[0:00] royal blue, if you will.

[0:06] » All right, we'll call the Monday, February 23rd city council meeting to

[0:10] order 6:30 p.m. and we'll join for the pledge of allegiance.

[0:17] Sorry. He just came back

[0:22] to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it

[0:27] stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice

[0:32] for all.

[0:36] [clears throat] >> All right. Any additions to the agenda

[0:39] tonight, Nick? >> Uh, no additions tonight, acting mayor.

[0:43] » All right. Seeing there's no additions, we'll look for a motion to approve the

[0:48] agenda as presented. >> Motion second.

[0:52] » All in favor? >> I. [clears throat]

[0:55] » Motion passes 40. Now we'll open up for public comment if

[1:01] anybody wants to come forward and has something to say.

[1:05] » Good evening everyone. >> Good evening.

[1:08] » My name is Kyle Coons. uh live at 4 street 324 street northeast mayor

[1:14] Minnesota lived there 10 years almost 11 uh previous public works supervisor for

[1:20] 12 years I am here just to say thank you to you all for the generos

[1:25] [clears throat] offer to come back I'm I don't know why I'm getting choked up but

[1:28] I'm getting choked up but uh the generous offer to come back I truly

[1:32] appreciate it I appreciate everybody's this staff public works all the support

[1:38] I've gotten across the community to come back It's truly mean meant a lot and I

[1:42] I'm just here to simply say thank you in person. I hope you all received my thank

[1:46] you letter as well. >> Letter was great.

[1:48] » Um when I left mayor I wasn't disgruntled by any means. I wasn't upset

[1:52] or dissatisfied with the job in any way. I was just simply uh presented or

[1:57] blessed with another opportunity that I wanted to explore at the time. So coming

[2:01] back and with that the opportunity to come back to a job I did love uh was

[2:06] exciting. So, I definitely considered the offer very thoroughly and I just

[2:11] wanted to let you all know that I really did and um I'm here in the meantime to

[2:16] help Nick and the public works crew as much as I can while they do you guys do

[2:20] search for your next public works supervisor and I will always be um just

[2:26] a phone call away for mayor whether I'm on the payroll at mayor or I'm not. So,

[2:30] I just want to see mayor succeed and um be successful

[2:36] » from here on out. So that's all I have. Kept it short and sweet, less than five

[2:40] minutes. So, um, thank you all very much again.

[2:44] » Thank you. >> I just want you all to know that.

[2:46] » Appreciate you, Kyle. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you, Kyle.

[2:52] » Seeing as that's the only member in our audience, we will close public comment

[2:56] and move to consent agenda. Anything that needs to be pulled for further

[3:01] discussion? [clears throat]

[3:03] » Nope. Hearing none, I'll look for a motion to approve the consent agenda.

[3:07] » Motion >> second.

[3:09] » All in favor? >> I.

[3:11] » Motion carries. 40. On to business items.

[3:16] Uh 8. Consider adoption of ordinance 251 amending the zoning code.

[3:26] » Thank you, acting mayor. Uh we have the zoning code coming back before us. We

[3:30] had moved for its introduction. uh a handful of meetings ago, there were some

[3:34] questions from the city council in the interim. Uh city planner John Anderson

[3:39] uh included a memo in this packet which I believe addressed those questions uh

[3:44] that the council's acting and he is here to take any questions or go over any

[3:50] concerns with [clears throat] any parts of the code. John, anything you'd like

[3:53] to add? >> Yeah, so we did uh look at the zoning

[3:56] ordinance been going over for about the last year or so uh with the planning

[4:00] commission uh back in January 6th. The planning commission actually recommended

[4:03] 4 to zero to recommend approval of the current ordinance update for the zoning

[4:08] ordinance. And at the council meeting a couple meetings ago, um there was some

[4:12] discussion on a couple specific questions. I have since put together a

[4:16] memo uh for you guys and I'll just kind of page through those items that are

[4:20] listed on there. Um all this was talked at great length at the planning

[4:24] commission meeting and just kind of give an update here to the city council and

[4:27] I'll just kind of start going down the list. And if anyone has any questions,

[4:30] let me know. or if there anything else that's I didn't list that you want to

