All right, we're going to call the meeting to order. Will the clerk please note those in attendance? >> All will be noted. >> Will you please rise and join me in the pledge of allegiance? I pledge algiance 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. >> All right, we'll jump into item two, approval of the minutes. I'd entertain a motion to approve the minutes from the regular city council meeting from October 28th. >> Second. >> A motion to second. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Any oppose? Motion carries. Minutes are approved. Item three, adoption of the agenda. We have uh two changes. We're going to move item 4 C and 4 E down to new business under eight. So 4 C will become 8B and 4 E will become 8 C. If there are not any other changes or corrections to the agenda to entertain a motion to approve the agenda. >> Second. >> Motion to second. All those in favor say I. >> Any opposed? We have an agenda. Entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda as amended. No second. Have >> a motion, a second. All those in favor say I. I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. The consent agenda is approved. Item 5A, public works engineering by annual report. Mr. Copy, whenever you're ready. >> Mayor, members of the council, uh tonight we'll do our uh bianual um report. Uh we're going to jump right into the meat and potatoes of uh our operations that we do. Um mix things up a little bit. We'll start with streets uh this go round. Um so pretty routine year for streets doing um kind of their day-to-day activities with uh throughout the summer months kind of looking at May through October. um really uh plays with hours of um or time spent on pavement management, pavement repairs, uh uh do paving, pothole filling, um do a lot of uh pavement marking, sign um looking at signs, um tree trimming. Um so this time of the year they'll get done with their um paving and and other maintenance operations and they move into tree trimming, getting ready for winter operations. um every year they drive all of their different routes and um trim trees to make sure that they're not hitting their uh plow equipment, breaking, you know, mirrors off. Um if you think of driving that big plow truck, those of you had the opportunity to do it. If you haven't, um let me know and we'll get you in one this winter. Um, but they're, you know, driving down the road and that, uh, passenger side is next to the, you know, curb line and, you know, they can't see the branches coming, so they, uh, hitting, uh, trees, so they want to make sure that they're not doing that. And then they, um, continually do some touch-up street sweeping uh, throughout the summertime, but uh, most of it, like our spring street sweeping, gets a lot of that sand and debris off the road. Um, summer really keeps a lot of the leaves and other uh woody debris out of our storm sewer system that tend to plug it, that tend to wash into our lakes and and wetlands and ponds. Um, so we really want to keep that stuff out. So, um, they basically, uh, starting September through as late as they can go, they um, sweep until the snow flies and get as many leaves off of the uh, road as possible. Well, so far they've done almost 300 lane miles throughout. A little bit of that is from the summertime, but the majority of it is from this fall yet. And um about just shy of 600 cubic yards of material. So um each dump truck is about 10 yards, 8 to 10 yards. So quite a few different quite a few dump truck loads of material. And then this summer they uh um I'll start with the last one. They did a another some more manhole repairs with our sewer department uh this summer. And then one thing that they did, our guys are getting more and more creative as they can, but the decorative concrete out on Highway 61. Uh they periodically have to put a sealer on it to make sure that it doesn't deteriorate and the colors don't fade and things like that. Um they got a new product that hopefully will last a little bit longer. And they were actually able to convince Mindot to provide the uh traffic control for the project. Uh so saving us some money and time and effort on our part. So kudos to the streets department for looking into different options uh for that. Uh water division um again pretty routine overall. Um the water usage uh is down a little bit from the last couple of years uh by about 10 million gallons. Uh we did have quite a rainy season so people weren't uh lawn watering as much and and um using water outside because we were getting rain. Um the uh they're quite busy with Gopher State one call utility locates. Um so that's up from about 1,600 the last few years. So uh quite a few utility locates um different projects going around both public and private. Um and then they had some major um renovations uh to the wells. Uh both well and well three and well four got new generators. Uh you would like to see them. They are quite massive but they keep our water running or will um keep that running during storms and things like that. We have gone to a natural gas generators for both of those generators. Um uh minimizing maintenance. So the diesel generators you had to switch from summer fuel to winter fuel a lot more maintenance. It's dirtier. Um the uh natural gas is much cleaner, more efficient. um you don't have to worry about refilling them uh during different storm events. Otherwise, you have to um have fuel trucked in and and put in the generator. So, kind of more maintenancefree. And then we're able to use them for our peak shaving uh through Excel Energy. So, saving us some money on our uh usage bills during high summertime uh demand for electricity. And then during our maintenance shutdown this year, they were able to uh replace a main feed valve into the plant uh which was starting to fail and um actually it was planned but as they turned it off it failed. So we picked the right time and and year to do it. So kind of worked out. um our parks and facilities division um again uh like last year mowing and more mowing um they um couldn't seem to keep caught up on that. So, um, as well as a lot of the different special events, park reservations that they did, uh, very busy, uh, year out there. And then just kind of the, uh, I call it routine, but you know, uh, playground repairs, park repairs. Um, again, all our hanging baskets and planting beds throughout town that everybody loves so much. So, um, kudos to all the, uh, horiculture staff that were out there doing that work. And then this is actually a very fun time for them once we get into October. Um they uh barely get the uh park shut down. So they winterize the all the uh park shelter or the uh restroom facilities. Um they blow out the sprinklers. They um pull in all the marina docks, the buoys. There pictures on the screen up there. You know, two lonely guys out there in in the fog taking the buoys out. Somebody's got to, you know, then they mark them so that they can find them again next year. So, a lot of those kind of things that just kind of go on scene and they uh get that stuff done. As soon as they get that done, they start decorating for the holiday. So, um next week is already our um will be our um annual second annual gazebo lighting ceremony. So, uh busy getting ready for for that with the uh decorations and the lightings and things like that. So, it's a quick turnaround uh from closing things up to start getting for ready for the holiday season. Uh this year, uh a number of uh projects that were taking place. The Lakewood Hills uh trail project um been fantastically wellreceived out there by the community and the folks that our park staff run into that are using it. Um they absolutely love it. So, um turned out to be a wonderful amenity to that park. Um Marina Gates went up this year. Um uh we added a hidden or a picnic shelter at Hidden Hollow Park and the uh had a quite the ceremony for the speech landing monument that parks helped facilitate get uh get a spot for it, get the concrete poured and the uh monument uh installed. So a lot of uh planning and effort involved in that. um fleets division um they keep um their um amount of work that they workload that they have continues to grow. Um we uh continue to go up in our preventive maintenance. They try to keep up with that. Um major repairs, uh we're up, you know, 25 to 50 over the last several years. So they keep doing more and more major repairs to vehicles. That's like brakes or engine work, things like that. not the oil changes, filter changes. So, kind of anything out, anything that takes a little bit more. Um, the outside vendor repairs, we we track those. Most of those are warranty repairs or things that uh we'd mentioned before, the bigger equipment, the big uh fire apparatus that can't go on the lifts in the uh in the garage have to be sent out or or specialty work that um we don't do in house, you know, transmission repairs, body work, things like that. And then um this year they or about every six months they're doing about 10 or so 10 to 15 DOT certifications. That makes sure our bigger trucks are all certified to be on the road that they're in good repair. Um this time of the year they're getting all the uh bigger equipment ready for the uh plowing season. Um and then um I mentioned it in the spring, but this year they with the uh police and fire squad outfitting um was a major undertaking by the uh our two mechanics. Um if you look on the uh top picture there, they get a pallet of parts and they turn it into a squad car. So they did uh two fire uh squads and they're working on completing four police squads this year. So, um, just looking at, uh, they decided to take it in-house, looking at the quality of it, the the, uh, the ability to do it in house and know what is done so that as they have to maintain these vehicles over the next number of years, they know how it was wired, they know how things were put on. Um, so the hopefully the repairs are easier. Um, versus getting it from a third party vendor. It's hard to trace somebody else's wiring and understand what they did. This is something they did so they know how it all works. um sewer division. Um I like to call these guys the they are so routine. They really uh work to keep our uh sewer system operating um so nobody knows they're out there. So they a lot of what they do is focus on jetting and televising our sewer system. So, they go in with a basically a big hose and they clean out all of our uh um sewer lines on a rotating basis and they televise it to make sure there's no um cracks or deficiencies in it. That might turn into a sewer lining project. And um this is the number we all love to see is zero sewer backup. So, that means what they're doing with their jetting and cleaning and televising uh is paying huge dividends. Um this year they did uh a few uh bigger projects. Uh they took on rehabbing the Whitaker lift station. A lot of valve