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. Any changes to the agenda? Turn that on. Um, anyone want to make a motion to approve the agenda? I'll make a motion. All right. I'll second. All right. All in favor? I. Okay. And then public comments. This is the public opportunity to comment on items not listed on the agenda. Do you have anything that's to comment that's not listed on the agenda? Didn't think so. Right. Any announcements? And then approval of the minutes. Consider approval of the following minutes for February 25th, 2025. I didn't notice any changes or any corrections. Anybody else notice anything? No, I didn't have any. Okay, I'll make a motion to approve. Anyone want a second? I'll second. Okay. Okay. All right. Public hearing. Consider amendment to city code concerning cannabis related business. To vote on it. Oh, I'm sorry. What? Oh, do I have to vote on it? Oh, I thought I Sorry. All in favor of approval of the minutes. I I sorry. All right. Public hearing. Consider amendment to the city code concerning cannabis related businesses in the B6 I1 and I2 zoning districts. Um yeah. So the amendment to the zoning code is based on cultivation. Um anything that we did last year we did as per um conditional use because they didn't have the rules out yet for the office of cannabis management in Minnesota. um they have the preliminary rules rules out now and we feel comfortable that it would be much simpler for everyone if we made it permitted use instead of conditional in all those various uh zoning districts. Um the primary reason is because we have 30 days to respond back to the office of cannabis management and conditional use permits take longer than that and I don't see how that's going to work out well. So yeah, I noticed that difference. So it's kind of just a bylaw basically. Yeah. Okay. Great. Um, any questions before I open the public hearing? No. Right. I'll open the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. Anyone want to comment on the amendment to the city code considering public or concerning cannabis related businesses? Please step to the podium, state your name and address for the record. Is there anyone online? Okay. No, there's nobody online. Okay. I'll ask again. Anyone wanting to comment on the amendment to city code concerning cannabis related businesses in the B V B V B V B V B V B V B V B V B V B V B6 I1 and I2 zoning districts, please stand to the podium, state your name and address for the record. And I'll ask one more time. Anyone want to comment on the amendment to the city code concerning cannabis related businesses in the B6 I1 and I2 zoning districts? Please stand to the podium. State your name and address for the record. Okay, I will close the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. Any questions concerning the 30-day and 60-day? No. Okay, it's pretty clear. Okay. So, you do we just need to make a recommendation to the city council regarding the amendment to the zoning code. Okay. I'll make the recommendation to amend the city code to um what do you want me to say? Like the uh adopt ordinance draft ordinance. Yeah. Okay. A draft the draft ordinance to meet the proposed amendments. Okay. Anyone want to? All second. All in favor? I I. Okay. Right. General business. Um, a concept plan review of Dakota Acres, second edition, True North Development LLC applicant. Applicants are in the audience tonight. So, if you have any questions after the presentation, um, feel free to ask them. So, we last saw this back in December, uh, December 17th at our planning commission meeting. The concept has changed a little bit since then, so I'll go kind of quickly through the stuff that hasn't changed as much. Um, the property here is located directly west of Dakota Acres First Edition. It's proposed for town home units, similar to the first edition. Uh, 40 town home units in total. Here's a site plan. again general location. Uh the proposed plan does meet required density as required by the comp plan. Um the zoning is proposed to be R4 um actually PUB zoning with underlying R4 district. Apartments and town homes with more than eight attached units are permitted uses in this zoning district. And as mentioned, it does meet the density requirements. Um, as part of the development, there would be a private street running north and south. As part of that, the city code requires that PUB zoning be applied anytime there's a private street running through a development. As part of the PUD process, the applicants have indicated to staff that they intend to achieve the intent of the city's PUD zoning ordinance by including landscaping above the city's standards to offset the effect of any variations granted as part of the PUD. The concept plan provided shows 36% of landscape space which exceeds the city standards by 6%. Um R4 standards, we've gone through those before. Uh it does meet all the the parking setbacks, uh the building setbacks. Um it does not meet some of the minimum width of the units um as we mentioned before. Uh and also it does not meet uh the attached unit number. Um in the southern half of the development here, there's five units and six units. Um anything less than eight is not allowed as part of the R4 zoning district. Uh so that would all be part of the PUD approval process as well for the southern units as well as the southern units not achieving the minimum width of 25 ft. I think they're somewhere just over 20. Maximum height, pretty standard. Um, nothing's