[4:33] answer or a question on just you know we'll go through that. Um but first of

[4:38] all we you know some of the things we did you know we did a lot of updating to

[4:41] the ordinance itself which there's a lot of inconsistencies in the previous one

[4:45] or the current one I guess right now where one chapter didn't match or with

[4:48] the other chapter and we're just trying to get all that to to match. Um so

[4:53] basically [clears throat] we amended the definition. This is

[4:56] number one on the list uh of the animals to match chapter 92 which is another

[5:00] section of the city code. So we have two different sections of code that had

[5:04] definitions of the same thing but they weren't the same. So we basically

[5:07] amended that. And there's a few other instances like this where we kind of

[5:10] added the definition and made things you know to match say subdivision ordinance

[5:14] language or whatever just so we have consistency and there's no um things

[5:18] that we're unclear about. So number two in section 15207

[5:23] single family dwelling requirements. All single family dwelling unit um single

[5:27] family detached units were required to have two tall uh two stall attached

[5:32] garage. And we did have some of those requirements previously but it was kind

[5:36] of not consistent across each of the districts. So now we are requiring that

[5:39] for all these type of single family dwellings to have that two two stall

[5:43] attached garage. um section 152050 non-conforming building structures and

[5:48] uses. Uh the language was added to allow for an additional extension of 180 days

[5:53] for applicant to get a building permit if the structure is destroyed. So this

[5:57] was brought up in the planning commission as a specific question. Right

[6:01] now, the current uh state statutes allow that if a house gets burned down, let's

[6:05] say by a fire or tornado or something of that nature, that they have up to six

[6:09] months if it's a non-conforming structure to apply for and get a

[6:12] building permit to rebuild that exact same structure in the same footprint

[6:16] that was there previously. What this language allows for is, you know,

[6:19] sometimes through insurance or whatever reason it's winter time that six months

[6:24] may come and they need an extra six months. So, they have the ability to ask

[6:27] for an extension to grant another six months. um to do that. You know, it's

[6:32] not a big deal and there's not a lot of these instances that actually occur

[6:35] where it's an issue, but you know, it has happened in places before. So, we

[6:39] added that language. Section 152051, home occupations. Home offices were

[6:44] added to the allowed uses and daycarees were added as an accessory use. And we

[6:48] kind of updated that overall section just to clarify it a little bit, but

[6:51] there was some things like the home offices that, you know, somebody just

[6:54] works out of an office at home. A lot of times it's not considered that, but we

[6:57] did allow that just so there was clarity and, you know, no questions down the

[7:01] road. Um, section [clears throat] 152052, temporary structures. Uh, a site

[7:07] plan review was required for temporary structures instead of an administrative

[7:11] use permit um to be consistent with other lang uh language in the zoning

[7:15] ordinance. So, this was kind of an update. You know, if you have a

[7:18] temporary structure, uh sometimes they'll do that as like a work trailer

[7:22] for a large construction project, for instance. I know when the mayor Luan

[7:26] High School built I believe they had a work trailer out there if I recall

[7:29] correctly and uh you know this would just show hey here's where the the

[7:33] trailer would be here's where potential driveways parking things like that would

[7:36] be you know that's what that site plan review would do for you. So um an

[7:40] institutional definition was actually added to the definition section. We did

[7:44] have institutional uses and a public institutional district. We just added

[7:49] that definition there so we everyone knows truly what an institutional use is

[7:52] which is basically government buildings uh potentially schools you know things

[7:56] of that nature. So uh recreational facilities were exempted from screening

[8:01] requirements under section 15255 screening. This was something that was

[8:05] also requested specifically in the planning commission um that when you

[8:09] have screening requirements in certain districts that are adjacent to

[8:13] residential districts. Uh a recreational facility for instance um could be a

[8:18] ballpark or or you know a park or you know something of that nature and to

[8:22] screen an entire park sometimes is not needed. Now, obviously, uh if you're

[8:27] looking at this through a site plan review, uh there is the ability to add

[8:30] potentially screening in some areas. You know, they don't have ballfield lights

[8:33] shining right into somebody's house or something like that. So, that can be

[8:36] looked at, but it's not a specific requirement as it previously was. Um

[8:42] uses across the street from residential properties were also exempted uh from