repairs in there. They put a new generator. Um again that helps with some of the peak shaving as well as just it's one of the major lift stations in town to keep people's sewer flowing. Um that also is an a natural gas generator to help uh prevent uh or minimize maintenance on it. Um routine lift station maintenance. uh some minor valve repairs, structural repairs, lining, things like that. And then they got to have a little bit of fun. Um we the city purchased the uh the house next to South Fire and our sewer department um got to do a little bit of demolition with the two garages back there that were kind of falling over for safety reasons. Um decided to take those down this year and kind of get them out of the way so that nobody got hurt in and around them. So, um, they got to, uh, use it more as a training exercise as well. Uh, there's some folks that got to use equipment, learn on the backhoe and the skid steer and things that they don't get a lot of opportunity to do. So, um, it was a great, uh, uh, opportunity for a few days of training on different equipment for, uh, staff as well. Uh, public works administration, again, besides keeping things going, um, we really do a lot to help uh, organize the, uh, public works. We had our second annual public works open house which is wellreceived once again. Um Mary down at public works uh organizes the farmers market uh runs Fridays June through October. Uh very well received in the community for um an ongoing event and then the uh fall cleanup day. Uh they help coordinate all of the uh different vendors and the uh trash services and the different uh pickups. So um a huge undertaking above and beyond. One of the pictures you see, the final uh farmers market happened to land on Halloween. So, a lot of the different vendors as well as Mary had some fun dressed up and and uh folks seem to enjoy that as well. Engineering division. Um kind of a busy summer for us. Uh in uh we started off the season with a 2025 rehab project up on Division and 12th Street by the uh uh high school. um followed by a midsummer start. Uh just as we were wrapping up the uh street project, we started the downtown parking lot project which uh the final lot just opened today. Few punchless items with some lighting and and uh trees will go in tomorrow. So um uh yeah, it was a pretty packed summer for uh for the staff. Um, we also did, uh, this is kind of a catchup from the 2024 street project, but the sports center storm water swell project was completed this spring, uh, to help, uh, meet requirements for storm water uh, runoff from the 2024 street project. Just happened to coordinate better with the wershed district uh, to get that done this year versus last year. And then other activities that the uh engineering division does uh continue with development and house housing construction project reviews. Uh so we work very closely with the community development department to do reviews on any house and and projects that come through their department. Uh we did 59 rightaway permits. Those are typically uh private utilities that are doing extensions or um repairs within the rightway um so that we can manage them and make sure that they're done correctly and uh things get restored. Um GIS continues to be Matt continues to be extremely busy helping um not only the day-to-day kind of mapping projects. Uh we re uh did the or re-updated the ashtree inventory along with our um summer intern to get ready for uh our EAB um removal replacement project coming up. And then uh they helped or Matt helped with the zoning code update mapping for the community development department. Um so a lot of undertaking there. Um a lot of other little side projects for anywhere from police to community development, fire. So everybody's utilizing them. So it's uh um keeping him busy. Um we also did Rotary Nature's Preserve Restoration phase three. Um continue working on that with the Rotary Club. And then uh quite a bit of time spent on the Dog Beach alternative location review that was presented to council a month or so ago. Um finally just as a reminder um engineering and public works oversee two different commissions or staff liaison with two different commissions. Environmental ad advisory commission. Connie Kalon um is the staff liaison for that. Um always doing uh some different events. They uh they got a fall trash treasure day coordinated this year with the township. Uh again very well received. Um they did another buckthornne removal event. Um they do quite a bit to organize the EEC environment environmental expo at the uh market fest each year. So um again very well received, very well organized. And then they also attended the uh public works open house this year. Um likewise uh myself and Andy Whitiki uh from our parks department uh our parks foreman um are the staff liaison with the park advisory commission. Um they are really our eyes and ears out there in the community. Um aside from doing the fun things, they love doing the Arbor Day plantings each year. Um this year at Hidden Hollow Park, but really a lot of a lot of what they've done is uh public engagement and outreach through um not only our public works open house, market fest booth that they um the last three or four years now have done. They sit out there for four weeks each each summer taking turns um to get uh community input, but they also do park inspection. So, they rotate through and and uh go through and see the condition of existing amenities, uh talk to residents and and uh get their reaction to what they want to see within our park system and and report that back so that we can prepare uh appropriate CIP projects um report back to council on different things that the community is seeing. So, those are the activities that uh kind of went over the uh uh summer months, May through October. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. >> Thank you, Mr. Copy. Appreciate the detailed report. Um sounds like you guys had another busy summer. Um I don't have any questions. I'll just comment that the parking lots look great and it's exciting to have that done and makes me even more excited for hopefully next summer phase two with the rest of the downtown reconstruction. So, good job with that. Council, any questions for city engineer? All right. Thank you again. Appreciate it. I think you're up next. Item six, public hearings, a second reading of an ordinance amending chapter 706, the municipal code regarding trees. Mr. Coffee. Uh, thank you, mayor and members of the council. So tonight we will have the second reading and a public hearing uh for the um consideration of an amend an ordinance amending chapter 706 of the municipal code regarding trees. Um so uh summarizing what we talked about uh in the uh first reading um this really originated or the review of the ordinance regarding trees originated in the fall of 2024 uh following council acceptance of a Minnesota uh department of natural resources uh shade tree bonding grant. Um the grant was in the amount of $500,000 we um submitted um to help with our emerald ashbor um issue that we've seen around town. Um the grant requires that you know the trees removed and planted are on unrestricted property. Um currently there was some uh language nuances within our current ordinance that um put the responsibility of boulevard trees on homeowners. Um and that's the majority of the area that the uh Emerald Ashbbor has affected those trees. So that being said, um the city started or staff and uh legal staff started to review the ordinance to bring that into compliance to um have the uh burden taken off of the homeowners and um more control or uh responsibility of Boulevard trees uh to the city um which is pretty common um elsewhere. Um, so that being said, uh, besides looking at the the ownership component of the, uh, tree ordinance, we also just looked at general verbiage. Um it's uh I won't say quite outdated, but it hadn't been really been reviewed since the 70s and 80s as uh our uh legal staff had reviewed, but it really adds um you know, in talking with people and um outside of just the EAB um uh recommended changes, um just a lot of confusion with confusion with definitions. Uh so we added a definition section to the um proposed ordinance. um uh better define what a hazardous tree is and how to um um abate them. Um our ability to do or clarified the city's ability to do emergency abatement if needed of hazard trees. Um uh and really just clarified how the city can um better uh maintain its urban canopy within the public rights away um trimming, removal, and planting. Um and then just some uh deletion of outdated language that just didn't apply anymore or didn't meet current legal standards um based on the city attorney's review. So So tonight staff would recommend that city conduct the second hearing of the ordinance amending the city's code regarding trees hold a public hearing and consider adoption of the ordinance amending the city code. >> Happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you Mr. Copy. I will open up the public hearing for anyone who would like to be heard on the ordinance amendment to chapter 706. I do not have any names on my list, but if anyone would like to speak to this issue, you can step forward at this time. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing, bring it back to the council. Council, do we have questions for Mr. Copy or would someone like to move approval of the ordinance? Council member Edberg. >> Thank you, Mr. Copy. Over the summer, I believe we had an intern and potentially well um and potentially others um uh surveying the portions of the community that were included in our EAB grant. My recollection is that the uh uh $500,000 grant includes removal as well as reforing um of a certain amount and uh portions of mostly uh in W three, some in W four, some in W five. Um, do you have a sense of how many uh trees in the um that would be covered by this ordinance that will be removed as a result of um um of the EAB funding? Um, so just kind of um just kind of generalize. Um, so when the city first did a um back in 2018, the um um asht tree inventory um there were approximately 1,700 trees that were identified on the boulevard, ash trees, and about 300 in the parks in round numbers. Um, as part of this grant, we anticipate about 350 of those trees can be replaced. That's more that's less than what is actually in those two areas. But we anticipate um as we have um worked through as I explained at the first reading um the water gremlin replanting and um we anticipate that um there'll be people um um willing and unwilling to um to work with us. So, we're um uh within the grant application identified those two areas knowing that we would have additional uh trees to choose from. Um but pretty confident that 350 thereabouts depending on bids. That's our estimate based on uh going out and talking to several tree contractors