going to go over 35 ft. Um, for this zoning or type of housing, the city regulates building facade finishes to consist of class one, class 2, class 3, or class 4 materials listed here. It does not include wood. Um, actually class 4 includes wood. Um but there are a little higher standard requirements some mis miscellaneous requirements uh to go along with the building exterior building facade finish. Uh 25% must be class one which consists of that brick stone glass. Uh we see that a lot of times just in front of the garages. As mentioned before 30% of the site shall be landscaped. uh they're uh they're they're applying to exceed that by 6% as part of the PD zoning offset. There is no wetlands on the property and a new delineation will not be necessary nor required by the city. UT utility plans have not yet been received, but sewer and water are both available to the site uh via Stubs and James Parkway. easements. Uh 10- foot perimeter easements, five foot wide interior easements will be required for drainage and utilities. Additional easements may be required later on um after the city engineer gets a chance to further review once there's an application. The storm water pond located on the north side of James Parkway most likely will need to be expanded a little bit to accommodate the the impervious surface of the proposed plan. Town home requirements. The proposed concept plan um lacks the required 22 enclosed and 22 off- streetet parking spaces. As mentioned at the December meeting, um we are in support of the reduction in required parking spaces through PUB to accommodate that type of new housing style in the city in the southern half of the development. So that's kind of a done issue. Now, um accesses off of James Parkway, which is a minor collector. Traffic study most likely will be required based on the projected traffic generation. Identified area for snow storage is depicted on the concept plan in the southwestern corner of the property. Uh the unnamed private street will be required to have a minimum width of 24 ft. It is shown to have that ownership over all the common elements of the development which really just comes down to the private road and the play area shall be under the ownership of one association. No additional sidewalks or trails are required as part of the comp plan. Land dedication of 8% or cash contribution of 8% of the undeveloped property value is required um for the parks um the parks component of the project. Input will be sought from the parks commission. They previously recommended cash in lie of land dedication uh for former proposal on this property. That reasoning is due to nearby parks including Wagner, Whispering Creek, and Eagle View School. 10% of the site shall be usable open recreational space for the project residence, which could be indoor or outdoor. Um, both active and passive uses count towards this requirement. It basically it just has to be if somebody can walk their dog through there, that would count. Um, it has to be usable though. The developer must identify 13,896 square feet within the development to fulfill this requirement. The square footage of the play area depicted is currently unknown. Um, but any proposed playground equipment designs will require further city approval later on in the approval process. Some comments from our public works and engineering. Um, they have not yet responded to staff's review. Input from the building inspe inspection department has not yet been received. The police department has commented that there's only one entrance and exit. So, they'll need to ensure adequate access and turnaround for emergency vehicles. The fire department will have to verify the location of fire hydrants uh once a utility plan has been submitted. Staff's following comments haven't changed uh from the December meeting very much. Development is generally compatible with the surrounding land uses. The proposed development generally meets the intent of the 2040 comp plan. uh town homes and andor condominiums containing more than eight attached units are permitted use within this zoning district. PUD zoning will be required for the town homes containing eight or less attached units. Um at the time of this report, no information has been submitted regarding the proposed lot layout for the individual town home units in the north. Further input will be sought from the city's parks commission regarding the desire for land versus cash dedication and the building officials input has not yet been sought. Uh there's 21 comments. I'm just going to go through the new ones that were most relevant uh with this new round of review. Uh garbage receptacles shall be stored within garages or fully screened from view. Um we've dealt with this issue in a similar development and that was the requirement imposed on them. So just being fair, staff thought we'd throw that one on there. The developer shall work with Elco New Market Postmaster to find an acceptable location within the development for mailboxes. Uh, that one's pretty standard, but we also thought we should address that as well. Uh, ground level patio shall be provided for all town home units. Privacy fences constructed of vinyl or brick and of consistent design shall be provided between adjacent rear yard patio areas to separate them. An ingground irrigation system would be required as part of the multif family zoning. Um, and the applicant must demonstrate how emergency vehicles, garbage, and delivery trucks