[8:46] screening. So, right now, that was a clarification the planning commission

[8:49] asked for as well. So, if you have say a business or an industrial use on one

[8:53] side of the street and then you got highway uh trunk highway 25, let's say

[8:57] down by the Shimcore area and they have houses on the other side there, we're

[9:01] not requiring those businesses to fully screen trunk highway 25 because the

[9:05] residential use is across the street. So, the Dollar General that's in place,

[9:09] you know, we do you want them to really fully screen their, you know, business

[9:13] when they're on the highway like that. So, it it basically just clarified that

[9:17] to make sure. Now, if it's adjacent to it where it backs right up to that

[9:20] property, there is screening requirements there, but not across the

[9:24] street like that. Um, maximum height requirement for accessory structures and

[9:29] residential districts was currently 17 feet. And over the last couple years,

[9:33] we've had a handful of uh variance requests for a larger structure to be

[9:37] like 20t tall. So, we moved that from 17t to 20 feet just because there has

[9:42] been a few of those here recently where we've gone through that process. Now in

[9:45] some of those cases they would not need a variance. They could just get the

[9:48] building permit because it meets the 20 foot requirement. I think one of those

[9:51] was actually 22 or 21 feet. You know they still need to come forward but you

[9:56] know we picked 20 at the planning commission. So that's where it's at. We

[9:59] are amending that. So structures can be a little bit taller moving forward. Um

[10:04] the flood plane management overlay district uh which is currently a

[10:07] separate chapter um in the zoning ordinance or in the the code I should

[10:12] say. Uh technically this is an overlay district. is the zoning um issue. So, we

[10:18] basically took the language from that previous chapter, incorporated into the

[10:21] new zoning ordinance update, and now it's in a correct chapter where it

[10:24] should be. So, it's more of an incorporation. We didn't really amend

[10:27] any language other than some specific things where it address current, you

[10:31] know, or ordinances and things like that. So, um under the landscaping

[10:35] requirements in section 152056, motor vehicle sales were exempted from

[10:40] having trees planted around along the property line. This was also something

[10:43] discussed at the planning commission to do with bird droppings. Um, you don't

[10:47] want to have a new motor vehicle district, you know, selling cars and you

[10:51] got trees above it. So, that was the one item that got exempted there. So,

[10:54] something's uh different from the previous ordinance or the current

[10:57] ordinance, I should say. Uh, landscaped islands were also removed as a

[11:01] requirement for off- streetet parking lots in some instances. There's still

[11:04] some specifics in there that would require that, but overall I think there

[11:08] was some specific language about you had to have a certain amount of landscape

[11:11] islands for every amount of parking spaces, we kind of adjusted that

[11:14] language, kind of lessened that requirement. Um, off- street parking

[11:18] requirements [clears throat] were revised and uh while a lot of the

[11:23] uses uh in off- streetet parking did not change, some did. Uh, for instance, one

[11:27] that came up that we've talked about, I know the mayor had also specifically

[11:31] asked me about this one, was retail uses went from six stalls per thousand to

[11:35] five stalls. And that was something we looked at. Uh, there's a few other ones

[11:39] that we kind of adjusted slightly. For instance, restaurants um went to more of

[11:44] a one per every 40 square feet versus a one per three seats. Um, office uh was

[11:50] one per 200. uh we basically kind of adjusted how we calculate it based you

[11:54] know now it used to be five per thousand or six per thousand we're just saying

[11:58] one for every 200 square feet because sometimes you get these odd numbers on

[12:01] the other way it was calculated um so that that was the big one but we did

[12:05] reduce that down because I know once again the Dollar General uh there was a

[12:10] um variance request for too many stalls I know the uh Mexican restaurant had one

[12:14] a few years back as well um that was kind of an existing situation it's a

[12:18] little bit different situation than the Dollar General but we did reduce it down

[12:22] to be more consistent with some other communities. Um there was some thought

[12:26] process of going maybe a little less, but when you start comparing it, there

[12:29] isn't too many places that go less. And the reason you look at that is let's say

[12:33] in two years Dollar General goes out of business and a new store comes in that

