. >> Thank you. Next is an ordinance amendment amending the ordinances related to the planning commission. Sure. >> And a separate item then related to determining the interview process. So the first one are is some very simple changes to the composition and terms section of the planning commission ordinance. First off um I'll start with what started this is paragraph B terms. The previous language said that the city council shall interview applicants and appoint members to the commission. Um given that there was some discussion at your last meeting about having the planning commission do interviews instead. What I proposed is that we change that to the city council shall determine the process to interview applicants and shall appoint members to the commission. The reason I didn't just change it to planning commission like you're desiring to do this time it sounds like is because particularly when you do those end of year beginning of year ones where you have a couple members up for reappoint potentially but you might also have other people apply. it doesn't seem right necessarily to want the planning commission to interview their own and it doesn't you know then it maybe you maybe want to have it be the council instead but this way it gives ultimately that ultimate control to the council. The second item that we suggested changing in here is in paragraph A. Um your ordinance right now says that planning commission shall consist of seven members who are residents of the city. that is not a requirement that they be residents of the city um in terms of a state requirement. So we suggested changing it to um who are either residents of the city fee title owners of property located within the city or a trustee to a trust that is the fee title owner of property located within the city to add some additional possible candidates to the pool and give you more opportunities. You could also, by the way, just leave it with such planning commission shall consist of seven members who shall be appointed by the city council. Period. And get rid of any of that language. >> This is kind of neat language though. That means they're vested. >> Yeah. >> They have some vested interest in now and then. >> They do. >> Instead of opening it up to everybody, >> right? I have had times where we've in other communities appointed other people who don't have a vested interest and there's been reasons to do that too. So I did want to let you know that you you could just >> you could cut all that extra language out and just and just leave it. >> Mr. Mayor any other adjustments on there? >> Nope. Those were the only two Mr. Mayor, council member Swanson. >> I make a motion to approve ordinance number 2026 amending the ordinance related to planning commission and determining interview process. >> I'll second. Any other discussion hearing? None. Roll call vote. Start with council member Bryant. >> I council member Blazer. >> I council Swinson. >> Hi. >> And council member Rainbow. >> I. >> All right. Motion passes. Um, and then I wasn't sure if that motion included the motion to have the interviews for the vacant planning commission seat be completed and recommended candidate by the planning commission in March followed by council selection at the April city council. >> So there was two applicants um and the goal was to let the planning and zoning was that was three um let the planning and zoning do the recommendation. It's their committee and let them recommend who they would like to. Okay. So for me to what page is that one on? >> It's on the RCA page. >> Um so this would be on 273. So I'll do a motion here. Ordinance number 2026 amending the ordinance related to planning commission to determine the interview process. I would make a motion to approve this as stated. No, we just >> No, >> it's number two under requested council action that we still need to do is the interview process itself. >> Okay, so with that the motion interviews for the vacant planning commission seat to be completed and recommended candidates by planning and zoning in March followed by the council selection in April April city council. >> Can you add the summary publication to that? >> Do we need to? >> Yes. >> Add the summary publication. I amend it to add the summary of publication. Second. Any other discussion? Council member Rainbow. Let's move to vote. All those in favor? >> I. Customer. >> I also I certain minor subdivision ordinance. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So before you was a draft ordinance changing the process for minor subdivisions. Um the goal here was to create a cleaner line between what is a minor subdivision versus what is not. And there's a few kind of things that trip up a lot of people who think they're applying for minor subdivisions. And I'll use that key land one with the three lots that we had earlier today as my example just because it happened today. Um, so once you hit three parcels, you're required to do all of this extra wetland work under well your ordinance currently requires it for everybody, but under Rum River Wershed Management Organizations rules, you're required to do it. And then once you hit that number is a is the time when you're kind of hitting that impervious surface limitation and some of those other things that require storm water management and those kind of features to be done. So what we attempted to do with this was to have the minor subdivisions and lot line adjustments be that true more of a