can turn around within the site by providing a detailed turning radius. Uh, that has been somewhat provided, as we'll get to. So, right now, we're asking the planning commission for feedback related to the proposed concept plan dated 2825. And also, as you'll see here, um, the applicants have submitted an additional concept plan. We're calling this kind of the alternative concept plan. uh to get your thoughts on it. Really the only difference is I'll put them side by side. The southern units are pushed together. Um so they achieve that over eight units now. This basically gives the developer a little more space to work with open space, landscaping, green area. Um it also reduces one more thing the PUD is needed for. So we kind of want to get feedback on both of these. Um, but specifically the one dated 212. Overall, they're pretty similar. If there's any questions, Larry and Alyssa are here to answer them. Okay. Thank you. Trying to blow this up. So really we're just looking at the differences between the first submitted plan and the alternative plan. And yeah, especially um Larry, I think you really wanted to get their thoughts on just the town homes being pushed together in the southern half if that's preferable. Um since it is it's a minor change, but it it will end up affecting a lot of things in the end result. And it helps with the not needing that much in the PUB or what? Uh so yeah, part of the PUD approval was necessary to accommodate the units that were eight town home units, eight or less attached units. So by pushing them together, we get past that. Yeah. Does it make for better parking at the end there? So, the parking hasn't changed at all in the southern half uh for both plans. It's the same number of parking spaces. Um the dimensions have changed a little bit. Provides a little more green space or open space between that southerntherly unit and the parking area. and the turnaround as you see those two circles on both plans in the southern uh portion of the property they they depict a 55 foot long semi with a trailer um so it would go in you know north and south it would have to turn sideways back up and then go back up to the north so emergency access is definitely compatible uh it's just we're going to have an issue Maybe with the beeping if there's a lot of delivery trucks or garbage trucks or something going through um on a regular occasion. Sure. And the depiction of the twobedroom home is the ones that are on the south end and the north ones are different. We haven't seen layout of the northern units, just the southern. Uh, is it safe to say, um, Larry or Alyssa that the twobedroom or the units with the two style garages will be similar to those that were constructed in Dakota Acres first edition? Yeah, the three bedrooms. Very okay. Maybe a little bit bigger. Okay. Okay. So, the front ones are two style garages. Yeah, the northerly Yeah, the two northerly buildings are two style garages and the southerntherly buildings are single stall. Well, I appreciate the redesign. Um, I think the flow, uh, if I remember right, from months before these, right, there was a flow issue, um, at the apartments. Yes, correct. So, um I'm not sure exactly um what is the preference from the the developer uh the first one or the second one? I mean, I understand that we're trying to solve for a zoning problem. It's kind of more of aesthetics than anything else. The same size units. This is the same unit. Like said, it does give you a little bit more open space, but Well, that's why I'm just going to see what your opinion was. We don't really care. Mhm. Well, I for one appreciate the separation between the buildings. Uh the illusion of more space and I know that um marketing purposes, it's easier to sell or rent end units than middle units. So, I would be supportive of the first concept plan. We got to do a matter. It's it's true. I think that with the plan that was submitted today that provides a little more area on the south, it might provide provide for a little better vehicle circulation on that southern portion at least for the larger um emergency vehicles or delivery vehicles or garbage trucks. So, um I think we'll continue to work with uh u Larry and Alyssa and the city engineer just to model the that truck and actually show the the flow of the actual truck. Um you can see on here the truck's parked, but what we're tip what we typically see is the actual movement of the truck being modeled, which is lacking on this plan. So, we could maybe, you know, look at a regular a typical garbage truck and maybe our longest fire truck and um see if there's a difference between the two plans. There's a radius between which gives you I mean a standard fire truck and we were measuring our our longest fire truck is it's around there. I think it's just under 55 ft. So this is comparable. Well, if we're planning for trucks, why would we want the trash man to come through this and then make a U-turn whip back? To me, again, I'm not a a a planner. Um, but wouldn't it make more sense then to have the trash in the mail than to the north of all the buildings there? Or the trash is individual trash. Oh, I see. Yeah. It's not a dumpster. It's not a dumpster of the department have a dumpster. The mail will be a mail bank most likely. Yeah. Um probably in the north somewhere individual Yeah. And then I mean I think the next biggest issue is um regarding the site plan is really the lack of the open space that's required under our code