as well as the tree trust who does the tree planting to kind of do some estimates as far as what the removal and replacement would be uh to kind of meet that $500,000 grant threshold. So, we backed into that and we get about $350 trees that we believe that we can um take care of as part of the grant. Are all those on citizen properties on boulevards in the targeted area described in the grant? Um so the areas that are target would targeted within the grant are so we looked at um so the uh grant application of the grant uh requirements um you have to look at certain um aspects of demographics um um different um criteria that you have to meet in order to um be a successful grant applicant. Um >> so we were successful at those two areas that seem to meet the um uh targeted um um criteria within the grant application. Um and uh based on that, that's what was submitted. That's what um >> you're describing the area that was described in the grant application for which we were successful. Kudos. That's good. I'm trying to get at how many trees in citizen yards, i.e. in boulevards ballpark are we talking about being uh being taken being removed with this funding? >> That's a 350. So that's that's what we think based on the funding and the cost estimates that we received. We think we can do 350 and the grant was uh so the one of the criteria within the grant is they have to be on public property. They cannot be on private property. So, anything that's within people's private yards are not eligible for grant funding. Um, the two areas that most cities have control over are boulevards or um parks. So the majority of you know as I explained earlier the majority of the trees that we have an issue with for that have been affected by emerald ashbor are the 1700 within the uh within the streets area or the boulevard area versus the about 300 within the parks area. >> I'm satisfied that um that's a good number for removal from our neighborhood. Um my recollections the area is approximately white bear avenue to bair F to E. Am I in the >> general area? >> Yep. >> Okay. Clearly, we have a whole lot of other city boulevards that are not going to be paid for with grant funds, and we're going to have to figure out something else uh for those areas. But a purpose for this uh for this ordinance was to make it eligible for us to include those residential trees in the um to be able to use these funds to support that. I want to just start by noting we have 90 miles of streets in this city. 5,280 ft per mile, 10 ft minimum of uh rightway on either side. That's 20 time 5,280* 90. And you divide that by 43,560t square feet per acre. We're got a we are taking over the management of over 200 acres of land. which makes it by far our our biggest park. Um it this is a substantial undertaking and the conditions become uh are proportional. So number one, this is a big deal. It's not a it's not a little thing and it's not just in one neighborhood. I have some concerns. Um, but my primary about language and we'll get to uh that in a moment. But a couple of the items specifically are the actions that would that need to be taken for hazardous trees, which may or may not be the same as dying trees. So, um I'm going to guess, Mr. Anderson that you were involved in drafting this uh um uh the ordinance. Okay. So when when we define a hazardous tree included and not limited to dying trees, does that make a dying tree synonymous with a hazardous tree and synonymous with a public nuisance? Or could you uh could you tease out that language for us, please? >> Sure, Council Bradberg. Um so mayor and council uh I think the question is the definition of hazardous tree what what does it mean? It's really any tree and and the point is to say whether it's disease dying or any other tree that because of its condition poses a likelihood of property damage or personal injury and um those determinations like any public nuisance uh definition would be made by staff and their professional uh judgment based on the condition of a tree. So uh to answer your question um it could be a dying tree, it could be a diseased tree, but um the main point is that the condition of the tree poses a likelihood of property damage or or personal injury. >> So according to that definition, how big a likelihood? In one section, we talk about trees that are that are an imminent danger to public health and that justify certain action to go onto private property. um ideally with uh land uh with homeowner or land owner approval but if not there's a a mechanism for that because of the imminent danger. How do we the council is is um delegating authority to staff? What boundaries might we want to think about on that on the delegation of power? And I'll give you a couple of examples. Not all dying trees become hazardous immediately. Not all a flag branch can be remedied with pruning. It may if not if left unchecked it may it may die. It may become hazardous. But just because it shows the signs of potentially being in poor health doesn't necessarily make it hazardous in the real world. How do we All right, I'm going to leave that for the side for the moment. The second concern, the do the financial impact on our on our homeowners from aggressive use of this um uh of this ordinance is significant. At our last council meeting, we talked Mr. Cowpie said that the trai uh the bids that we have been getting have been in the vicinity of $2,000 removal cost per tree. Um, now how we're going to do 350 trees with 500,000, that's a whole that's less than 200,000. I don't know how that math works out, but that's okay. We can leave that leave that to the side. Chalk that up to scale of uh scale of operations. Um, most Americans, it's when well reported, have way less than a thousand bucks in their savings account. If we're going to hit them with a $2,000 abatement cost for the loss of a tree on their property and give them 45 days to act and have that completed, we're at risk, I think, of imposing a significant financial barrier. I do note that the policy permits a couple of good things. Number one, it's discretionary, but there's an ability to have the uh have the debt, especially if the city performs it to um put on the property taxes and advertised over 10 years. And there's a senior citizen um uh they get to certify it and and hold it and it's paid when when the property Thank you. deferral. Thank you. And it's it gets paid. it just gets paid when the property changes hands presumably after they die, move into the home, whatever whatever that that situation is. I'm trying to figure out given the the scale of the tree removal issues that we have in place whether 45 days is the right number because we haven't established that all dying trees for example are necessarily hazardous trees yet. they may be on that way and I'm not trying to frustrate that. I'm saying if when it comes to the implementation of this great care needs to be taken because it's expensive, folks may not have those nickels squirreled away for tree removal and I think greater timeline and greater options are necessary. One specific timeline conversation is from the time that the city sends a notice to a homeowner that you have an issue. They have that's the date of the notice when it's sent when it's up in the corner. And then they have seven days. Now, it's not seven business days. It's seven calendar days, which is at least a couple of weekends in there. And I don't know about anybody else, but I don't trust the US Postal Service to give us the traditional two to three day turnaround. And then if there's anything else like somebody's not checking their mail, they are on vacation, blah blah blah. It's like I just don't think that's realistic uh in today's world given the communication systems that we are relying on. So I'm thinking there is need for us to have some conversation about exactly what are the ends and how rapidly do we seek to achieve them and how does that get reflected in the timelines that are in the ordinance. So I'm kind of laying all that out. I am not objecting to the ordinance per se. I am saying given the state of the of the emerald ashbor [clears throat] issue and that's the vast that's majority of it but it's not the only there are other species that have other issues and we just have dead and dying trees of other species as well. I'm just saying we need to be more thoughtful in how we structure the timelines, the expectations and the payment obligations and how we u how we impose those. Now, if I'm the only one on the council that has affordability of uh of our services as a concern, fine. I'll wear that. Uh if that's a concern, I suggest we as a council have that conversation about what are we really trying to do and how how do we seek to achieve attainment of this goal of removing trees over time. I'll stop. Can I jump back, please? >> Uh good questions, Council Member Edberg. Um, and maybe I can, if anything, put put you your mind at ease about what we're accommodating or accomplishing with this ordinance. Um, first of all, the the language, the way we've defined hazardous tree is intended to give staff the ability to take action when they deem um there's a situation that endangers public health, safety, or welfare when it comes to trees. What I will tell you is the language we have in here now about likelihood of of property damage or injury is actually narrower than the the definition you have in your code today. Um, so it actually makes that in my opinion a less uh of an issue from the standpoint of do we trust staff to implement this ordinance or not. Right now the city code defines any tree living, dead or any part thereof which may be considered a threat to the public welfare. what does that mean? Um, but what I'll say is it's good to have some flexibility in this language because you don't know what's going to happen with tree A, tree B, tree Z at any point in time. So to be able to give staff some ability to look at a situation and determine does it fit that definition or not is a good thing. But I what I would say is the language here that talks about likelihood of property damage or injury is much more narrow than which may be considered a threat to public welfare. That's the current language. That is the standard we could look at today, call it a public nuisance and require someone to remove it. Um, the second point that is worth making based on your concern about the current language and how much time someone has today, if we deem it a public nuisance, staff gives them 21 days. This ordinance, I pointed it out last time, council member, it it actually goes up to 45 days for them to actually act to remove the tree, assuming it's not an emergency. that would require imminent uh action by the city. Um so we're providing again uh uh less uh concern in that respect in this new language than we have in the existing ordinance. And then third, that 7day language that you mentioned, I