All right. All right. I'll take or I'll call the Shakabby Board of Adjustment [clears throat] and Appeals to order. It is Thursday, October 9th, 7 p.m. Uh, first item of business, Mr. Kursky, can we get a roll call, please? >> Commissioner Foresight here. >> Commissioner Wiler, >> here. >> Commissioner Sandeu, >> here. >> Commissioner Reading, >> here. >> Excuse me. Commissioner Ranoa >> here. >> Commissioner Sepovo >> here. >> Commissioner Robbins >> here. >> All right. Second item tonight, approval of the agenda. Are there any additions or subtractions to tonight's agenda? >> No. >> All right. I will entertain a motion to approve the agenda. >> So moved. >> All right. We have a first by Foresight. >> A second. >> Second by Wer. All those in favor? >> Any oppose? >> All right. That passes. Third item is recognition by board of adjustment and appeals of interested citizens. Are there any interested citizens here tonight that would like to discuss something not on the agenda? >> Not on the agenda. No. >> Awesome. All right. Item four, consent business. Uh we have the approval of the board of adjustment and appeals meeting minutes from September 4th, 2025. May I get a motion to approve the minutes? >> So moved. >> Sandu has it. >> All right. Uh Commissioner Sandeu makes the motion >> and I'll second it. >> Commissioner Rano seconds that >> Madam Chair. Yes, >> I'd like to speak to the minutes. >> Okay. >> Um, on the uh board of adjustment minutes for October 9th, if you go to the >> September 4th, >> excuse me, for September 4th, if you go to the second page, the last page, a fifth line down, it says Commissioner PC2, and I don't think there's a commissioner's name in there. >> Oh, good catch. >> Yes. So, it looks like we're missing the commissioner that made the motion. >> Right. It just says commissioner. >> What's that? >> We'll figure out who it is. >> Perfect. >> Okay. >> Noted. >> Thank you, madam. >> Okay. So, with that, can I get a motion to approve the minutes with that adjustment to be made? >> So moved. >> All right. Commissioner Forest makes the motion. >> Second. >> Commissioner Robin seconds. Do we need a roll call? >> No. >> Okay. All those uh in favor? >> I I >> Any opposed? >> And I will um I wasn't here at the meeting, so >> Commissioner Reading will abstain from the vote. All right. Either way, that passes. Item five, other business. Is there any? >> Perfect. Moving on, I will now entertain a motion to adjourn to Thursday, November 6, 2025 at 7 p.m. >> So moved. >> Commissioner Reing moves. >> Second. Commissioner Sand View seconds. All those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? All right. Meeting adjourn. >> Sweet. I will now call to order the uh planning commission uh at I don't know 703. Um we'll start with item one on the agenda. Roll call. >> Commissioner Foresight >> here. >> Commissioner Wiler >> here. >> Commissioner Sandeu >> here. >> Commissioner Reading >> here. >> Commissioner Ranowa >> here. >> Commissioner Sepovo >> here. Commissioner Robbins >> here. >> Thank you. We move on to item two, approval of the agenda. Are there any additions or changes to the agenda? >> Nope. >> All right. Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to approve. >> So move. >> Commissioner Robbins. Is there a second? Commissioner Sandy with the second. Any discussion on approving the agenda? >> Again, I will abstain. I missed the meeting. >> Thank you for that. >> I will as well. >> Thank you. Commissioner Sovo also. U All right. Uh with all of that, uh I'll entertain a motion. No, no, no. Uh, all in favor of approving the agenda. >> I >> I Any opposed? >> All right. Move on item three, recognition by planning commission of interested citizens for things that are not on the agenda. >> Is there anything you'd like to speak to that's not on the agenda already? >> All right. Sounds great. Uh, then move it on to item four, the consent agenda. Um, the only thing under consent is the approval of the planning commission meeting minutes from September. Um, >> Mr. Chair, >> yes. >> I have a Can I speak to the minutes for you? >> Absolutely. Yeah. Um on these minutes if on the second page it says recommen recognition of the board of adjustment and peels. I think that should say planning commission. >> Sure. >> Mr. Kirk, do you hear that? Item three. Yep. Uh yes. So with that change to item three to read recognition by planning commission of interested citizens. Uh is there a motion to approve the minutes? >> So move. >> Thank you. Commissioner Robbins there second. Commissioner Sand with a second. Any discussion on that? I'll abstain from approving. >> Thank you. >> Uh all in favor? >> I >> I. Any opposed? >> Perfect. That passes unanimously. Uh then we'll move on to item five, general business. There are three public hearings under general business. Uh we'll just start with 5A, a public hearing on a compre comprehensive plan amendment on Richland Court. Uh entertain a motion to approve uh open that public hearing. >> Yeah, I make a motion that we o open the public hearing. >> Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Rand with the second. Any discussion on opening the public hearing hearing? None. All in favor? >> I >> I. Any opposed? Great. Is there a presentation from staff? >> Yep. >> Great. So, uh, chair and commissioners, you've seen this, uh, item before. So this is um effort to reguide property from suburb suburban residential to suburban edge residential. City Shakape is proposing to amend the 2040 comp plan for lot one block one. The subject property is located off County Road 78 east of the town line avenue. The applicant has proposed a platoon court that would consist of eight single family homes. The net acreage per city code standards will be 2.34 with a density of 3.42 acres. consistent with that guiding. However, the Met Council determined this project was not consistent with their density formula which does not exclude public rightway. This has result in a density of 2.84 units per acre which is below the suburban residential guiding regulations of three units an acre. For this development to be approved for issuance of a sewer permit, it needs to be regguided as suburban edge residential which has a density aquarium of between 0.1 and three units an acre. This is identical to the surrounding properties. So if we look, this is the property where if I get this to work, well, it's the darker green property. That's the current um guiding that it has. Um it was an outlier because this is uh left from a pre here we go from a previous project when this was approved probably 10 or 15 years ago. Um we did see a denser project. they reduce the density based on the neighborhood, but then it threw out a compliance with the Met Council. So, we're proposing tonight to have it match the surrounding properties so it would have the same guiding as all of the yellow properties that are in this area. So, this is the plat of 4.36 acres that's previously been approved by you and the city council. Um, the net lot area is 2.82 acres. there's an outlawed area of 1.5 acres that um basically are wetlands and tree preservation areas. So the Met Council determined that as a result of their calculation of the density, it's only 2.84, which uh was not close enough to meet the uh guiding that was on the property. So we recommend adoption of resolution R2025113 approving the reguiding the property from recommending the city council approve that guiding the property from suburban residential to suburban edge. >> Mr. Chair. >> Yep. Mr. Kursky. So just so that I understand the suburban edge is is is lower density than suburban residential. >> Yep. And just for my information, the Metropolitan Council without their approval, I mean, if we were to say, "Well, we don't want to do this," then we would have difficulty getting various permits. Am I right? >> Yeah. So, this came up because the applicant applied for their sewer permit for the subdivision and was turned down by the Met Council because they didn't meet the three units an acre. 2.84 wasn't close enough. So, >> all right. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. And so so the next question is is there a plan for the city to change that to match council so we don't run into this again? >> That's what you're doing right now. >> No, I'm saying like in general like the general >> definition of suburban residential to match, right? >> Well, we had to >> so like including the rights away and stuff like that, >> right? Isn't that what it is? Wasn't that the the concern that one included the rightway and one didn't include the rightway? >> Yes. >> Yeah. I mean, let's how can I say this nicely? Their way they calculate it is depending on necessarily who we get. >> Could you explain what that means? >> So we have different people that move around within the Met Council that look at things and provide. There was no issue until the person came back and decided that this was an issue >> and happened to get a different Met Council representative or Met Council employee >> because again the city by code includes the roads. They do not. So it's a we we're having this issue on another project. So we actually sent it to them in advance and got an opinion letter so that if something happens we can go no you agreed. >> Okay. And it's not the right answer to just change city code to match met council. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Because it has impacts on other things like yeah >> storm water and landscaping and other things. >> Okay. I I guess just a riff off that is that the um like in our city code like there's a formula for calculating density, but what you're saying is like that Met Council isn't really operating off a formula. It's operating off of sort of the whim of who you get. Sometimes they're including a rightaway and sometimes they're not. >> Chair and Commissioner, they have their own formula and it really depends on what gets submitted and what they make a decision on what to count. So on this one, there's a wetland that's down in this corner that ended up not being preserved, but was counted in the original. So it threw off all the densities. So most of this existing wetland is being preserved. So we had to kind of argue. You can see that little corner up there. They weren't counting like that little corner. I mean, it gets down to >> tiny little areas. >> Okay. >> And you can imagine the volume they see. So you really have to work with them. >> Okay. >> Okay. appreciate you talking about kind of the general thing. I mean, we can talk now more about the specific, but um >> so this is purely this is not changing the project or density or whatever. This is just changing the color, >> right? Yes. Changing the designation of the property from suburban to suburban edge. >> So, we're waving our magical bureaucratic wand. That's right. So that he can get his look. >> That's all we have is bureaucratic wands. Um >> any other uh comments for or questions for city staff? All right. Uh, this is a public hearing. Is there anybody here that'd like to speak on this issue? All right. Uh, hearing none. Seeing none, I suppose I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. >> So moved. >> Commissioner Sovo, is there a second? >> Second. >> Commissioner Sound with the second. Uh, any discussion on closing the the public hearing? >> Hearing none. All in favor? >> I >> I. Any opposed? >> Great. All right. All right. So, that passes unanimously. Um, we are now just talking amongst ourselves. Um, any discussion before we propose a motion? >> Mr. Chair, I I'll make a motion. [clears throat] >> Um, and I don't I don't know if this is the right one, but I would recommend that the planning commission forward a positive recommendation to the city council regarding this regiding quest. Mr. Kirsty, is that a proper move? >> That's correct. I'll make that motion >> and I'll second it. >> Great. Uh, so we do have a motion and a second for u positive recommendation for resolution 2025-113. Um, any discussion hearing? None. We'll go to a roll call vote. Commissioner Foresight >> I. Commissioner Wiler. >> I. >> Commissioner Sandeu. I. >> Commissioner Reading. I. >> Commissioner Ranawa. I. >> Commissioner Sepovo. I >> Commissioner Robbins. I >> thank you. That passes unanimously and we'll move on to item uh 5B under general business public hearing about Jackson Township Development AUR update. Uh a motion to open the public hearing, please. >> So move. >> Commissioner Robbins. >> Second. >> Commissioner Sandy the second. Any discussion on opening the public hearing? Hearing none. All in favor? I >> I. Any opposed? All right. Mr. Kurski. So again, this is the Jackson uh Township Development Area 2025 AUR and mitigation plan update um done by uh SRF for the city. They did the original one 5 years ago. Alternative urban areawwide review process is being used as a planning tool to understand how different development scenarios affect the environment of the community. The process is designed to look at cumulative impacts of anticipated development. The AUR document uses a standardized list of questions developed by the EQB. So, AU AURs must be updated every 5 years in accordance with the EQB guidance. Original Jackson Township development AUR was adopted in 2020. The next update is due by in November of 2025. The update explains which scenarios remain the same, which sections have been changed or updated. Update is being prepared by SRF on behalf of the city. Public agency comment period is from September 30th till October 14th. The 2,890 acre study area was assessed based on land uses identified in the city's 2040 comprehensive plan and existing regulations. They use two development scenarios that were analyzed that's required as part of the AU process. Well, no specific development layouts or timelines were established when the AUAR was adopted in 2020. Development has occurred within the area over the last several years, as well as changes in traffic patterns. So, what's changed uh with this update? There's new climate adaptation and greenhouse gas information that's required. There was an update done to all the traffic analysis. There was an update uh regarding storm water management uh current developments and environmental items and mitigation plans had to be updated. So what's not changed? The land use future considerations um stayed the same. The city's plan and proposed land uses are the same. All these other objects um are still the same. So the major recommendations out of the update are traffic improvements i.e. construction