in the R4 zoning district. So we have high density areas um just recreation area within the site. I know Jake touched on um them needing to really identify where that is and the square footage attached to it. I think that's probably the next biggest issue. And then us um you know being able to review a landscaping plan that uh really works within the development once the trees are mature. Um you know it's pretty tight in the development right now. Yeah. As it as it's laid out. Yeah. What's on there? Uh, it's 10% exactly is listed, which is the minimum requirement. So, it's right on the edge. Yeah. Green area and landscape. But that's above the minimum requirement. They're shown above the minimum requirements. I think you basic. Uh so it's different kind of with multif family products. Yeah. In multif family we don't have actually a tree counter requirement. We have a you know it's not like one tree per unit or uh it's not a calculation like that. say just an overall landscaping calculation which includes grass and what is the minimum that's 30% 30% of the site shall be landscaped includes rock and everything right I mean yeah yeah pretty much pretty much everything that's outside of the building cement and asphelt is not landscaping but correct rock decorative develop that plus trees in there. It shows the shrubs shrubs on the side of the building. Yeah. I think one thing on this plan that was really difficult for us to understand is you know we don't um stand or I don't personally the the distance between the buildings that are existing there today and what you're being proposed is that 50 feet or I I don't know what that is. Yeah. Right. Yeah. Yeah. So I guess it is important to note that you know we're still are at a concept plan level and we don't have engineered plans. So the feedback that we're Yeah. the formal application process. Yeah. So yeah, that'll help answer a lot more of our questions. Do you think on the northwestern part of the houses that you would push that as far back to the property line as you as you could because then you get more roadway in between or is that what was your thought process on that on the far northwest bank? Okay. Was that pushed all the way back towards that setback? I'm I don't know what it is. Is it 30? I think you have a 30 foot set back line. It looks like it's lined up. Oh, I see. Okay. Yes. And then this I think the 30 foot set back line again is pretty much right at the end of the porches here. Is there a 30 there? I didn't think that was that's a 30 foot set. So there's your answer. It's 30 plus whatever the other ones were. I think those were on the line. Mhm. I think they were northern ones. Mhm. Very as far back as Yeah. Yeah. I just saying for driving or looking, you know, saying, you know, especially moving trucks, I suppose. So, not everyone can drive a trailer. I like it myself. Yeah, I do too. Um, I'm a I'm I I agree that the separation of the smaller units is fine with me because it it's a perceived it breaks it up and it Yeah. Yeah. Instead of one huge 11 or 12 unit building, it would be just Mhm. I think big. Yeah, I do like that comment. Makes sense. I I'm not worried about the 8 unit thing, but I'm not so much worried about the 8-unit thing. I think, you know, there, you know, I voiced I think at the last meeting too was just the ability for safety purp purposes, the emergency vehicles being able to access. I mean, that's to me like number one. But I think they I like both concepts. Um but I do like the one separated. Joe, I'd be fine with either or, but honestly, the second one just makes more sense with how it's split up to me. Okay. And by that you mean the first concept or sorry, first? Yep. Okay. Pretty consistent feedback on that. Um, anything else you were looking for from the commission tonight? Yeah. Yeah. Mud's drying up, so All right. Thank you for coming. Yes. Thank you. Appreciate your time. Appreciate it. Thank you. Yes. Thanks. Back to my list here. All right. Um, we'll go on to general business B. Review title 118-8-2 of city code regarding recreational vehicle parking. So hard to share your screen with all the Zoom stuff in the way. Okay, so this is a topic we haven't talked about um in a long time. Some of you might not have been on the commission uh when this happened, but back in September of 2019, we discussed uh recreational vehicle parking on residential properties, which was spurred by the results of a citywide inventory of code violations related to garbage cans and recreational vehicles. Um, compared to garbage cans, recreational vehicles were far fewer in number, but had the potential for much greater visual impact. 