I of course defer to council on all the language, but that one in particular, um you rais a good point about the mail. Um, I think everyone's probably noticed lately or in the last handful of years that you send something and it doesn't show up maybe for a few days or a few weeks in some instances. Um, but that seven days isn't intended to say um you have to remove your tree by then. It's it's the appeal period which they're provided an opportunity to appeal within 7 days the city's determination that the tree is hazardous. Today, our code has no appeal language in it. So, if we decide it's a public nuisance under the language I mentioned before that currently exists, there's no language in here that affords a homeowner the right to be able to challenge that, at least with the city. Maybe they could take certain action under under law or go seek review by a district court or something um seek injunctive relief, but there's no appeal right for them in the current code that um that we're including with that 7-day language. So that's the only intent of that language. But if there's a desire to make it 10 days or 2 weeks um just to ensure that the person received the mail and has the opportunity to contact the city and make an appeal if they disagree. Um I think that's perfectly fair just knowing how the post postal service is operates. So, >> so I would respond in part by saying the the current ordinance that hasn't been used for 30 years or that has it was created coming out of Dutch Elm. All right. And that that's where clearly where the language is is in several sections um specific to that disease which was it was a big deal. I'm not I don't think that's the right standard. I don't think our the revision goes far enough. I I appreciate that an appeal was added, but if it's only if they've got seven days and we're relying on the postal service to give them their days, I don't think that's adequate. Um, and if we they lo do not appeal within seven days, they are not guaranteed their appeal rights. And I don't think that that's a a very useful um citizenfriendly approach. So, I'm suggesting we at least look at that. Um, 45 days. I don't know. Has anybody gone out and tried to hire a tree trimmer in 45 days? And have you and were we able to get 40 get a turnaround in 40 45 days? Um, I think we're we're talking in today's market given the scope of this emergency in other places that 45 days is an unreasonable impractical standard under current um uh current industry conditions. Now, if it's imminent, if there's an imminent danger, yes, let's do that. But in the absence of an imminent hazard, I suggest we extend that um even farther than the 20 that used to be in the 45 that's in the draft because the the ability to get a tree trimmer into your neighborhood for an individual removal ain't going to happen in 45 days and we will have people automatically not in compliance with with statute or with ordinance. So we need to think through the practicality and the uh workability of the of the standard >> on the seven days. Those are reasonable points. Extend it. Call it 10 days. Call it 14 days. That's fair. That I don't think that's the biggest issue. It sounds like of the concerns you outlined um they've they've largely gone unressed for 30 or 50 years depending on how far back this one goes. And this is a huge improvement. So that's a good thing. As for the 45 days, I I would take the other side of the the position. This will be used in situations where it needs to be. There's an imminent threat and the the city staff has a history of not being unreasonable when it comes to these things. The city staff has has engaged with our citizens and have been able to exercise their discretion in seeing, for example, an honest effort and the pinch point being I can't line up a tree contractor. and in those situations like in others outside of land use that has very hard state law statutory timetables to grant extensions where needed. So I'm I'd be concerned going the other way and saying well it's just 90 days and then allowing that drift to inevitably happen. So the 45 days to me seems reasonable under most normal circumstances to the extent that there uh are extenduating circumstances you truly can't find a tree contractor. I have every confidence in the world that city staff will evaluate the resident on the merits and and see that they're making an honest effort and grant extensions and be flexible as they have with what has been a more tight um ordinance with regard to the discretion that the city could exercise and hasn't. They could have been tighter >> haven't because we don't have the staff to do it and it's been a low priority. We just haven't we've only recently begun paying attention. We've gone 30 years without paying attention to our urban forest and we have not gotten around it. We still do not have dedicated staff to urban forestry and the the issues of our trees. So the fact that we don't we haven't done it isn't because we're being nice. Now I would I would agree. >> Hang on. Just I just want some clarity on that. We haven't done it because we haven't had the staff. Those are I guess those are two different things. I want to track with that because that's that's a that's a bold assertion. So you're saying but for if we had more city staff then we would be less flexible with our residents and be clamping down. I'm saying that this has the whole issue of urban forestry has not been an issue of great concern to staff or to this the community until recently when it has been becoming very evident and that's so we just pl haven't made it a priority. That's all I'm saying. I would I would go with um the uh an inclusion of some language about the uh explicit authority for staff to grant extensions uh on the 45day. That might be reasonable, but something that gets at this reasonability. Now, again, this is a conversation for the council and other council members may disagree and I'm totally fine with that. Council member Hughes, >> I will tell you I had a neighbor who felt the pinch of the >> Yes, I will tell you I had a neighbor who felt the pinch of the 20 days and um was very upset by them. Um I recently tried to get um some tree trimming done and I called in June and it happened last week. Um no, I didn't have a dead tree, but it was a distinct problem. Um, what they would do with the pinch 2020 20 days though is ultimately you just go to the the guy that's willing to come out and charges you three times the price in order to get rid of the tree. So I am definitely for an extension and I think I I don't know that 90 days is necessarily unreasonable depending on what's happening but um I agree that 45 days is at least a necessary stopping or starting point um and that that could be even farther. Um, I think [clears throat] you know this particular neighbor's tree had a hollow spot in it and it had been like that for a number of years and hadn't been checked and was in no danger of doing any damage. And um and then when it was found and tagged, they had 20 days to take care of something that didn't appear to have any kind of imminent threat involved at all and probably could have gone a full 90 days before needing to be dealt with. >> Council member West. Yeah, I'm not sure what the um kind of magic uh number of days is, but I'm wondering if there's language that could be included about the extension process or being a that the city staff could provide an extension with extenduating circumstances. I mean, we kind of use that sort of language when there's practical difficulties in when we um uh do things with zoning. So, I'm just wondering if it's a little bit like that, like if there is a practical difficulty in getting somebody to manage the tree, then staff can work with the person. Any other comments? [clears throat] So on council member West's suggestion, I I assume to our city attorney, we could add something in there, some language that provides some sort of a discretionary extension, whatever that might be. Um, just to provide some flexibility to address those circumstances. >> Yes, mayor and council. I think that works. Um, assuming it makes sense from public works staff. I mean, I I think I'm hearing maybe something to the extent of 45 days or additional time in the discretion of staff if the property owner is [snorts] making reasonable efforts to engage with a a contractor. I mean, again, I think I defer to the folks that are going to be boots on the ground on this, but um go ahead. >> Thank you, City Attorney Anderson, Mayor, members of the council. Um, if that's the desire, I would I would recommend tableabling this so we can have time to think about it because we're we're supposed to be talking about hazardous trees. We're not we're not talking about trees that don't need attention, whether it's a limb or the entire tree. So, if that's the desire, then I would request that staff have one a couple more weeks to evaluate that. The last thing that we want, truthfully, is more time when it's a hazard when it's a truly hazardous tree. Um so I would if there's a consensus among the council on that I would at least request that you table that so we can really give some thoughtful um energy uh rather than kind of quickly drafting something at the dis tonight. >> So does is the consensus of the council that that 45 days is too short and that we need some mechanism for an extension. We haven't heard from from everyone um or or others satisfied with the ordinance as currently written and proposed. >> I'm I'm swayed by the arguments. >> Okay. So, let's I mean [clears throat] we we can table it and and give it some more thought, but uh we we'd need some direction to our city attorney for what it is we're talking about. So if 45 days is 45 days okay provided that there is some sort of a ability to extend and then what does that look like at the discretion of city staff? >> I I would be satisfied with 45 days. Um and then similarly as long as you know if there was if they needed more time it would be they'd have to be doing good quality touches. I also, not to back up the conversation, would like more than seven days on the um and we haven't really negotiated what how many days that is that we need to get through the mail. >> I would agree the good faith effort on the part of homeowners and then allow that discretion to uh to govern uh what extensions might be necessary, something along those lines. But yes, I want the homeowner demonstrating good faith. um there needs to be motion. If it's an imminent issue, let's take care of those. But the ones that are not uh in imminent danger, which I believe is a standard we've used in one portion of the of the language, um provide time to reasonably find a contractor that is uh going to offer a reasonable deal and be available. Uh, city attorney Anderson, is that enough to go on? Uh, do you want a little more guidance? Maybe you can see what what