of right turn lanes for Mary'stown Road and US 169 North and South. The roundabouts are under construction right now. And there's also the potential for additional traffic signals and roundabouts. Um the county has I think it's in 2035 a roundabout planned on Mury'stown Road and 78. Um they agreed the other day that they would match us which is building that roundabout in 2030. There is also potential for a traffic signal now at Zumbro where the new park is given the amount of traffic that's coming out of there. Protection of threatened and endangered species in accordance with the latest Minnesota DNR and um USFWS guidance. The city's in the process of purchasing the bluff to protect the wildlife and we just redid Jackson Commons Park which also has a large wildlife area. climate adaptations such as utilizing green step initiative for designing efficient storm water areas. The city is currently using uh the best practices for that. Uh future extension of sanitary infrastructure engineering is currently completing an update to its sanitary sewer master plan based on changes in the area to see if we can serve a larger area. Um originally it was designed to serve a large portion of Louisville Township. Um the Shakabe Menitak and Sue has purchased a large portion of Louisville Township. >> So we are now looking at they will not be developing that. So we're looking at taking that allocation and actually moving it um from 150th Street north and then also moving it to the west along um 169. So we would not necessarily have to build another sewer line in that area because we have adequate potentially we have adequate capacity and the compliance with latest rules and regulations regarding storm water management, historic properties and other topics. The city is in compliance. [snorts] So written comments can be submitted by October 14th. Um you should have all received a link to the document and that's where we're at. >> Great. Thanks for that. >> Any questions for city staff? >> So Mr. Kerki, just explain for us now what happens with this. Are we going to get it again? It it's out for comment right now. It >> it's out for comment right now, chair and commissioners. And then those comments will be integrated by SRF and then it'll be adopted by the city council in November to meet the November 2025 deadline. And people have asked, so I'll give you So these are very expensive. The first one was over $200,000. Just the update was $100,000. That is not paid for by taxpayers. It's actually paid by the property owners in this area. There is a fee of $1,000 an acre when the property develops. So, for instance, the last piece of property you'll see next month, I think um in Jackson Township that we can annex and develop, they're going to be paying $78,000 in AU fees to um bring that property in. >> Well, we will not see this again. >> You will not see this plan again? No. It'll go to the city council for final adoption November and then it goes to the EQB to um get published. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I have a general knowledge question. So are we already having all the utilities like city sewer water in that area already? Is that what I heard? >> I can't We're having sound I was just speaking. We're having some sound issues in here. One more time. >> I'm asking do we already have our city sewer, water, and utilities already in that red area which is highlighted. We're going to be annexing. Yes. So, the last AU that was done was required by the Met Council because they wanted to see whether there was adequate capacity in the Blue Lake um station to handle all of the sewer developed in this area, which there was. The benefit of this now is because of the SMS purchases in Louisville Township, we will not have to service that area. And so we're going to be able to take that capacity and spread it out into other areas of Jackson. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions for ST? >> You will see probably a new one of these in the next year or two as we do the comp plan because um we're getting requests from Louisville Township, which we currently do not have an early annexation agreement with, to annex their property into the city. So we we'll have to look at those impacts. I guess I have some comments. So, and this doesn't doesn't really affect my support of, you know, this going forward, but I just have a a question. So, one of the differences between what was planned in 2020 versus now is that there's, you know, 1300 more um residential units um that would go in. So, it said that there was 1,600 and now there's 2,900. And so just when um in that groundwater section there was really no change saying that we had like you know we have wells we can supply these people but what I'm seeing is that the pattern with new developments is that just about every new development going in is using an irrigation system and so like these new developments are using more water than the developments in you know downtown Chakopi or in that were developed in the 80s or earlier. And so, you know, when we look at our summer to winter ratio, like these new developments are going to be driving up our ratio because we're allowing irrigation systems. Like, is there anything in the the pipeline to like, you know, entice developers to not install irrigation with every single unit? Like, >> that's actually under Sak Public Utilities kind of control. And they've actually shown the water usage has gone down. So the newer homes actually are way more efficient than the older homes. And so the other the other big change is our density per dwelling unit has dropped considerably. >> So the water usage has dropped. So if you look at a even a 10-year graph, the water usage despite the large growth of population has stayed pretty much the same. >> The other thing is we're doing is we're doing which we didn't do in the past is large infiltration basins. until we're recharging the groundwater to the point of where the water level is starting to rise. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thanks for that. Any other questions for city staff? >> Would you like to speak on this one? All right. Uh it is a public hearing though, so needed to ask. Um since there aren't any public comments, entertain a motion to close the public hearing. >> So move. >> Commissioner Robbins. >> Second. >> Commissioner Reading with a second. Uh any discussion on closing the public hearing? Hearing none. All in favor? >> I. Any opposed? >> Perfect. All right. So, what comes next? >> Mr. Chair, let me speak. I, you know, it took me a long time to go through all this. This is a lot of paper. >> 139 pages. >> 139 pages. He counted. >> I was actually hoping Mr. Kursky was going to read the whole thing. [laughter] >> Yeah. >> You know, it was a good read. I read that, too. It was really informative and I I was really happy with the wording and everything. It was great. >> Yeah. And it does give you an idea about >> um how complicated it is for development and what we have to do to make sure that it's done in an orderly fashion. >> Right. >> I think the other change when you go to density is that there are a lot more apartments getting built particularly in this area. So that raises the number of dwelling units. So when they talk dwelling