minor process where if you're just changing your lot line between you and your neighbor, it's really quite easy. If you're doing something with a two lock split, it's not quite as easy as that minor subdivision, but it's still pretty easy. But those three locks and above them will go to that flattening process. Um, and then as part of that, I built into there um a temporary kind of fix to that wetland situation that Mr. Libert ran into that we did have a waiver of within that resolution this evening for him. But your like like I said your ordinance currently requires some extra work related to wetlands and those functions and values assessments. Um Upper Murder changed their rules some number of years ago. So they no longer require it. As we keep working on ordinance amendments we'll embed that in that process as well. But for right now in this, we've kind of supposed to just exempt them as part of this application process. >> So to be clear, you're going from three to two. Is that correct? >> Yeah. >> For the minor subdivision, right? >> Hopefully make that process a bit easier. Anything over three will require um or require a >> plat. >> And if it's really simple, we can do combined um preliminary and final PL at the same time. If somebody's coming in and there is this going to be a really easy threelock one but >> so Mr. Go ahead snatch. >> So is this going to make the process so say somebody has a 40 and they want to split it into three lots 13.3. Is this going to make the process easier for them? >> In my opinion it will make it easier because they when they're sitting at that acreage and with that amount of impervious surface and the wetland rules they get tripped up into a bunch of requirements. they have to do, but people have the impression when they're applying for a minor subdivision that they shouldn't have to do that. So, they're not planning for that at that time. So, this will put them into a trap where it's clear, it should be clearer to them that they're going to have to do that those things rather than the checklists. I'll have them by the way. They have had them, but I have to have discussions with every single person about why this still applies to them, why they have to do it. Um, it frequently takes several iterations of plans before we're being provided that information because they ask their surveyor to do a minor subdivision and we just get a couple lines on a map for practical purposes and not the information that we need. >> So, it's not an end all be all fix by any means. No, it is to try to make it clearer if you're doing two lots and make that process because when you hit three, there's more requirements. So, that's what was proposed to PNZ. they they agreed on that to try to make it easier. Now again, that's not where we want to be at the end state a year from now where we got everything nice and clear and crisp, but it's a movement in the right direction, >> right? And then similarly for those doing just the one the two lot split, we then can amend our checklist right now for minor subdivisions to take some of this excess stuff out that's really trying to capture those three lot ones and make those a simple checklist. It would have been applicable for Mr. uh for Mark because he's splitting one, >> right? It would have been Yeah, >> it would have been applicable for him. >> So, for example, some of the wetland stuff would have been immediately taken off. >> Any other questions from Miss Nash on this one? >> So, we are on page 278. Um, I'll make a motion to approve the ordinance 2026 amending the city code related to minor subdivision and lot line adjustment. Is that the correct one or is that the Cuz both of these are very similar. >> Correct. With the summary ordinance >> and you're including the summary or >> and I'm including the summary ordinance within my motion. >> Second. >> All right, we got a second. Any other discussion? >> I don't remember where I left off at, so we'll start over there. All those in favor? Council member I. >> Council member Blazer I. I'm >> also an I. All right. And Candle, >> I >> All right. >> Does that conclude? >> No. >> Includes page one. >> What's that? >> Includes page one of the >> No, I was just saying torture. >> So, Mr. Mayor, we also need a motion to approve the summary publication. I to to Natalie. I thought we were going to add those together so we didn't miss it. >> Is there a way to do that? Just go order that that just automatic. >> I would love that. >> So, I think it depends on who is drafting it. If you look at this ordinance, um I tend to include them. >> So, section two, effective date. this ordinance becomes effective on the date of its publication or publication on the publication of a summary. >> Right. We this came up like four months ago that we have to do this. We have to authorize the publication. >> Just a matter of >> doesn't doesn't pass common sense. That's something. Hey, we got a motion. Anybody want to second that? >> Second. >> What's that? Second. >> Yes. >> All right. We got a second. Any other discussion? >> All right. We're going to shake things up. Council member Swintson, you're first. All those in favor? >> I. Council member Randle. >> I. >> Council member Brian. >> I. >> House member Glazer. >> I. >> I'm also an I. >> Okay. Does that wrap up planning and zoning? >> Yes, >> I think so. Okay. All right. So, we are on everybody drinking water. We might need to wrap after this one. This is this is more. >> All