other mechanisms we can borrow from for what what an extension period looks like. Maybe it doesn't have to be a prescribed amount. It's just open-ended. Um, you know, provided there's continuing good faith from the resident. Um, something to that effect. What do you think? >> Yes. I mean, I think we can work with that. Um, I can work with staff, too, on something that makes sense. We're kind of threading a needle, but um we can make that work and bring something back that from what I'm hearing will appease the council. And in terms of the appeal period, are we thinking 10 14? Uh I mean, keep in mind that if we send that notice, the [snorts] homeowner is going to have or property owner is going to have 45 days at least to take care of the issue unless it's an imminent issue. Um, so there's no real practical problem giving them an extra week to appeal. Um, so I I'm comfortable with from a legal standpoint with whatever the council is comfortable with. >> So does 14 days strike the council is reasonable. >> Okay. >> So we've got the notice period and appeal right regarding hazardous trees trees deemed hazardous. Are there any other amendments that council would like to see? Council member Walsh. >> Uh no amendment. Uh just before we table this just and I at the risk of not being germaine to the to the ordinance. We're talking about trees. Uh we're talking about emerald ashbor. We talked about the grant which got a little bit off track from the ordinance. The grant to do the the the first group of trees. Just an opportunity to communicate. We have money and just remind me now we have money in the budget for 2026 planned uh to spend on tree removal and replacement emerald ashbor uh correct and then just sort of talk about maybe just give this opportunity because we're talking about trees to say what's the next phase you know we got it was great that we got the grant great job writing the grant getting the grant to to handle the first piece but that only handled 350 trees out of the 200 so what's the plan for for the future on this >> um mayor members of the council So, uh, Council Member Walsh, you are correct. There is, I believe in 2026, there is $140,000, uh, budgeted for, um, tree removals and replacements. Um, some of the money is also, uh, will be dedicated once we get going on the, uh, grant process. There's a few items that are not included. Some of the restoration items are not eligible uh, under the grant. So, a little bit of that is going to be used for some of those activities. The remainder of it would be to uh go into other areas and similar that we're doing with the grant um uh start doing systematic removal and replacement of trees and other areas throughout town. The two areas that we submitted through the grant process were um if you look at the map, I don't have it up on the screen or with me, but um they are the most dense um if you look at it from the inventory, they are the most dense um densely populated with ash trees than any other parts of town. Um most of the rest of the town is sporadic. There's each block's got a couple of ash trees. These are like full city blocks. That's all they are ash trees. Following emerald or Dutch elm disease as council member Edberg had mentioned um ash was a very popular hearty species that grew very quickly and people glombmed onto it and started planting them. Uh maples were maple uh was another one. They haven't been hit with any kind of disease quite yet. Um oaks weren't very popular because they take so long to grow. people love them, but they're um so uh that is very densely populated um just due to the time frame that it was developed and that happened to be the tree of choice at the time. Um under normal circumstances, they are a good boulevard tree, but um they got hit with EAB. So So $150,000 for next year to add to the [snorts] 500,000 really not a huge amount of money to make a dent in this problem. It's going to be multi multi-year of of putting money in the budget to come around and get emerald ashbor trees out of people's yards uh that that need to be replaced. So, but just good to communicate and if you if it's time I can uh offer a a motion to table the ordinance. >> I have a motion to table this to the next council meeting. Is that enough time? >> Okay. Motion second. Uh any further discussion on this? And just to clarify, we've had those the two points, the notice period and an extension period for the 45 days. That's what we'd like to see come back. All right. [clears throat] So, I have a motion, a second to table this for a draft commensurate with what we've discussed here at the dis. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Any oppose? Motion carries. The ordinance is tabled indefinitely until the next meeting. >> All right. Item seven, unfinished business. is the tobacco license review of MN MJ Tobacco. Mr. Anderson. >> Thank you, Mayor, and and councel. Um the memo in your packet on this uh item includes a recommendation from staff, including myself to to table this item to November 25th uh based on a request from the Lency and his attorney. Um since that memo was published, the city's actually been asked by the Lency's attorney for some data related to the business. and uh the past conduct and things like that so that they can have that information prior to the council's review of the license. Um staff is processing that data request. It just came in at the end of last week. Um of course Tuesday was a holiday. I know staff's diligently working on that. Uh but it is fair to provide that information to them certainly before we review and make a decision. So I'm just sort of reiterating and emphasizing the recommendations to to table this item until the 25th of November. Uh, no. That makes sense. It sounds like it's not quite right, but it will be later on this month. So, I would entertain a motion to table this to the next city council meeting. Have a motion to second. Any further discussion? >> Seeing none, all those in favor say I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. This matter is tabled until the November 25th council meeting. Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Item 8 A, conditional use permit and variance at 4350 Centerville Road, uh, Twin Cities Towing. Mr. Linda. Thank you, mayor, members of the plan commission. Excuse me, [clears throat] members of council. What? >> Sorry, old habits. [laughter] >> Demoted. [laughter] >> I'm sorry. You just threw me with that one. Um, so, um, as you mentioned, the application tonight is from Twin Cities, uh, Transportation and Recovery. They're requesting um these applications for the property at 4350 uh Centerville Road. Um as you can see in the map um on the screen, the property is located on the uh west side of 35 W or for 35E. I'll get it right here in a second. Um just south of the 35E and 90 Highway 96 intersection. Um the conditional use permit is for the vehicle towing service uh facility itself. The variance in question is for is uh to vary from the minimum lot size standard that's included in the list of conditions in the conditional use permit. And I'll tell you a little bit more about that here as we move along. Um throughout the review of this uh application, there were three comments uh generally opposing uh the project. Um and those three people also spoke at the planning commission and summary of that conversation is included in your packet. Um, one result of that conver uh of the testimony at the planning commission was an additional um requirement that's included in the resolution for the conditional use permit to add additional screening around the property and as was the concerns of those present at the planning commission meeting. Um recommendations for uh this application. Um the planning commission and staff are in agreement on recommending approval of the conditional use permit. Um, however, staff and the planning commission differ on the variance. So, uh, the staff originally, uh, recommended, uh, denial of the variance, uh, but the planning commission chose to recommend approval of that request. So, just a quick uh, couple of vis visuals to let you know what the site looks like. Uh, the site was um, originally a um, auto emissions site. Um it has uh was has been dormant for a number of years but had a few uses um since that uh program went away with the state. Um this is a rendition or rendering of how the site would look using the existing building. Um some slight modifications to the parking lot um where vehicles would be stored. That area would be surrounded by a fence for screening and security purposes. Um this gets you a look at the front of the building with uh uh how it would look. Um again note the uh significant uh fence screening along uh the right side of this image which is uh would be around the uh parking and storage area. Similarly the back side of the building you're seeing the fencing on either side and and how the building would be incorporated into that parking and storage area. So again the recommendations as I just talked about um the conditional use permit uh both staff and the planning commission recommend approval the variance in this case uh the planning commission recommended approval and staff recommended denial of that application. Um just some quick background on the site and the analysis that was done. The property is located uh um or excuse me is guided by as business park in the 2040 uh future land use map and the comprehensive plan. It's located in the newly created um uh industrial uh mix or ex zone as part of the uh zoning update that was done um over the summer. Um, as part of the conditional use permit criteria for this use, there are uh 15 um general standards that are reviewed. Those are detailed in your staff report. They generally relate to things like uh where these uses are located in town. Um the minimum lots or the lot area standards for the build for the use. Um a minimum building size, which is the third one there, which is the one that's in question here tonight. um how the storage area is located and screened, the amount the length of time that vehicles can be stored, um some general prohibited activity like the sale of parts or salvaging of parts and that kind of thing. And then screening and outdoor activity standards. Um the analysis also noted that there is basically um within White Bear Lake there are uh commercial or office warehouse uses around this site. uh 35E to the east and then across Centerville Road to the west is residential um in Vades Heights. Um and then um adequate parking and and um uh for the site. So [clears throat] the conditional use permit standards um that are detailed in your staff report. Again, you see um consistency uh from both staff and the planning commission on um agreeing with those standards. The asterisk would be by the third standard there complies with the zoning. Does does the application comply with zoning? Uh