units that includes apartment units. So >> and if you remember um Dr. Horton did twin homes which again is way denser than standard single family homes along um 78. So those have bumped up our density considerably which makes them at council happy. So >> yeah, >> Mr. Chair, just a comment. >> Yeah, appreciate that. >> Any other comments? All right. Um so what's the pleasure of uh the commission? Well, I'll recommend adoption of resolution R2025-114 authorizing the adoption of the alternative urban area wide review update for the Jackson Township development area. >> Thank you, Commissioner Reading. >> Second. >> Second, Commissioner Robbins. Any discussion on that motion? Hearing none, we'll go to a roll call. >> Commissioner Foresight, >> I. >> Commissioner Wiler, >> I. >> Commissioner Sandeu, >> I. >> Commissioner Reading, >> I. Commissioner Rano, >> I. >> Commissioner Sepulovo, >> I. >> Commissioner Robbins, >> I. >> Thank you. That passes unanimously. And now we'll move on to 5C, a public hearing about a modification of home occupancies to allow dog boarding and daycare. Uh, we need to open the public hearing. So move. >> Commissioner Spoto second. >> Commissioner Randy, uh, Sandy with the second. Uh, any discussion on opening the public hearing? Hearing? None. All in favor? I. >> Any opposed? >> Great. So much fun. >> So, um, this came about. There were two workshops at the city council because our enforcement people were out and there are more than, um, 2,000 people in the city of Shakipi that are registered on Rover, for instance, and there are other ones. So, we're talking about thousands of people that are currently operating illegally. And so um there's no way as for us to basically keep on top of that with one person. So the council had long discussions. Some of the users and neighbors showed up and talked about um impacts on the community and how other home occupations are licensed and they wanted this occupation to be licensed so that people would pay a fee. Your neighbors would get notified. There would be some tracking if there complaints. you could pull a license and the person would be out of business. So, um, here we are after two meetings. Um, so home businesses that temporarily care for dogs not owned by the resident, these are the requirements, must obtain and annually renew a permit subject to city inspection. So, the city would have the rights to check, for instance, when you have um animals on your property, you have to make sure they're properly vaccinated. That's one of the requirements. That's no different than the commercial establishments. Require permit even if no compensation is received. Uh limit care to a maximum of four non-owner dogs at a time. There's strict outdoor activity defensed rear yards. Notify landlords if the home is rented. HOA rules would still apply. No unattended outdoor dogs except via video monitoring or personal presence. Continuous barking over 3 minutes would count as a violation. Drop off and pickup hours would be 7 am to 900 pm. Overnight boarding is allowed for up to 180 days per year. Provide off streetet parking for clients. There would be no street stacking allowed. So people would have to park in the driveway. Keep proof of vaccinations for all border dogs. So rabies, distemper, and borderella. Maintain records for all nonowner dogs available for any city review. No boarding of sick or aggressive dogs. Commercial kennels or large scale operations are prohibited in single family zones. breeding or selling dogs as part of a business is also prohibited. So action soughts to recommend adoption to the city council of ordinance 02025-021 amending section 157.007g of the Shakipi city code relating to home occupation permits uh for dog daycare. >> Thank you. And the first question is you started out by saying they're right now operating illegally. Yes. Uh they're breaking city code right now by having this. And what what part of city code are they breaking right now? >> It's not an allowed use. You can't board dogs in your home. >> Okay. >> You can have as many dogs as you personally own. There's no limit in the city, >> but beyond that, you're not supposed to be having dogs unless it's like your family dog or visiting dog for your son or daughter or whatever. >> Sure. >> And does that go for fostering a dog, too? >> Yeah, that's different. >> That's a great question. I was going to ask the same thing. >> Yeah, fostering is like ownership. Basically, you're taking care of a dog that you basically it's it's your dog while you're taking care of it. >> No, I was going to ask the same thing because >> to the wrong person, fostering could look like boarding. >> Yeah. >> Well, and what if they're just a foster parent? What if it's someone who all they do is foster dogs temporarily and then they move on? >> I don't think it's an issue. I think the issue is that we've seen is people have anywhere from >> I think the largest we found was 14 dogs at the house. >> Okay, that's fair. >> But but I imagine the difference, right, is that >> if you're operating as a border, you are, >> you know, running a small business, right? >> You're on Rover or one of the other many apps there are out there. >> Sounds good. >> I have a handful of questions. >> Yes. Let's start with Commissioner Pulvo, then we'll go to Commissioner Robbins. So, does this now this permit approval processes ordinance only apply to those that are like registered within the app? What if someone's not registered within the app and is >> it applies to anyone? I'm just using Rover as one. We were able to track and find out how many people were on that app in the city and it was over 2,000. >> Okay. So, then that leads me to my follow-up question there is how do we plan to enforce or police that? Mhm. Ju >> just like we do any other thing. Um we've had really good compliance on home occupation permits. So if you want to be a gun dealer, for instance, you have to get a home occupation license. Um and we will work. We're having the same issue with short-term rentals. There's actually software out there that can tell you how many people are doing it and how many how many times a week they're doing it. We will use tools at our disposal. And basically the courts, knock on some wood, have been fairly supportive recently of city activity. I mean, we actually tore a house down on Jennifer Lane that somebody basically decided not to maintain and the court granted us access to tear the house down and take all their properties. So, I think the the way it's set up now, we modeling this after other cities. If you get a license and you're a violator, you're going to lose your license. you're going to appeal to you all or the city council and then if you still don't have it and you're still doing it, you're going to end up with the policeman at your office taking you to court. >> How do you plan then on informing the public? >> So, this will be in sent out to, you know, we're going to hopefully work with Rover and some of the other apps. There'll be news articles, etc. >> Okay. Um, you said at the workshop it included those who do this activity. Um what I mean what was the overall sentiment? I assume that they were involved in creating these guidelines. >> Yep. The la the last time when we presented this draft ordinance there was a lengthy discussion about what was the maximum number of dogs and between some of the people and the council I think there was a settlement on four that's similar to what other cities have. >> So they were in general terms like a >> Yeah. And I think the the person that had 14 dogs wasn't very happy, but that's >> that I that >> and people wanted to do it by square foot or whatever. And I'm like, you know, we're not going to that would just be impossible for us to enforce. >> Okay. Last question is how much for the permit? And you said it had to renew annually. >> Yep. I council hasn't said that, but I don't think we're going to recommend a very high fee. It'll probably be, you know,$25 or $50. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Sodo. Uh Commissioner Robbins. Yes. Uh, Mr. Kirsty, have has this subject fueled have you gotten complaints? >> Oh, yeah. People have called in and said there's problems. >> That's why we're here because the police department would go out and say, "You can't do it." And people go, "Okay, I won't do it again." And then they'd come back and or or neighbors would complain. You know, the person that had 14 dogs, I mean, they were complaining. They taking in $100,000 a year. Well, that's a pretty big business running out of your house. >> Yeah. >> I mean, we have professional places in town that do this as a licensed business with the state and the department of agriculture. And, you know, I think council's attitude was if you do it 180 days a year uh for boarding. So, you can do that and for daycare, you can't have more than four dogs. >> Yeah. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's what I >> Thank you. Yeah. Any other questions from >> um on the continuous barking? Is that like a continuous barking outside or continuous barking inside? I just >> I'm going to say it's probably going to be outside because that's where you're really going to hear >> basically audible barking for more than three minutes in a row. Right. >> And most cities have that. If you're barking for more than three minutes, you're likely to end up with a police officer at your door. >> Okay. And then I have one other question just uh advocating for the rural residential contingency. Um the four dogs if you have you know like over an acre, two acres, three acres, four dogs. >> No. >> Okay. >> Fair enough. >> Any other questions? >> So that I'm clear today. They can't do it at all. They're breaking code now. And what we're proposing is putting in a process with guidelines. They apply for the permit, meet the guidelines, and then they can do it under those guidelines. >> Yeah. So, currently we have lots of people that do home occupations, and we get lots of complaints. So, we have a number of people that were running basically restaurants out of their houses. So, we've informed them you can't do that. You know, there were lines of cars waiting for pick up their food. So, it's it's a constant issue and if you don't have any rules, you can't enforce it. So, at least if there's a problem person, we can enforce it. >> Thank you. And then one quick question that may sound kind of pedantic, right? So it's one of the things in there was um the only outside activity is in a fence backyard, right? Yeah. >> Does that preclude somebody from like walking the dog? >> Yeah. I mean I think if you have I mean four dogs it would be very hard to walk >> cuz I have three and I can't walk them together. So >> fair enough. I mean >> I mean obviously keeping your dogs under control. Yeah. Like but if you if you're on Rover, you've got one dog, there's nothing wrong with walking that one dog, right? Okay. I just want >> Yeah. If you're daycare or boarding and you've got four dogs, it's going to you're going to have to have a fence yard. >> I get that part. Yes. You can't just let them run around in your in your yard. I get that. But >> when it said the only outdoor outdoor activity permitted was in a fence backyard, that to me said, well, there other outdoor activities like walking a dog. That should be fine. I would hope. Okay, sounds good. >> Any other questions for city staff? >> All right, this is a public hearing. >> Yes, I do have concerns over this. Well, then would love for you to come up here, sign in with >> that. Have we opened? >> No, we have not. >> We have not opened the public hearing yet. >> Right at the beginning. >> Oh, >> yeah. It's already open. Sorry. >> It's the first thing we did. >> Strike that. [laughter] >> And then just go ahead and state your name and uh please tell us your thoughts. >> It was Commissioner Sepova uh followed by Commissioner Sandu who opened the public. >> Thank you. [laughter] >> You just really had >> I'm really tired. >> Uh I'm John Arco. I lived in Shaki. I've been here for 25 years and I actually the only reason I found out about this today was I came down to make a complaint because I'm tired of dogs coming in in and out of this resident next to me. They bark at 9:00 at night as they let them out. I go to bed at that time. I work at 5 in the morning. Stuff like that. Anyways, came down. They told me to come down here and voice my opinion if I can. So, thank you. I appreciate that. Um, as for this ordinance, we already have an ordinance that says we don't have them. So, the question is, why aren't we finding people? How many violations does it take for an action to be taken? You know, is we could have 10, 12 violations and what action is taken. And there's no consequences for these daycarees. And I've already had a dog. I walked outside. I'm like, whose dog is this? All of a sudden, it decided to go relieve itself in my front yard, which then I had to go to the neighbor and have wait probably about 15 minutes for him to come out and pick it up and return it back. I've also had another dog come into my garage while I was working in it. And I'm like, who is this? And they come running in, grab the dog, say thanks, and walked away really quickly because they were all concerned that I might do something that these dogs are now, you know, loose for the most part. I witnessed today two dogs getting out of the vehicles unleashed and they were running around the vehicle until they got them in the house. >> Yeah. >> I mean, I would just want to know what is going to be the consequences for this. And if we're going to go the ordinance, the ordinance, there's so many flaws in it that I mean, I sat here just thinking about it, just writing down all the issues that come up. And for the most part, my friend or my other neighbor um was wasn't able to be here today due to the fact he had medical reasons. But I told him about this meeting and he gave me a long text to read to you guys, but I don't know if you want it, but uh his name's Gary Feist and he lives across the street from me on Primrose Lane. Um I have never made a complaint before with the these people because I've been You want to be a good neighbor. Well, I'm tired of being a good neighbor. At what point do we say no? So, as far as everything, I mean, if we want to go into what the ordinance is, I think it what you have here is a start, but other cities don't even have an ordinance due to the fact it's so complicated. So, where do we go from here? I'm not too sure. And as [snorts] far as the 2,000 people