right. So for new business we said council Brian you had two >> we move seven consent >> seven was consent but you had two that you wanted to put in new business all >> oh wherever they go now >> um so Mr. mayor and council talking about just the approving the payment of the spring and fall newsletters. I was just curious if we wanted to um look at and I know it's probably revisiting this again, but if we're talking about um spending over $8,650 plus any revenues collected on the budget, do we do we want to look at because that could be that's over $4,300 per newsletter. We want to look at some way to um consolidate the newsletter so it doesn't cost as much to put together, especially now that we're losing ad revenue from nonprofits. um or get not use the glossy paper and um and or are we going to just say that we have that the um revenues collected from advertising goes um that we we're not going to exceed the budgeters amount even with the revenues collected that the revenues collected would be offsetting the um cost of the newsletter >> I think you have four things in there so take one >> I think I got it is that um the profits or I'm sorry, the money collected for the ads has gone to offset it. >> Okay, this word is in here. >> It is because just in case you don't get all the advertisers. So, in the past it has been offset and as of today, I just wanted to let you know um last year at this time with Friday being the deadline >> for you two. >> Yep. >> We only had six businesses and three nonprofits. As of today, we have 13 businesses. Um, and then getting one more half page, making that about $2,800 for to go towards this first half. >> Okay. So, so I just wanted to be to clarify my statement. So, is that is the is the addition of plus any revenues collected really not supposed to be there? That were not to exceed the 86.50. >> Correct. >> Okay. Then I'll make a motion to approve payment for the 26 spring and falls. >> Second. Got a second from Cain. She was first. >> Mr. Mr. Mayor, I I guess one thing I'd like to do is um Miss Johnson mentioned to me and I'd like to commend Lexi for the work that she did to >> actually make this more cost effective for the city by by generating >> was she proactive asking >> creating more advertising from business? >> She did and we also reduced the size of what we would do for the nonprofits. Next one. >> So, the problem is the more ads we get, the bigger it has to be. She's still trying to keep it at the same number of pages. Um, if we do run into a problem where we're going to exceed that, we'll have to come up with something different with it. Um, I know I brought up the idea several times is to do something different and not use that. But the comments I've always gotten back are they love the the magazine feel of it rather than something like Opro does on a black and white sheet. four times a year. So, it's really a city preference. >> Yeah. Mr. Mayor, >> Council Rainbow. >> Um, our our newspaper has evolved over the years. We used to get black print on a colored piece of paper. Lexi in the last few years has done an admirable job in updating or improving our newsletter. And the fact that we're doing the design inhouse, we've reduced the costs to the printer. Um, printing is expensive. It a lot of it is the is the postage, but we only communicate truly with our residents via that newsletter. And so I think it's important to to stay with it and to stay with it in the manner that we're doing it now. Um I I think the staff has worked really hard on it and and I do commend them as as council member Glazer did. >> Yeah. Just really awesome that as a council we're we're recognized and so proud of council Glazer. So thank you um Lexi's hard work and just from just from the revenue that knocked that first one basically in half uh by the revenue create. So just awesome work, good teamwork, good uh city administration work. All right, any other comments on this? Uh we'll do a roll call vote. All those in favor council member Ryan I. Council member Glazer I. I'm also council Swinson I. Council member Rainville. >> Hi. >> Okay. >> Guys I missed you got a second then. >> I think I second. >> Sure. >> Sure. What's wrong with it? All right. We have one motion. >> Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to talk about the uh the um uh memorial plaque for Judy Gerilla at the at the park. Um I was just curious is if if if that isn't considered park maintenance, is there any or is there any other place to put to take those funds out? I just see that we're saying that we're starting already to use our contingency fund and I just was wondering if that falls into another option. We're not dipping into our contingency fund. And if that's if that's a possibility or not, >> I don't see why we can't move it somewhere. We just parked it there because it didn't really fit any other category. Um I could potentially pull it from park fund somewhere. I just we put it in contingency because we don't really have memorial or >> I like your request. So, well, if it's if it's if it has to come out of contingency, I will offer to and if it's possible or not, I will definitely offer to pay for it or if we split it up amongst the council take care of it. >> I definitely won't. >> Yeah, Mr. Mayor, to to what council member Brian just said, I No, >> I don't think any of us do this for the money. So, I don't think any of us would would miss $60 out of a a month's paycheck to honor that you know