16% of the properties in Elco Market had some sort of violation related to recreational vehicle parking as part of that inventory. Most of the violations were related to parking recreational vehicles in prohibited location, which mostly the driveway or prohibited surface on the grass without proper screening um, which was basically everyone. So although approximately 30% of the properties had a recreational vehicle present, had it parked in a permissible location, only one had the screening that was required as part of the former city code. Uh city code section 1182 formally formerly required that recreational vehicles were screened unless parked for the purposes of loading or unloading, whether parked in a conforming location or not, uh to the height of the vehicle or six feet, whichever is less. So, it didn't matter if you had a four-wheeler or uh you know, a golf cart in your backyard, you had to build a fence or something to to screen it with. Some types of recreational vehicles, including folding tent campers, and utility trailers were allowed to be parked on the driveway without screening from April to October. Other types of recreational vehicles, such as boats, motor homes, campers, large utility trailers were only allowed to be stored on the sideyard of properties so long as they met size and setback requirements. Uh results of the inventory had indicated that the city's former practice definitely did not reflect what was being required by the city code. Based on those results, staff recommended that the city code be amended to better reflect the current practice and allow more flexibility for the storage of garbage cans and parking of recreational vehicles. Uh so here's the previous ordinance. It was actually fairly strict. Um it it was actually kind of confusing as well. So, it it differentiate different differentiated all these different types of recreational vehicles and what ones were allowed to be parked in the driveway, what ones were allowed to be parked in the sideyard. Uh during some had specific dates, um all of them needed screening unless they didn't require screening from April to October for certain types. It was just it was kind of a mess. Uh so here's that citywide inventory of the recreational vehicle violations. All of these purple squares indicate a property that had a violation. And garbage, just for fun, there's a lot more garbage ones. In 2019, staff also researched the recreational vehicle parking requirements in 10 other cities. Uh the usual cities we look at, Apple Valley, Bell, Plane, Farmington, Jordan, Lakeville, Londale, New Prior Lake, Savage, and Shakape. All those cities researched um allowed recreational vehicles to be parked in driveways. Six of the cities allowed them to be in the driveway year round, and the remaining four allowed them in the driveway seasonally based on the type of recreational vehicle. Some cities did have size limitations that prevented large vehicles from being parked in the driveway unless granted some sort of conditional use permit. Most of the cities also allowed recreational vehicles to be stored in the sideyard without screening, but did require that they be parked on a hard or improved surface, um, not gravel. The most common number of recreational vehicles that cities allowed on a property was three, but some had a reduced number specific to the number of recreational vehicles allowed in the driveway. Based on this research, uh staff recommended the following amendments to the planning commission and later the city council. We added ATVs, dirt bikes, dune buggies, go-karts, golf carts, iceouses, and snowmobiles and UTVs um as recreational vehicles by definition. We exempted non-motorized watercrafts like kayaks and canoes from the section. We regulate them currently as exterior storage. Uh we identified three seasonal classifications, warm weather, cold weather, or year round. Um we allowed up to two recreational vehicles to be parked in the driveway during periods of seasonal use and three total recreational vehicles to be parked outside of the property during periods of seasonal use. We required that all recreational vehicles um not exceed 30 feet in length. Prohibit we prohibited them from extending into the public rideway. Allowed only one recreational vehicle exceeding 24 ft to be parked on a residential property. So you can have three long campers. You can only have one. We removed the screening requirement totally. Um we permitted recreational vehicles to be parked in the rear or sideyard on a surface of concrete, just any hard surface except gravel. um as so long as it met the five- foot setback from property lines. Included exceptions for properties with existing gravel side parking areas and staff continues to add to that list um using satellite imagery to see which properties are grandfathered in. We enumerated recreational vehicles parked on a trailer as one recreational vehicle. So you can have a snowmobile trailer with two snowmobiles on it. That's one recreational vehicle, not three. We removed non-conforming location permits as well. All in all, these amendments made it a lot easier for residents to store recreational vehicles on their property as it removed the screening requirement and provided needed clarification and definitions associated with associated with recreational vehicles and parking. Uh here's some pictures just for uh reference from the inventory that was done. Uh so we saw it all back 2019. I didn't. Renee and Haley did when they were out and about. But, uh, it was getting out to a point where people were parking stuff just behind their house on the grass. And, um, as you can see, some of these pictures are better than others. So, today, uh, this conversation has been spurred by several residents which were recently cited for recreational vehicle parking violations. These violations were related to campers or motor homes which were being stored in driveways um outside of the permitted warm weather season which runs from April to November. Campers, motor homes, motorized watercraft, ice, fish houses, snowmobiles are all currently restricted to seasonal classifications. As I'll show you here, uh the city council instructed the planning commission at a recent meeting to re-examine the recreational vehicle parking seasonal