that I guess have doggy daycarees in, maybe the city just needs to, you know, find them, go after them that way because no one's going to do anything and have a substantial fine because they'll just keep doing it. The person who made $100,000 a year, sure, they're going to pay the fine and continue on, but at what point do you draw the line? I This area is zoned as residential. Your ordinance before, if you're in a residential area, you're not allowed to have them. these people are just violating that and it seems like people are just doing what they want these days and we need some sort of way to curb it. >> So does it help you that with this ordinance now you can make a formal complaint that will be that will be registered as a violation and after a certain number of violations they are not allowed to have any dogs anymore and if they do break that then police are at their door. Does that help you in this case? >> Well I'm wondering how many violations it takes because >> that's a question right. So, how many violations? Do we have a number yet for a number? Okay. I think that'd be a good thing to to figure out among city staff, right? What what the process looks like? Yeah. >> And if you want to go into the ordinance, what about liability and stuff? Who's covering that? Is there insurance now required? This is a small business and now is in a residential area. So, you tell me, should a business be in a residential area? Just like you're talking about food, people coming up delivering. At what point do you say no? I mean, basically, we're just continuing accommodating everybody who's doing something different. And you already made the rule or the ordinance. Why would we change it? That's because you can't account for the 2,000 people that are doing it. >> No, but if they're going to follow the rules, apply for the permit, obtain the permit, pay the fee, and ideally follow the rules without violation. Then >> who are we to say you're not allowed to do that? >> Well, the other thing is I did notice that when you did have the ordinance that was NA for cost. There's going to be a lot of cost because you're going to have enforcement now. You're going to have people who have to audit. You're going to have people who the people who have the business are going to have to maintain records and they could falsify the records on how many. So they could be operating more than 180 days. Where's the >> Yeah. If they falsify records, they would be breaking city code and could be Yeah. could be liable for that. Absolutely. >> See, it gets very complicated very quickly and I mean I'm just trying to figure out where it's going to go. >> Yeah. >> If they're going to run a business out of their home, that is up to them and for them to to cover. If if they don't and something happens, then they're going to be held liable. >> Sure. >> Just like you do any other business. >> Thank you, Commissioner Robbins. >> Um I appreciate your comments. Um the um are you asking us to do something different? I mean what what is your >> I'm thinking that this ordinance isn't ready to even be out yet. There's not enough I mean there's a lot of stuff in it but it's still vague for the most part. You can there's a lot of ways of going around it and there's a lot of things that weren't uh >> Do you have a copy of it? >> Yes. >> Do you have a copy of what we have? >> Yeah, I have it right. I mean there there there are a number of points that are stipulated here, >> right? >> Single I mean sentence points about things that have to happen. Do you agree with those? >> Yes. Well, I agree with most of them, but once again, you're zoning a you're basically making a residential zone change to the zoning law of that particular house by having a business in it. >> So to that point, are there other homebased businesses that are allowed in code? So like somebody maybe that you know >> I would say we have hundreds if not more. I mean it it goes everything from firearms dealers to there's a state law that allows you to run a bakery out of your house now for homebased business for baking that you can sell. That's pretty >> so just to make sure this is this would not be the first homebased business allowed in the city. >> The homebased businesses that we currently have the only restriction against them is you can't have semiis coming and delivering stuff to your house >> which is fair. Um, and you can't have multiple people coming to your house. So, we do a lot. We have lots of dog groomers um that have homebased businesses in the city. And that's kind of how this started. Some of the home based groomers suddenly went into the daycare and boarding business and that's when we had problems. >> Sure. That makes sense. And I mean, I think another good example is a homebased daycare, right? I mean, those are allowed. >> We have they're allowed by state law and they're everywhere city. Commission Robbins, >> you know, again, I appreciate some of your comments. I I think what we're trying to do though is move forward here. We mean, we understand there's some difficulties, >> right? >> That's why this reports here and all of these recommendations. Um the city council understands that. Um I I think as Commissioner Sovado said, um you know, if if you don't follow the in the rules, there's a fine. You can get fined for that. And at some point we can bring in enforcement. >> Sure. >> You know, the the subject of dogs always is an emotional one. Whenever you talk about dogs, it's an emotional one. But I'm just trying to get at the point of I think this is at least a start and making it better. And and um if you have anything that if there's something that we should add, I'd like to know that. If you think of something we should >> How many dogs does your neighbor have visit? >> They own two of themselves. >> I know, but how how many are visiting? Is >> as far as I've seen up to four at one time, but your thing says four, but you could actually have up to eight because they could be split during the days. They could be And plus, you don't know how friendly they are. So, if I'm out maintaining my yard, I have dogs I have never met before that I have to try to figure out is can I mow next to the the property line? and let alone the noise that they make cuz now like today they had dogs that arrived and next thing you know threw them in the backyard and about 10 15 minutes they were barking is an all new environment to them. >> Well and and the great part about this ordinance right is that now you have something formal you can call and this can be registered as a violation. >> Well I right now with the current ordinance I have a right to do that. >> Sure. >> So that and that's what I was planning on doing but I figured come here and see where this was going to go. >> Fair enough. Yeah, we appreciate you coming. So, >> well, this will put more structure and rigor behind it and a process in place so more penalties can be enforced if needed. >> And what type of penalties would you think of? >> There will be fines. They'll their license will be revoked and if they continue to >> break it then I mean to laugh at them. >> Okay. Um Yeah. I basically I'm just trying to figure out what's going to come of this. >> Yeah. No, I mean I think the council did this because if we went out, we're