that served the uh the city now then for a long time. >> I 100% agree this. So if it can't be park and wreck and it needs to be contingency um and we can vote as part of this um we have to vote on anyway that the council we can make that part of your motion that the council will pay for it. I'm not asking everybody but I'm assuming >> so Mr. Mayor >> Council member Go ahead. um to council member Brian that's very commendable of you. Thank you. Um we can always donate to it. Um the other avenue would just be under general government you know office not office supplies but general government but I'm I'm willing to donate. Um, I had said I would I I told Dileia that I would buy the cake um for the the excuse me, I will buy the cake for that night. Um, but I would also contribute to the monument in a motion on this. So, I just want to make a motion to approve the um purchase of the plaque for the memorial for the memorial park and um to use general funds. If not, the council if everyone can voluntarily is willing to voluntarily make sure that the cost is covered. >> I I would second that 100%. And if someone's not willing to pay, I'll pay them. Any other discussion? Okay, moving to vote. Council >> Randall, starting with you. >> Second. >> I cson. >> Hi. >> I'm also I >> I >> All right. Got a lot of live. All right. So, we are moving on to old business Comcast update. If you can bear with me. Um I did call uh Miss Johnson today and said I could not make the meeting. I had work conflict of giving you the update. Can we put the map up there by any chance? >> It's probably not up there. >> No, because it's not in the packet until electronic. It will be put in there tomorrow. >> Okay. So, >> you guys all have a copy? >> We have a copy, but unfortunately the residents can't see. Just give you uh they're they're calling them rolls, which are areas that they've done. Um multiple are complete. R two was that far I'll call the northwest part of Malden. Um they'll be finishing it up in the next couple weeks. They do have a lot of it released. Uh but there's a little bit left at 50 homes remaining on it. Um once you get to roll six and that's the unsubsidized area which is the southwest u that one is going to have a little bit of delay and it's tied in with the boss street update project. So anything tying with boss street could be delayed a couple months. It's not a couple weeks. They are going to work on the rest of roll six um which is expected to be complete I'll say by the end of the month but this is going to carry on a little bit longer if you're along street and you're looking for contest >> and the map will be online um tomorrow because I did just get that today around noon I did send it out to all of you and he said they will work with Comcast and as soon as Comcast can kind of be I'm not sorry connectors can be out of their way with moving their polls they'll get and they're just not going to be in they're kind of like beating over each other. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. The timing just didn't work with when Kex's was going out and when they were ready to get to the unsubsidized area because they had to do the subsidized area by a certain time frame to meet the state requirements. But they're doing a great job. They also offered um they are going to sponsor night to unite for us again. And they are also um I mentioned this to council member Rainville because she was going to do an update about the memorial park. They offered if I could find them a commercial kitchen to use um possibly the Alliance Church. They're going to bring a um sportsman's club out who likes to sponsor and provide meals for veterans, first responders, that sort of a thing. And I'd like to try to find a date that it would correspond with like a ribbon cutting for the new memorial if that would be something we we can all be at the park uncover the new memorial and then go over to the uh alliance troops because they have to have a commercial kitchen. Um, with that, I would need uh permission from council to move forward with that and if it's something that we can move forward with if there's a charge at the Alliance Church to either ask Comcast if they'll cover that part, you know, that charge or to be able to book it on behalf of the city. H >> the guys done yet? >> No, they're still building their house. They have to do that first. >> So, are you looking for a motion? >> I'm just looking for a direction. I need council to tell me I can move forward with that. >> This is giving back to residents, first responders, etc. >> Yeah, it's an awesome deal if we can make it all work for the time frame. >> Any other concern with that? Any any concern, customer? >> Uh, no. I was very pleased when Natalie told me what they'd like to do. Um, and in the in what should have been handed out today was my update for the Veterans Memorial. I'm still waiting on some vendors. um but it is in there. I will schedule a April meeting. U we can start to regroup and after that we'll have some better idea as to time frames um when we could get started and a completion date. So thank you. >> So Miss Johnson, it sounds like there's no issue with you moving forward. >> No issues. Okay. Sounds like you got you got your direction. >> All right. So moving on to the next one. I did want to add before we move off Comcast, they have a total of 1,324 total passes released. So many many residents out there have access to Comcast and currently they're at 