the planning commission agreed with that by granting the variance. Um staff agreed with that standard by um maintaining uh that the applicant just need to needed to meet the minimum 5% building area which would constitute basically adding about a uh 450 foot addition. looking at the the specifics of the zoning or excuse me the variance standard um we're talking about in the conditional use permit standard um there is included a minimum 5% building area standard which is what's in question here for the variance um the applicant um and their existing billing constitutes 4.12% of the site so we're really talking about 88% or again about a 450 50 square foot size of the building. Um the applicants um statements in support of the variance which the planning commission supported had to do with finding a practical difficulty on the site based on the fact that there is a flagged shape to the lot. that um outlined in the uh access area of the flag portion here in the boulder part of the driveway. Um is an easement also that allows access to both that this site and the site to the north. Um and that if you just looked at the usable um the portion of the lot or the portion, excuse me, not usable that but is actually um um not part of the flag. If you looked at just that portion of the lot, the building would actually constitute just over 5% of the site. So um looking at the criteria for variance again um the standard of measurement here has is has the applicant uh demonstrated that these criteria are uh applicable to this application and again plan commission found um that they did agree that it was within uh harmony with the purpose intent of the ordinance that it was consistent with the comprehensive plan uh that the property was being used in a reasonable manner and that there was a unique uh circumstances to the property. Again, the flag shape um um of the lot. Um and uh that it would also not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. So, uh with that, um again, there's uh agreement from PL from the planning commission and staff on the conditional use permit um and recommending approval. There is um disagreement between the planning commission and staff with the planning commission v uh recommending the council approve the variance request. The resolutions for consideration and the motions before you tonight are based on the planning commission's recommendation for approval and have been adjusted uh to reflect the planning commission's findings um related uh to the variance. Um the uh staff's findings were really detailed in the staff report and available for your consideration in the discussion if that's the the the choice of the council tonight. Um but again, what I wanted to emphasize for you is the two motions before you tonight represent both uh approvals of the conditional use permit and the variance as recommended by the planning commission. And with that, I'd stand for questions. >> Thank you, Mr. Lindo. Um before we jump into questions and deliberate, um the applicant is here. You had a public hearing at the at the planning commission, so there's nothing formal, but if you want to say anything that might help us make a decision, you're more than welcome to have the floor. No obligation, but we want to hear from you if you if you have words to say. >> Yeah. And if you could just state your name and address for the record, we'd appreciate it. Thank you. >> Sure. Uh my name is Josh Vades. Um, address currently is 1720 Mer Drive, Lakes. Um, spoke with at the planning commission as well. Um, I'm with Twin State Transport and Recovery as a district manager, formerly with Fat Stoing for a very long time. Um, basically the the issue for us is just the the usable space of the lot there, right? It's got the long flag leadin driveway with the easements making that that space there somewhat unusable. And that total counts against us for the building size ratio. Um there is another metric in the um in the code for the cup to control the size of the building to the size of the outdoor space which is what the building size to the lot size is intending to do too. Um I believe the building can only the outdoor storage area can only be six times the footprint of the building and currently the proposed outdoor storage area is two. Right. So, the challenge for us is that we have this this lot that is ideal for us with this long driveway. We don't need to be out on the street for the public. Um, but the challenge for us is that that part counts against us then for the building size. The majority of our business is done offsite in the field. We're out helping customers on the side of the roadway um maybe in a parking lot, broke down with their car, something like that. So additional um size of building is not is not going to help us. Uh just one correction Jason it was about 800 square feet I believe wasn't it would be the addition size if I'm not mistaken. >> Um yeah I'm I'm sorry if I misspoke. It's about 850 square ft. So, um, our intent is to repurpose a building that has somewhat been underutilized in the recent years and kind of gone into into disrepair. So, we're hoping to revitalize it. Um, part of the like the vestibule that um, we had decided to take off because it's not ADA compliant, trying to upgrade it to make it accessible for everyone and um, bring a little bit of life back to it and to that area. uh with the goal being that we are a good neighbor to to the businesses next to us, good neighbor to those in the community. Um historically that's that's what it's been and we're very proud of that. >> I just have one quick question if you if you don't mind. Um, so if you were forced to add 850 ft just to check all the boxes in order to utilize this, is there any real actual use that you would have for it or are you putting up square footage just for the sake of checking this box? >> It would be just for the sake of checking this box, right? We're not looking to house a bunch of vehicles inside the building. Um, we're not looking to work on trucks out of the building. where the trucks would be parked in the three bays that are currently there because they're there, right? Nice to keep them warm. Our drivers would be happy to get into a warm truck, not have to brush it off with a snow brush before going on call. So, it it there wouldn't be an uh an advantage to us to do that. We would just be meeting that requirement. >> And and to clarify, the intent is that this would then move the location that's currently on Bald Eagle A that's been operating there for some time. So it gets it out of a towing operation in a pretty residential area to now what is much more of a commercial area of the city. Is that correct? >> Absolutely. Absolutely. Um and that's one of the things um you know we do have a current lease at the other property that we would like to to continue until it ends. Um however at that time right once we were able to get the property at 4350 ready uh so that we could actually um work out of there we would transfer most everything to that location in order to to have that be our main area. >> Very good. Uh council do we have any questions for Mr. Badness? Thank you. Appreciate you being here. >> All right. Thank you. >> All right. U if council has questions for Mr. Lindell. Um, just punt for one second. I just I want to clarify with our city attorney because the variance thing is kind of this this squishy issue of, you know, what's what's within our discretion, what's not, and I think it's very important to make sure that we're staying kind of within the left lateral, left legal lateral and right legal lateral. Um, so my question for the city attorney is, are there facts on the record as you see them that we have some flexibility regardless of which way it goes to still be in a defensible position for the city? >> Uh, your I was going to say your honor, speaking of old habits, die hard. [laughter] >> Your honor, I mean, it's not going to bother me at all. I kind of like it. >> I was in court this morning, so I'm used to it. Um, mayor and council, you know, the the practical difficulty standard, it's it's relatively new in the legal sense because it's only been around for what, 10 or 15 years. U, but it's a three-factor test. We've, you know, Mr. Lindall summarized the reasonleness, the uniqueness, the essential character elements um nicely in his his materials. It's not a cut and dry standard. It's a quasi judicial review, meaning the council needs to apply the facts of of a variance to the standard, and if it fits, you can grant it, and if it doesn't, you can deny it. But there's there's gray area there. There's with any situation when it comes to land use and uh property, everything's very unique. And um city councils are generally afforded uh quite a bit of difference when it comes to their um decisions on land use applications like this. There's a record here that the planning commission analyzed it carefully and and came up with a recommendation that suggests that it it meets that test and and can be approved. Um and so I think the council has the ability and flexibility to make that decision um based on how it feels um with the record in front of it. >> Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. Council, do we have questions for Mr. Lindell uh or comments on this? Council member West. >> Yeah, I just um could you bring back the slide that has the um coun or the um staff versus the planning commission. Um yes that so it is to my recollection quite unusual that the planning commission would agree on all the things and the staff would disagree on all the things. Correct. Mayor, members of the council, I I I think it would fair to say that it just generally it's it's unusual for the planning commission and and staff to have different recommendations. Yes. >> Yeah. Yeah. Um I'm I'm wondering if you because you were there um if there is a a kind of a quick explanation for what really was the kind of the main factor in their conversation for planning commission that was like okay this makes sense to us. Uh, mayor, members of the council, I think the [clears throat] um I tried to touch on this and I'm sorry I'll emphasize it again for you, but I would I would say I and I hope the applicant is is in agreement that I'm reiterating their um position correctly, but um as Mr. Vadness 70 came up and staff said it earlier the the planning commission looked at this application and supported the the applicant's position that the flag sh nature the flag shape of the lot limits the size of the area that's usable to them. So they chose to look at uh the 5% minimum [snorts] standard in the for building area more based on the usable space of the lot because flag lots are you know unusual. Um they they then found that there were really you know unique c unique circumstances for this property that supported granting the variance. They also um uh supported uh the applicant's