not going to bring 2,000 people in front of a judge right now because they're going to say, "Well, what's your standard?" You know, now we have standards so that if someone violates, the first thing you'll do is here get a complaint, they potentially get their license pulled, they'll come here, plead their case, they can then take their license away, and then if they still run their business, they're going to end up in front of a judge. >> Well, I know in what, two weeks, the council is supposed to vote on it. So, I will be I'll try to make it back. It's on a Tuesday, but >> it is what it is. But >> I actually I'm concerned with it. >> Yeah. >> I mean, I they I've already had three dogs. There was another dog that they were running around the neighborhood trying to catch that got away from them. Now, the other question I'm going to ask is these homeowners, if they go on an errand or something and they have kids who are under 16, let's say, so they're all minors. Are they're attending these dogs? Where's Now the liability is on these kids, which of course they have no liability for the most part. I'm wondering. >> Well, I'm not an attorney, but I think the liability is still with the homeowner. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Even with dog. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Well, they're still running a business, right? Like if you own assumes liability for the dog, >> if you ran a home bakery and somebody got sick off your baked goods, you would still be liable for that. >> But if you have minors running the business, that's >> think you'd still be liable. the homeowner assumes the liability. >> No, it was just a >> No. Fair. Yes. And you know, hopefully obviously that never becomes an issue. But yeah, >> and I think based on if this gets passed, if you call and say, "Look, there's nobody there. The dogs are barking all day, someone's going to show up and say, look, first warning, you know, if we got to come back and this becomes chronic, you're going to lose your license and you'll be here pleading your case and they're going to have to vote you down." >> Sure. >> Okay. Yeah. So, we appreciate you coming to speak tonight. >> Right. Like I said, I was just a chance that I No, it's great by chance. >> That's exactly [laughter] honestly that's exactly what a public hearing is for. So, we really appreciate it. >> Right. >> Thanks. >> I You're going to be the bad guy no matter or I'm going to be the bad guy no matter what I do on this because whether the city does it, I'm going to end up complaining to the neighbor. >> Well, that's the thing. You're not a good or bad guy, right? This is about, you know, >> right? >> If somebody's, you know, impinging on your, you know, quality of life, like there are >> things you can do to take care of that. >> So that's good. >> You're allowed to have a use of enjoyment of your property, >> right? >> Yeah. >> So, thank you for that. Appreciate it. >> Thanks. >> Thank you for listening. I appreciate that. >> Is that it? No. I I don't know. I don't know what the polic Yeah. You can go back and sit for the rest of it or you can leave if you'd like. >> First, right? They leave a blood sample or >> Yeah. Oh jeez. [laughter] >> No, >> no, no blood samples tonight. [clears throat] >> I'd make two comments. I think one is what I'm hearing a subtle thing that I think there's probably something we should reflect on is that today, again, if I'm understanding it right, they're not allowed to do this. Period. >> And what we're hearing is there's thousands of people that are >> Yeah. >> that are not having any repercussions. There's no consequences. >> So part of the comment is, okay, so now you can put rules in. >> Why are we are we going to have consequences now? How is that going to change that? So that that's one concern that I think is we should listen to. The second one that kind of came out kind of behind the scenes I think is this notion of unleashed dogs being dropped off. So we've got drop off hours. He's out in his garage. The kids are out playing in the front yard and Peggy Sue rolls up in the minivan unless the two Doberman's out and everybody get, you know, whatever. Maybe there should be something added about pickup and drop off dogs must be on leash until they get on the house or something because then the other comments were any outdoor activities in a backyard fenced in, right? So now they're contained and all those sorts of things. But >> I don't want to revisit. I think you guys did a good job having a bunch of people get together and talk about it. Made a lot of good points, but >> maybe something that could be added was this leash. >> No. So what we'll do is when council decides on what the fee is going to be for this permit. So there'll have to be some public education and so that's going to take a little while. They'll also set administrative fines. So >> I will stress to them when they do that that they should be high. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Good. Um >> also too I just want to call out like these can always be amended in the future as we learn how this goes or complaints come in. >> We can add additional guidelines. >> Yeah, I hear you. It's not perfect. It won't be perfect, but we can't let perfect get in the way of progress. That whole deal, right? So, let's start with something. It's better than what we had three weeks ago and amend it and add to it and change it as it goes. >> Well, that sounds great. >> I was going to say what it's actually coming down is we're accommodating them because there are 2,000. >> So, yes, I understand. But you have an ordinance basically if someone's running it, you're supposed to shut it down for the most part. Now, we're accommodating for them. So, >> well, that and and that's part of living in a city, right? Sometimes we do accommodate changes in behavior. things change. You know, for a while there wasn't an ordinance where you could have chickens in your backyard, but there was enough of people that wanted chickens in their backyard that they can have chickens now. >> Or bees. >> Or or bees. >> Yes. >> I could always have bees and then it was taken away. >> So, fair enough. Yeah. Yeah. >> Someone get the center. >> Um, thank you for uh coming up and speaking. Y >> um >> since I don't see anybody else that wants to speak in the public hearing, first let's entertain a motion to close the public hearing. >> I move we close the public. >> Thank you, Commissioner Robbins. Is there a second? Commissioner Wiler with the second. Any discussion on closing the public hearing hearing? None. All in favor? >> I >> I. Any opposed? All right. So, the public hearing is closed. >> So, I think one of the things that council is trying to do is or staff's trying to help council do is so for instance, you're not going to see this because it's not in the land use code, but we're going to be limiting short-term rentals. >> So, right now, it be kind of stuff. Is that rent? >> Yes. No. Limit limiting them. So right now you can do it by code for 180 days a year. And to this gentleman's point, who's measuring that? And so we're getting tons of complaints now. And as the amphitheater comes forward, I can guarantee you more and more of the homes will be rented. So we're going to pass an