24% uh with active service uh and there'll be more as uh things are released. But uh a great project from Comcast. They continue uh to do a good job. Thank goodness for Kexus working in partnership with them. Otherwise, we would not be here. >> Mr. Mayor Council, >> have you asked them if they expect summer to be to drive up connections or whatever passing? >> I did ask that. >> So, it's one of the questions I asked is what were they kind of expect to see they said they really believe in spring when they can bury the cables they're going to get a lot more people signed up. >> So, they they I don't think they gave you a percentage back. They just sent out a lot more. >> I just said it's 2014 low, but I kind of was hoping that come spring that more people would pick it up. And just today because they did just release that northwest area, they had seven calls today from 8:00 until noon. So that so this wasn't all updated since then. >> We put it on when was the last time we put something on Facebook. >> That one I can I can check. It is on the website and all the information is there. If any residents want to sign up, they can just go to the Comcast portal, put in your information and you will be on the contact list. And I will say on Facebook also um one of the residents did thank the city and Comcast for getting out there. He's super excited and he didn't think he was ever going to have it. He kind of lives across from um the bridge church. Very excited to have it >> and it started long before this council. It was part of the previous but a lot of a lot of groundwork was set. Maybe none of the work was done and it's been active and uh thank you for participating in the monthly call with them. Uh things are going well. Do you want to put a blur in the spotlight thing on the website? >> Yeah, I can certainly have a do that. >> It's Comcast advertising in their newsletter. >> I believe there is a story on it or at least a little thing as to where to sign up on it. >> Great for them to sponsor an ad after their huge investment that they may make substantial. >> All right. Can we move on to discuss the recycling hours for summer? What's your recommendation on that? >> Oh, that's it. Um, so you know, last winter we decided that we would go to two people twice a week and every what? Second and fourth Friday or Saturday. >> Mhm. >> Um staff over there was, you know, talking about, well, if you guys want to open it up again every Saturday, they don't really want to work every Saturday. Um, if we wanted to do that, could we hire additional staff to have a third person, maybe another retiree to kind of come in and help cover um, in case someone is gone, which brings up Thursday. I did send you guys all an email as well, is one of the attendants has a funeral to attend to. And again, the other one doesn't want to work alone. So, um, >> what day is that? >> Thursday. >> Third, >> like two days from now. Yeah, I just found out today. Um, so the option is, you know, I can u have the door open and then closed at night time and they'll clean up on Saturday with whatever >> on Thursday. Could we shift somebody from the administration administrative staff to come over and help cover so we can keep it open? >> I could discuss that with them and see where we're at or >> public guys. I mean, they can just be going in and out. >> I think that would be acceptable. Um, and if I looked at the weather, it doesn't look like it's going to be great. So, >> we still have the cameras solved. >> Yep, we do. >> So, we could just have it open >> if there was nobody else to go with her. But because of that, that was another one of the reasons um she was potentially asking if we could maybe hire someone if we wanted to do it. If we wanted to stay with just Tuesday, Thursday, and um the second and fourth Saturday, they'll be happy to stay with that. Please go. >> Have there been any any complaints since we made this change? >> I have not had any. So unless any of you have none have really come through the through the office. Um what the staff has said it's nice because now there's two of them. One can be helping with the sorting of somebody, another can be bailing and it's busier. So there's not so much downtime like there was when they were open every day and then it just makes it a little bit makes the time go by faster than there is a year. >> Mr. Mayor, >> I'm content with leaving the hours where it is and I don't and if there hasn't been any complaints I don't want to I mean knowing that we're usually not in the flag um for for the recycling center that I don't wouldn't be recommending hiring another person on right now. I agree with you. I don't think adding to staff is is part of the plan. It's not in a budget. It's not anywhere. So, I do not >> Yeah. Changing the hours, I don't think is if as long as residents, you know, the majority of residents, we haven't had complaints from them. >> I don't see any reason to change it. >> No. And I think it's it's probably better for the residents because we're not continually changing the hours. >> Yeah. >> I think most of them made the adjustment. >> Mhm. >> Okay. So, we have to not have to do anything. >> We don't have to. Well, I just should have, you know, can I just have a motion to um keep the hours continually instead of having a summer hours because you did determine that in that motion last year, we said we would discuss it. >> So, move. >> Thank you. >> So, what what is the actual motion