position that the easement over the flag area further limited the use of that property. Now the easement itself pro just provides access to the property to the north. So it's an easement between those two private parties for shared access. >> [snorts] >> Um but in but it was primarily the planning commission's decision that they they supported the applicants um um position that uh there was unique characteristics of this lot that prevented it from really meeting the standards and that then they then supported the variance. >> So let's tease that out for a second. There's an easement over what we'll call the pole part of the flag lot, right? Uh can they build on that? >> Well, uh mayor and members of the council, no, they couldn't. >> Okay. >> Right. I I'm I'm just I'm trying to paint a picture for how plausible the argument is of it's a flag lot and you couldn't fairly build on that. I understand it's not how our code is written. And it's just you take the square footage and it's a percentage. Um, and we're 88% off. So, we're pretty close to what is already a pretty small percentage. You know, it's not like our expectation is 50% as in, you know, other maybe parts of the the code. Okay. Any other thoughts, comments, questions on this? Council member Walsh. Well, thank you. I I was going to ask for the same slide to come up because I was surprised to see that then I'm I'm rereading your memo. So, you're you're really putting a lot of work into the the 5% lot coverage requirement and you're you're kind of using that to disagree with everything else up there. Um I guess my question is what's can you just it is a little bit in the memo I think at the end. I think I read it somewhere. I couldn't find it again, but maybe you can just articulate what's the interest, what's the state's interest, the city interest in in this requirement at all? Why do we care that the lot the building has to be 5% of the lot? Can you just help me articulate that a little bit? >> Yeah, mayor, members of the council. So, um, to give you a maybe just a little bit more context, and I'll get there as quick as I can. I'll try. So the as I me as I mentioned before the uh EIX or industrial commercial mix district is newly established in the zone in the in the new zoning code and this use is also newly established. Uh prior to the new code in the city, there were no standards for towing service facilities like the applicant has. Their existing pl their existing location in town predates the city's zoning completely. So they are the textbook example of a grandfathered use. Okay. Um, and so when we noticed these conditions and heard from the applicant, we worked with them to draft standards into the new code and we used existing um vehicle related businesses and towns and and and our standards for those. For example, if you look at things like car dealerships and our standards for those, we include um historically, not just in the new code, in the previous code, historically we had a standard that car dealerships provide a minimum 10% building. Now looking at that the and the reason for the minimum size of the building is to try to avoid situations where people just use property within town for storage of vehicles and there really isn't much tax base or job for jobs for the community. So in an effort to try and promote jobs in tax base, we placed minimum minimum I would emphasize um building size standards to help support those goals. And in an acknowledgment that that Mr. Vades raised that they don't need the same amount of space as a car dealership, for example, because they don't have customers coming in negotiating deals. they don't have um commercial vehicle repair operations where people are getting their vehicles repaired and and the like that. So we lower so we created the new standard and essentially cut it in half. Um but again pro attempted to put into the ordinance some support for a minimum lot size for tax base and jobs. Now again to Mr. Vadness the applicant's credit. He mentioned that the ordinance not only comes at it from a minimum lot size standard but also um sets a standard that there's a ratio to building size and outdoor storage area to balance those things and it is six times the lot area. And in this case again the applicant is correct. They're really only have about twice the size of their building. So the answer is we're going to we want to limit storage. We want to limit the eyesore. The the would be the interest for the city perspective is we don't want a lot full of stuff, dirt, cars, something, you know. So that's that's the trying to get at the the reason for the the rule. Um I I I'm not convinced. Um I there's there's a lot of good here. the the the in the the moving moving moving from the neighborhood out to this location is really good. Really good. Um I'm not I'm not concerned about that they're off by8% on the on the variance. I would absolutely support the planning commission uh decision here. Um there we know what the use is going to be. I'm not worried about the the the interest of it's going to be a lot full of cars or a lot full of stuff that we don't like. It's a nice fenced in area. They're going to have cars there for sure as they told them as they come and go. But um it I'm not bothered by this at all. So I'm ready to support the what's in front of us which is the planning commission recommendation. >> Is that a motion bill? >> If you're ready for that then yes absolutely. Now the first I think there's two votes so I'll just move whatever the first one is in the packet. So, I have a motion and a second on the resolution. Let me find where we're at. There's only one resolution here. The CU uh motion second on the condition. >> Mayor Council, excuse me. If you look on the other side of your packet, the other page, the first the first motion, I'm sorry, I can bring this back up, relates to the variance. And procedurally, that's just to make sure that we're taking if we're granting a variance from the standard within the conditional use permit that we have a mechanism to do that. So, I'm sorry to interrupt. Procedurally, the variances first. >> So, okay. All right. So, [clears throat] do we want to amend that a motion to approve the variance? Do I have a similar second on that? >> All right. Any further discussion on the resolution approving the variance? >> Seeing none, all those in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. The variance is granted. I'd entertain a motion to approve the conditional use permit. >> Second. >> Have a motion, a second. Any further discussion on that? Seeing none, all those in favor say I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. The conditional use permit is granted. We're all off tonight, huh? [laughter] Queen Crawford. Uh, no, Mrs. Crawford. >> Thank you. Uh, yeah. Thank you, Mayor. Members of the council, I want to clarify because I I think I heard something different from what maybe others heard, so I wanted to clarify. >> Does do you intend to move 100% from the current location on Bald Eagle to Centerville? >> Yes, we do currently have a lease though and we'd like to continue until it ends. >> Okay. >> Right. However, once the property at 4350 is ready, we would be moving as much of the operations as we could there as soon as we could to operate out of that location. >> All right. Okay. Can I ask when that lease is done? [snorts] >> Okay. Okay. And then I just wanted to uh staff worked a lot during the zoning code update with the applicant. I know you were here for all of the council discussions. Um staff worked a lot on this. Um I do support staff's uh recommendation over planning commission. It doesn't matter, but I do want to just say state that um and and staff has done a a great job on the zoning code. This was a little bit of a tricky one. I know that you were part of uh the the discussions and knew that a variance uh application would be coming forward. So happy to have it across the finish line uh in your favor and but staff, good job. Thank you. appreciated working with staff as well through the whole process. There's a lot to learn and there's a lot that we were able to agree on. >> So, >> very good. Thank you. Appreciate it. [clears throat] [cough] Here. I thought we were almost done, but I forgot we moved two items. All right. Item A8B, canvasing results. Miss Longike. >> Good evening, mayor and city council members. The White Bear Lake City Charter calls for a general municipal election on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November in odd number of years. This year, the election was held on Tuesday, November 4th, 2025 with the mayor, Ward 2, and Ward 4 on the ballot. The abstract of votes cast has been provided by Ramsey County, who administers the city's elections and has been distributed to you with the following candidates receiving the most votes. Mary Niklosski for the mayor's seat, Ellen Gerola as council member for Ward 2, and Kevin Edberg as council member for Ward 4. As always, I would like to thank the Ramsey County Election staff for administering the city's elections and being a great partner through these critical events. As the canvasing board for municipal elections, you are being presented with a resolution to canvas the votes for the 2025 general municipal election with staff recommending you to approve. And I'll stand for questions. >> Thank you, Miss Longike. I would entertain a motion to approve the resolution. >> So moved. >> Motion a second. Any further discussion on this? Council member Edward. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, Miss Longike, did we have any issues with with elections administration this year that we would want to note, flag, pay attention to? Did anything pop up? Speak the results. >> Council member Edberg staff was not notified of any issues. So, I would say no. >> So, there was one question about we had two [clears throat] polling locations directly across the street from each other. Ward three was on the west side of Bair and and Ward four was on the right on the east side of Bair. The intersection had vote here signs pointing both directions. Was there any reports of confusion or did that work out okay? >> Council member Edberg, I did not hear of any issues. Um, I would suspect that we would hear about that and Ramsey County helps seek out those election polling locations and if there was an issue or confusion, they would remedy that. >> Okay, cool. I'm happy with that. I have one other question and I don't need an immediate response. Do would we um so if if this has been something people have thought about, great. And if not, think about it and feedback. Would we would the city save money if we went to uh even year elections and combined our elections with uh um with regular elections in the uh even years? Do we pay a premium for having our uh our offy-ear elections? >> Does anybody know? Have you done any thinking about that? >> Mayor, council member Edberg, I have not given that thought. Uh would require a charter amendment which is uh possible. Um but I have not given that thought. I if I were to make an assumption, I would say we probably may >> uh perhaps uh save save funds, but we could look into that uh if the council uh is interested in that. >> So, the reason I ask is I'm looking at property tax assessments and we're not getting a whole lot of relief. City is uh and so I'm looking for all of the options. We may not choose to implement any of them, but I'm trying to understand the magnitude of various things that we could change in the way we do business and how much that might provide some cushion to uh our residents. Um reduced expenditures comes with all kinds of trade-offs and I'm not advocating for it. I'm just trying to get my head around what's the number and what does that set of goodies that we are currently enjoying how much does that cost us maybe not maybe not much I don't know but that's basically my question thank you >> all right any further discussion seeing none all those in favor of approving the resolution say I >> I oppose motion carries resolution is passed all right item 8 C uh resolution approving special event policy. Miss Crawford, I believe that you're taking this. >> Yes. Thank you, uh, mayor, members of the council. Uh, Wiper Lake continues to be a popular location for a wide variety of events throughout the year. Community events bring vibrancy and economic activity to the city, but also require careful consideration, especially when involving city- owned property uh, and alcohol offsite from a licensed premises. Therefore, uh city staff has developed a special event policy uh for the city to use. Uh the policy uh was designed to ensure that events held within the city are well organized, successful, and of course, most importantly, safe for participants, attendees, and the broader community. Uh the possible policy will also be used as a guide for consistent and efficient review of applications which uh comply with city, county, and state regulations. The policy before you outlines uh types of events requiring a permit, submission deadlines, regulations, accompanying permits, and supporting documentation as well as submission instructions. Um really this is everything that we are currently doing. Um but we do not have a policy um to do that. So, this is something that uh um I looked at quite quite frankly about several years ago and said we need to memorialize and solidify um our practice. And so this is this is doing just that. Um it's taken us a little while to get here, but um need something in writing. And so that's what we were bringing forward tonight. So by implementing this policy, the city aims to support community engagement and economic development while maintaining public safety and minimizing disruptions to resident b residents and businesses um to ensure the procedures were easy to follow and use for applicants. Staff uh did solicit feedback from Main Street and Marketfest as they do currently submit a um many special event applications. So we did solicit their feedback. Um I also I also should note that the policy was drafted um mainly by my office by the city clerk but did solicit feedback from all the departments that um that regularly review u special event permits which is you know um fire fire marshall, police, public works um engineering um and administration. So, we've been working on this for a good nine months or so, and we are ready to bring it forward uh for council consideration. And so, with that, I will stand for questions. >> Very good. Thank you, council. Any questions for Miss Crawford? [snorts] >> Council member Edbert. Mr. >> Mayor, I had two and resolved, I think, most of them in conversation with the city manager today. Um, Miss Crawford, the um it Is it the intent of the administration that this policy apply to public demonstrations, protests, other kinds of either planned or non-planned events that might involve constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly? >> Uh, Mayor, Council Member Edberg, this policy does not aim to do that. uh that those demonstrations and rallies and peaceful demonstrations have specifically not been included in this policy. Um we of course appreciate a heads up and that we have been afforded that and um therefore public safety has been aware of over half of the demonstrations that have uh occurred in Wiper Lake. But this they are not required to get a a special event and that so nothing would change on that front. I would simply like the minister to reflect that uh that statement. Um and I'm completely satisfied with that response. Thank you. Um so there is one piece of language and and we you may want to tease out some nuance in the language about the exclusive right or reservation of um one entity. There is only one nonprofit entity that is under the language able to reserve the entire portion of the park and that's Main Street. Nobody else gets that privilege. And so I raised that question. Excuse the school district also has that and there's a nuance I think in the language that is worth noting and and explaining. Could you share your your comments about that? >> Sure. Thank you. Uh, Mayor, Council Member Edberg. Um, the park you're referring to is Railroad Park and, uh, historically since probably for the last 30 40 years, the city's practice has been to limit the use of limit the reservation of Railroad Park intentionally and for various reasons. And one of those reasons is that it's a central location. So we would like to allow everyone in the community to use that and equally not limiting its use to uh private parties. In addition, the limited parking in downtown um you know for businesses already would would would not support regular use um of the park of Railroad Park by large private groups. Again, not all parks in the city are rentable or reservable. Um and Railroad Park has traditionally been one of them. So, we I would not recommend um allowing the gazebo in Railroad Park to be uh rentable. We do, as you said, allow um Main Street uh to use that and and in conjun in conjunction um with events that that actually don't compete with downtown businesses um and as well as the school district and coronation takes uh takes place there. But you may recall uh several times on the consent agenda the city council authorizes use of railroad park and that's the exact reason uh the city council doesn't authorize use of other city park reservations but we historically have always brought that forward to city council for your review and and that I believe is the the reason behind that. >> [snorts] >> So if somebody else other than Main Street wanted to have have an event, whether it was an exclusive use or a non-exclusive use railroad park, is anybody else able to um make use of that park under some type of a reservation system? >> No. And so the um spontaneous folks walking by able to enjoy the ambiance, but the only entities able to reserve that space are city and excuse me, the school district and um >> Main Street. >> Main Street. >> That's correct. As well as Manito's events and market fest. Yes. And are all other uses that we grant permission for Railroad Park though? We've had other events there, haven't we? Or are they all been sponsored by Main Street? >> Uh, Mayor Council Member Edberg, I believe they have all been sponsored by Main Street. >> Okay. It it struck me as an unfair >> a segregation of use. Um, now I'm not I'm not gonna die on that hill, but it's like is it in is it a fair to use a public facility and restrict it to certain individuals uh and certain entities? Is that fair and reasonable to all the folks who pay to maintain it? And so that was that's the equity question that I would raise. I don't feel a need to uh belaborate further tonight, but I did want to draw draw attention to it. Mayor, Council Member Bradberg, if I could elaborate, it actually allows a very equitable use of that park by allowing the public to always use it. Um, versus uh allowing Lindy Crawford and her family to exclusively use it. Um, and me say, you know, Mr. Jubie, you're not allowed here. This is my party, but it allows it to be maintained as a public use uh year round. And then the events that are are supported by Main Street Market Fest and Manage Days are obviously open to the public too. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Okay. I'd entertain a motion to approve the resolution before us that accepts the special use permit policy. >> Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. The resolution is passed. Item nine, discussion. And we have nothing scheduled. Item 10, communications from the city manager, Miss Crawford. >> Uh mayor, members of the council, just one thing tonight. I don't have any slides. Um but just one thing. Uh speaking of Railroad Park, we are going to have our second annual uh holiday gazebo lighting that is open to the public. And uh Mr. Coffee talked about it, but uh that is next Wednesday from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. And I believe Mayor Lewis Bet will be kicking off things. Go ahead. >> No, everybody should come join. I'm going to say nice things and then turn on a bunch of lights. It should be fun. >> All are welcome. >> That's all I have. Thank you. >> All right. Very good. Any questions for our city manager? >> All right, council. I know we have a work session, so I'll be really, really brief. High school students, welcome. Thank you for attending. 23 years ago, I sat where you are for Mr. Malum's class, completing the same assignment. So, uh, we welcome you. We're glad you got out here with a relatively brief council meeting, an hour and a half. Not too bad. you guys can give the three guys a hard time that slipped in 20 minutes late and then left almost an hour ago. Um, don't know what that's all about. Um, we hope you got we hope you got something out of this. Uh, I'm biased, but to me, local government is is a wonderful thing and the best layer of government because it's the things that touch your everyday life like water, police, fire, ambulance, public works. We got to see all the things that public works does. the stuff behind the scenes, the unsung heroes that help provide the city services that make our everyday lives hum along nicely. So, I would encourage you uh now or in the future or 20 years from now to participate in local government in some way. You could run for office. You could volunteer for a board or for any of the civic groups that we have amongst the community. But please think seriously about participating in some way in local government. Uh you won't regret it and we we thank you for being here. So as soon as we adjourn, you can come up and anyone on the dis can sign your pieces of paper. Thank you. With that, I'd entertain a motion to adjurnn. All those in favor say I. We're ajourned.