ordinance that you have to get licensed just like you have to get licensed for a rental property. So an inspector is going to come to your house. They're going to make sure you have etc. And they're going to monitor your house and if there's complaints, they're going to come to your house. Our new health inspector will be visiting you. I mean, so they're council has to react to situations and they're trying to get ahead of the curve because we have a number of problem properties right now. The other thing is you're going to have to be owner occupied. So the new thing is people with really large homes in Shakipi are moving out and renting them for $1,000 a night. So that's not going to be allowed anymore. Those people are going to have to sell their houses. >> Yeah. >> Oh, that's good to know. Yeah. And is that going to come in front of us, too? >> No, that's a not a land use. It's a licensing. >> Got it. Okay. Um, I want to go back to you started this saying that there was 2,000 um, people doing this and and there wasn't a way to enforce this, like you just don't have the staff to enforce it. And so if you just take like you mentioned $25 times the 2,000, that's just $50,000. Is that enough to pay for a person to monitor this assuming everybody gets homeless? >> So when you license something, we have pretty sophisticated software that tracks all of that. So I think that that will help. And so if someone goes and the person says, "Oh, these four dogs are mine." The first thing they're going to say is, "Oh, do they are they licensed dogs in the city?" I mean, we have ways in one system, we can check everything. So we can actually go to a house, see whether your dog is licensed or not, and if they're not, we can say if they're really your dogs, then you need to license them. So I mean, there's we have that capacity right now. >> So >> So you're not worried about current enforcement capacity? >> No. Uh >> it's amaz occupations we have. I mean it's incredible that we don't get that many complaints and there's a lot of home occupations. >> Okay. I >> mean most neighbors they try to be neighborly and don't cause problems. But for instance 2,000 people leasing their homes out for dogs is an issue or leasing their homes out for parties. You know that and they leave town and there's you know 30 people at the house with the bus. That's a problem. >> Totally agree on that one. >> So, >> so, so we're trying to put regulations in place so that we can actually have >> cuz right now when the police go out for a complaint, they'll say, "You really shouldn't be doing this." And the people go, "Okay, I won't do it anymore." And the next day they do it again. And so now we're going to say, "We're going to take your license away." And then we're going to put you in front of a judge. >> Right. And then I assume the city council then would be the ones to say, you know, x number of violations mean that you lose your your license. Uh first violation cost this much, second violation cost this, whatever, like the actual sort of penalties or the cost of the permit or council's coming up with that stuff, right? We're just talking generally about the policy without those specifics. >> Yeah. This actually the the land use portion is in your code, >> right? Right. Right. >> The other part will be in the fee schedule. >> Great. Perfect. We are still just talking. >> I do have one question for just for awareness piece. So this continue barking over three minutes is only pertain to the people who running that business, not to the general public. >> Correct. >> Right. Good point. >> Yeah. Um sorry, the public hearing is closed unfortunately, but yeah. Um and the only other thing I would say, and I really like Commissioner Wer's point about adding something into the code that talks about dogs being leashed coming into and out of the house. >> Yep. That's an easy change we can make. >> Yeah, I would love to add that if possible. >> You mean like the drop is drop off? >> Right. Yeah. Yeah. Drop off and pickup, right? So from the car to the door, that dog should be on a leash. >> Um and I like the idea of adding that if the rest of the commission's good with it, but I'm not going to be proposing it. So um any other discussion amongst us before we look to some sort of a motion? I'm not hearing any. So, >> Mr. Chairman, >> yes, Mr. Robinson, >> I move that we recommended the city council ordinance 02025-021 amending section 151.07G of the Shakapei city code relating to home occupation permits for dog daycare. >> Thank you. The only thing I would ask is that would you mind amending that motion to add the part about leashing dogs coming into and out of the house? >> Yes. So now that's a friendly motion that we would just add that. >> Yes, >> Mr. Kirsty. That's all right. >> Yep. And it hasn't been seconded yet. So you can make the change. >> Perfect. So So now we have all of that with the addition of the leashing leashing part. >> Is there anybody that's willing to second that motion? >> I'll second it. >> Thank you, Commissioner Wiler. We have a motion in a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, we'll uh roll call vote, please. >> Commissioner Foresight, >> I. >> Commissioner Wiler, >> I. >> Commissioner Sandu, >> I. >> Commissioner Reading, >> I. >> Commissioner Rano, >> I. >> Commissioner Sepovo, >> I. >> Commissioner Robbins, >> I. >> Thank you. That passes unanimously and thanks for uh talking to us tonight. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> All right. That is the last public hearing. Uh we'll go on to item six, other business. Is there any other business? Um yes. So the city council did dissolve the um whatever it was called the parks park and recreation commission and did modify the cord at the city code that you are now also reviewing parks. >> Do we get a raise? >> No, [laughter] you already got a raise. >> That's right. Yeah. >> Oh, wait. Would you say that again? I'm not quite. >> So now when park projects come forward when so Bill Delaney who's the city's landscape architect when we bring a park forward um in the future you'll see those plans >> for park >> because that was going through the park and recreation advisory board up until now >> not for the past three years but [laughter] well look I have a little nostalgia for it because that's how I started in you know helping out but >> so it will be just added into a normal agenda on a planning commission. >> It won't be like a separate >> No. Okay. >> No. So the duties of the planning commission were changed to include reviewing park development. >> Okay, that >> we we are not getting paid more. Is that what you said? [laughter] >> All right. Can we can we move to get paid? Is that >> other business? >> Yeah, right. >> Got you a big raise a couple years ago. Come on. >> And I do appreciate you for that. Uh thank you for that. Any other businesses? >> All right. Great. Then we'll move on to item seven and entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> So move second. Got Commissioner Robbins, Commissioner Sandi with the second. Uh, any discussion on the motion to adjurnn? All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Any opposed? All right. We are adjourned at I don't know what it is 7:56. Um, and we're adjourned to November 6th.