you're to keep? >> Leave the hours. >> Leave as is. >> Yeah. Leave ours as is. We have a motion to leave the hours as is for >> permanent hours. >> Permanent hours and we're not adding to staff for the council. >> That is a motion. Anybody? >> I'll second. >> Second. All right. Go around. Roll call vote. Council member Rainville. >> I council member Switzer. >> I have an I. Council member Blazer. >> I council. All right. We got your motion completed and approved. >> Okay. Lastly, we need to set a date for our goals. A work session date. Anybody can pull out their phones and tell us if they have availability. And when would that be? >> Like what month? This month. >> April 21st. >> Well, wow. >> So, is it possible we could do this in March and maybe do Tuesday the 24th? Is that possible? >> That's my P& >> No. And I'll be at the conference that week. >> Okay. So, that whole week is out. Maybe you as part of go set. >> I could do Monday the 23rd if we wanted to do it Monday night. We have girls here, but we could have them go downstairs. >> Works for me. >> You okay? >> Yeah. 23rd >> looking um No, that's uh Wait, March. >> Okay. No, not thinking of that. Sorry. >> Yeah, that's fine. >> 23rd >> at 6 o' Yeah. >> Yep. >> Council Rainbow, does that work for you? >> It does. Thank you. All right, it looks like everybody's good for March Monday, March 23rd at 6 p.m. I am putting that in right now so I do not forget. >> Um, and then you send out a a refresh email with all the things that we discussed >> for for goals. >> You had sent out some document. It was like seven pages or something. It felt like seven pages. You still okay for the 23rd? >> Yeah, I'm in the wrong for some reason. I don't know. Yeah. And then we'll just update what we've done so far this year off that list. >> So your email will be the drive, >> Mr. Mayor. >> Council member, >> we have to address the garage. >> Oh, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. We didn't put that in there, did we? >> Sorry. >> That's probably Sorry, >> it was on the amended agenda. >> Oh, thank you. Yeah, >> I forgot to add it to the agenda. Can we add it to the agenda at the end >> right now? We need to do it. >> I think it's added, >> Mr. Mayor. Council member >> or go ahead. Take it. >> Take it away. Well, we have to Oh, I make I made a motion to add the uh approval resolution for discussion of uh new garage door for city hall to the agenda. >> I say garage. >> No, just do the motion to approve it. >> So, well, don't we have to have some discussion around it? Usually you do the discussion, but we can do that. Go ahead. >> Damn, I can't take all this. >> I don't know. I got I got all flustered over this. I >> Well, did you look into this, Ken? Like the garage door and putting bids up. Was that one of your projects? >> Well, it kind I kind of I kind of gave my two cents. Um and and uh M Johnson went out and along with Eric Madson and solicited some estimates from some other garage door companies which proved to be fruitful. >> Well worth our time. >> Um one of the is this the time for discussion or >> Absolutely. >> So one of the questions I have is M. Johnson, you mentioned in here that um it looks like there's a deductible. >> Yes. >> Of $1,000. >> There is the there was $2,800 in labor and probably some few materials >> to get the doors to the condition that it's in now. So, the building could be secured. >> Yes. >> Is is that able to be claimed? >> I'm submitting it all and she'll submit and give me her decision after >> with the approval, but we are going to um staff would like to go forward with Acre Doors. Um, I would like to state that we did talk about that, but I'd like to give Erica's props, too, because he had it done before you and I had done and already had them coming and had the three ready to go. So, I just had to give him props for that, knowing, understanding. >> Um, and >> this is a great example of why we >> Yes, it is. I know it's work, but it helps keep the cost at a manageable level >> and it's and it was the exact same door. I spent some hours on about an hour and a half today trying to figure out why is it both so different. So, um ended up talking to each of the companies or leaving messages for them and then talking also to uh my husband actually does this and uses them. I'm like, "What is the difference between these doors?" Because it's a $5,000 difference and I couldn't figure it out. So, um, it is actually the exact same door, exact same manufacturer. So, we're good to go. And it looks like we can get it done in about 3 to four weeks. I did open the insurance claim on it because I was told uh we haven't had any insurance claims and it should not affect our premiums because it's such a small amount and that's why we've got small deductible to manage some of these. So, >> yes, sir. I'd like to make a motion to approve the um replacement of the overhead door uh at city hall for the shop and uh utilizing ac doors. >> I would second that. >> Multiple seconds. Anybody else want to second? I think we're good. >> Mr. Mayor, >> just a question. So, Council Member Glazer said purchasing new uh to replace the door, but we're just replacing the damaged panels. Correct. >> We're replacing all of the panels so that they will match, but we'reing rails and springs and the mechanicism of it. So, >> all right. Thank Thank you. >> Good clarification. Any other questions, comments? >> Move to vote. Council Brian. >> Council. I >> all right cuz