classification list to see if changes are recommend recommended. Specifically, they wanted to look at uh to see if you guys would be in favor of allowing campers, motor homes, ice, and fish houses to be classified as year- round uses rather than seasonal. The reasoning for this is that many currently use their fish houses in the summer for camping and vice versa. It's becoming more and more common for people to go camping in actual campers in the winter. Staff do not recommend changing the seasonal classifications uh associated with boats or snowmobiles as they are they are actually physically limited by the seasonal use. Some pros and cons to think about um during this discussion. Pros, it would reduce the need for enforcement by staff. Would also simplify the code by reducing extra requirements for certain vehicles. Many residents currently um utilize their campers year round reducing the possibility of maintenance related issues. Uh some cons, we would see increased potential for abuse of people parking recreational vehicles in the rightway. Increased potential for unlicensed or inoperable vehicles to be stored with no screening. Uh many residents who currently pay for off-site storage may be incentivized to store their recreational vehicle on site if allowed, which would increase the presence overall in the city. So, here's our current seasonal classification list. As you can see, the warm weather, cold weather season. Um, we're just looking for feedback and guidance from you guys to see if a change is recommended. And that's specifically to related to the the campers, ice houses, and then the motor homes, right? That's what the discussion was started off of. I don't think we would recommend changing snowmobiles or boats. Right. Right. I mean, crossover, would you? Yeah. When we I remember when we did this, it was a lot of work. It was. Yeah, it was. And we we did make some good strides on this. Um and I can understand people's concerns about using their motor their motor homes year round or the campers or ice houses. I have friends that do that, too. Um but so that's spec I just want to clarify like that's specifically what we're looking at, right? That's what we're asking you to look at specifically. Yes. Um well it of course you can if you think changes are needed in other areas you can always recommend that as part of the process as part of this process. Personally I like everything else. Um yeah but that's my personal thought. I thought we did some good really good work on that. But how would you classify them? I mean the crossover fish house slash yeah move it over to the year move them over to the year round category I would say ice houses period I would say ice houses converted or I mean the ones that are meant to be dual purpose I mean that would be really difficult for staff to interpret because like for instance I have a ice house that has a air conditioning unit on the top so that's pretty clearly a camper ice house. Yeah. Um but if it didn't have uh air conditioning on the top, um I could argue that it's I use it for camping and fishing. It I think it would be really difficult for staff to interpret. Yeah. Or make an argument. Yeah. A friend that has one that doesn't have the air conditioning top, but they inside and they Yeah. Yeah. I'm not convinced that any changes need to happen, honestly. No, they need to figure it out. Okay. Honestly, thank you. Okay. So, you're good with that as it is? Okay. So, you would put campers in the cold season? Year round. I mean, it's really up to the owner to store it wherever they want to store it, but um I am open to changing just those pieces. The other pieces of it, this um that we've gone through extensively, I like and I think they're good. Um I understand the reasoning why and hearing what the residents want and try to work with them. Um, I don't know if they're aware of like all the other things we've put in place too to help kind of mitigate this too with the the storage sheds that we just increased too. Um, that's a good So, was this brought up at the city council? I know there's brought up Yeah, there was the whole Facebook thing and I think I went as the the senior planner here. I want to remind the commission that when you see vocal group on Facebook, it might be 10 vocal people out of 5,000 residents. So, um, yeah. So, that's you have to keep it in keep things in perspective, but the city council did specifically just direct the planning commission to see if you wanted if you felt changes were necessary. Okay. Spec and most specifically regarding the seasonal classifications. And I guess my question with that was because we are getting new residents and more people and this was changed a while ago and even in the beginning it was when it was so strict that wasn't even really well known like nor was it enforced right? So for the newer members of the commission, pre209, the city wasn't doing code enforcement. So nothing that was on the books was being enforced and we wanted to enforce what was on the books. And then we did this change and then like I just don't know how many people are knowledgeable about this, if you know what I mean. Very few. Yeah. Um you put it in your newspaper article, your period. I believe I have seen it. I put in last year. I mean, I would put it in the spring again. Um, yeah, we do season like reminders. I'm just thinking educational piece, but also Nicole's I think talking more about like educating them on the history of the ordinance and sure like what we did to make it more convenient for people. I don't know. Be more transparent. I guess I think you're just sharing that there's an ordinance out there for some people that are new. they probably don't even know about it, right? I think if you put it in your periodical that it'll be helpful, you know, and again, like I said, I I am open to moving them over. I understand both sides of it. We do have the limitation in there where they can only have that one trailer, right? Or um over 24 ft. Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, that limits it too, right? Yes. How many? So they can't have like their one 20 foot 4 foot trailer and another ice castle or something. Yeah. Trailer. Well, most ice castles are I don't know, probably less than 24 feet. Um, the majority of them, but you know, you can get some dual axles that are maybe longer. Yeah. But if I have a 20 foot ice castle, I'm calling it a camper. I mean, because you're going to use it 80% of the time for camping, not for ice fishing because ice is very short window, you know, you spend $20,000 on something to put out on two weeks of ice, you know. So, that's why I would say I would just if you want to move something, I would move campers. I wouldn't move ice houses. I would call it a camper, you know? But then I think of like where was going, how do you differentiate the two? Mhm. Yeah. I I just I don't think No, people can figure this out. And it would be nice if if people felt strongly about it, our neighbors rather than on Facebook come and tell us. Um but I suspect it's the same people that um you've had problems with in years past and they're not doing anything about it. But that's that's that's my opinion. So, we're kind of mixed. Well, I I think I only have heard a strong opinion from two of you. I'm not You think that I'm on the fence of not doing much if anything. So, okay. Yeah, I kind of agreed with Brad just as far as the if there was a way to keep the ice and fish houses out, but like you guys said, it's tough to differentiate between that and I guess calling it a camper. So, I mean, if you got like a homemade fish house, you can probably identify that that wouldn't really be a camper, but but still that would be tough to, you know, 20 years ago when there weren't all these ice castles and stuff, right? When they're all plywood. Yeah. Odds. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, so I mean I would definitely put this in the next article you put out that's in May. But yeah, I mean just share it no matter when it is I guess. So we usually try to do a um some education um pieces in the May newsletter because we do um we start doing our code enforcement usually in May and later May. So it gives people a chance so you know if they have exterior storage or things that are parked illegally that oh a reminder for them to get them in compliance before we do our citywide sweep. Is it possible and I know this is soon I'm sorry but to get this out in April to give people some more time as opposed to sending it out in May and then doing the enforcement in May. You know, anything is possible, but I'm just asking. I think that I would prefer to in May just because people might forget and if they just see it then and they'll be like, "Okay, they're coming in a couple weeks." So, well, I think Well, and I'm thinking of myself, too. Um, like April, that's when we switch stuff, right? So, that's a good point. Um, Facebook for sure. I'll put a Facebook post up. But, um, because I know that's when people are starting to, you know, go grab and exchange winter for summer stuff. Yeah, people are or thinking about doing it, I'm assuming. So, I mean, be good to remind those that are new to the community or whatever that there is, right? Because I'm I mean, it's already in my brain that I'm like, "Okay, we got to get the boat, drop off the snowmobile trailer." It's just in my routine, but it's not in other people's routines. And you could also do something about the garbage containers and whatnot, you know, just a little along with this, you could include something adjacent to the building. Yeah. Yeah. or enclosed in your garage or whatever the case. Whatever your preference, just adjacent to the building, please. Yeah, thankfully. And then there are people that can take their uh campers and they park them in front of their house for whatever the period is so they they can clean them out or whatever and restock them and then they move on or go on vacation or whatever. There is that window, right? There is a provision, I think, in the rightway section of the code that allows a camper to be parked on the street for more than 24 or maybe 48 hours or something. 48 hours. 48 hours. Um, that's in a totally different section of the code. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, is there a way, you know, I'm trying to like help the community feel like they're being heard and not just being dismissed? Mhm. Um, so I feel like that's important. Is there a way to like get I know there's that Facebook stuff, but something that we could facilitate to kind of generate more feedback from them and maybe see what they're looking for. I don't know what that would look like. I know deep breath for survey monkey, but you I'm just, you know, I and maybe that's just not even related to this, but just even for future things. Um, I have to relook at the social media policy for the city and probably talk to Tom, but the first thing that comes to my mind is a Facebook poll. Sure. You know, so I mean, yeah, I think we I mean, I think the city council ultimately would need to direct if we wanted to go to the route of doing some kind of communitywide survey. Sure. Um, but that's where they're at. Yeah. And I I'm not thinking like communitywide survey, just like I don't know. questions like box like suggestion box. A few thousand and some change out of our 5,000 residents are on Facebook. So yeah, you're only getting not even half but still it's a good chunk. Yeah. I don't know. I'm just trying to figure out how to get more transparency from us and I think we are doing a good job. Well, I think we're discussing it here. This is being transparent in my opinion. So, so yeah, and I think it is important to note that even that um there was a lot of Facebook chatter about it. Nobody came to a city council meeting, right, to discuss it. So, okay. Um and I'd like to point out too that there's nobody in the public that's even virtual or online listening. So, you know, I know that there's that Facebook realm, but how much, you know, how much do you give them, right? When they're really not the majority often times, right? They're just the loudest because they're there. No, I agree. Yeah. Yeah. That's the anonymity of Facebook and social media. Presence is key for sure. Okay. So make what do we have to do with this right now? Nothing or just make the recommendation. We don't want to make changes. Sounds like three to one. No changes are needed at this time or I don't want to speak for the commission if you want to do like a roll call vote. Yeah. I mean I'm I'm fine with leaving it. I'm fine with leaving it too. That's fine with me. I'm good with it. Okay. Okay. That's the recommendation. We'll get a motion on it though. Just I'll make a motion. I'll second. All in favor? I I thank you. Okay. And then miscellaneous community development updates. That I have any um I think the only update is maybe that we did receive the application for final plat approval of the parcel north of city hall. I can't remember if we had received that at the last meeting yet or not. Um, so it's MI Homes. They're a national builder and they would uh actually construct the development and they're proposing to construct it in two phases. So they're only final platting half of the development at this or proposing at this point. So we're reviewing the construction plans right now on drafting a development contract which would go to the city council probably in April and then they could construct after that. I noticed that there was a lot of um tree clearing at the um exits down here on 2 and 35. Yeah. Does that mean anything? No, that's just midnoting the highway normal stuff. They did it all the way up to 70. I can hope. Yes. Well, speaking of this topic we were just on, I saw some trucks in the backyards of some houses over there. That was interesting. I was like, whoa. Yep. New parking spot. Yep. Um, we're getting reports through our building official that LAR is um having good success in selling the the speck houses that they're putting up. So, they're really pleased with equity market. It was a test market for them and it's going better than they expected. How about Ryan properties? They only got the one house. Yeah. And that was theirs. I know they do have a contract with another builder to purchase um some of the lots in their development. So I see. Yeah. Did they sell it or not? It's still on the market. The one that's there. Yeah. I see. Y I didn't know if it was waiting for the parade and I don't think it's on the parade, but I suppose they get business now. People are out looking, but um I don't believe it's gone pending. I see. Yeah. I moved from this development to that development and then my one of my neighbors is moving from this development to that development behind you. Oh, really? Yeah. They're going to be that twotory right behind you, I think. So, one on the corner. Oh, okay. Two down. Okay. They're growing family or they think the design was different than what they had up here. So they're sure nice houses, tiny little lots. They have no yard. That's the way. Personal preference, I guess. But that's the way these days. Just going to see if that So anything on the up by the school or for development or um it's a little bit in uh they submitted they're getting into more detailed engineering on that and they have a had to tweak a a little um you know a few things in the development based on some things they are finding out uh through the more detailed engineering. Um but kind of the hold up on that is the wetland they have to do a wetland delineation and it has to go through an approval process through this it's called the technical evaluation panel which is you know DNR Scott soil and water all the wetland professionals have to get together and and decide if they agree on the wetlands and um so there's a little bit of a delay on because of that And usually they can't do the field work on the wetland identification until the growing season. So um Oh, it's just you got cattails a little bit early. Even just the tiniest like wetland vegetation doesn't have to be cattails. It's just different types of grasses and stuff. So uh but I think it's moving along as we expected. you guys can think of. All right. Okay. All right. Anyone want to make a motion to adjurnn? Oh my god. I'll do a second. All right. All in favor? I I All right. Meeting adjourned at 7:58 p.m. Thank you.