[12:37] generates a lot more traffic. You don't want to reduce it so much that a new

[12:40] business that could potentially take over that structure doesn't have enough

[12:44] parking. So we think we're still covered this way, but yet there is given a

[12:47] little bit of a break. Now there may still may be a variance request at some

[12:51] point in the future but you have to take them one at a time as I come I guess if

[12:54] that is the uh request. So um under sign regulations the landscaping requirement

[13:00] around the base of freestanding signs was removed. Right now you have to put a

[13:04] certain amount of landscaping per square footage. That was just basically removed

[13:07] because it hasn't always been followed and something we just felt was

[13:11] necessarily not needed. Now somebody wants to do it they can. um language was

[13:16] added to the discussion [clears throat] to allowed uh for River Rock to be used

[13:20] for a semi-improved parking pad. And obviously this is something that's been

[13:23] talked about over time at the city few years back. There was actually uh quite

[13:27] a discussion on that. Um basically this would be along the sideyard and the rear

[13:32] yard. The river rock uh shall contain a sand base and edg the edge shall be

[13:36] delineated. This was added um into a street parking and driveway section

[13:40] under parking pads and it was brought up uh to leave it uh leave the language in

[13:45] the text. Uh this is adding the river rock and could be discussed at a later

[13:49] date. I know the planning commission did have some discussion on it. Ultimately,

[13:53] it was approved with that text in there. Uh this is something you could discuss

[13:56] here tonight. Um it was not discussed any specifically further at the public

[14:00] hearing and was like I said recommended for approval. So, that's one that was

[14:04] addressed uh currently and prior to the previous ordinance um update. It was

[14:09] always required to be paved for that uh parking pad. So, um this would be

[14:14] something that' be a little different from that. Uh so, it's definitely

[14:16] something to keep uh to discuss or look at. Uh storage containers or

[14:21] [clears throat] land seat containers is a definition we came up with, which

[14:24] currently are allowed in the city in certain districts and instances, but

[14:28] they do have to be 100% screened. Uh this was looked at a couple years ago

[14:32] and it was decided to be put on hold until we did the zoning orance update.

[14:36] So we went through this at the planning commission and uh basically

[14:40] [clears throat] came up with the language that was kind of previously

[14:43] drafted that never was officially adopted and we kind of went with that

[14:46] for the most part. Um basically [clears throat] it has to meet accessory

[14:50] building requirements. Shall only be located in the rear yard of the lot or

[14:53] the sideyard no closer to the front than the front of the building. Um and uh

[14:59] basically it shall not be allowed in required parking spaces and it shall

[15:02] only allow three per property. Um so each property is allowed up to three.

[15:07] Now I know there's a few instances in the city that have maybe more than

[15:11] three. I know there's one over here that they have just three. If they do have

[15:14] more currently they're grandfathered in. Now the bigger thing is the the

[15:18] screening and things like that. So there was definitely the current ordinance

[15:22] allows you know requires it or allows it but requires screening. So that does

[15:26] have to be, you know, something that looked at. I think we had some specific

[15:29] language that was added in there, uh, due to, you know, I think there's some

[15:32] paint color things you can do with it. Um, potentially some screening,

[15:36] different things. So, so we do have that language in there. We did clarify it

[15:39] from what it previously is. Um, it was something that's come up over the last

[15:43] few years. And really, we're not trying to outlaw this or anything because it is

[15:47] currently allowed. We're just trying to put specific rules in place so somebody

[15:51] doesn't take advantage of that down the road. So, uh, tree preservation

[15:55] standards were added to the landscaping section, which is 152056.

[15:59] Uh, basically what this is is if you had say a 40 acre parcel and it was all

[16:03] wooded right now, the developer could literally come in and clear cut the

[16:07] entire 40 acres and develop it and there really is no specific limitations or

[16:11] requirements to uh replant trees. Now, we do have uh specific requirements to

[16:16] plant, you know, trees per lot as the house gets built, but there's nothing in

[16:20] trying to keep rear yard trees or buffer trees or anything like that. So, what

[16:24] this does, it [clears throat] came up with a um allowable um you you figure

[16:30] out the caliper inches, which is pretty, you know, just figure the significant

[16:33] trees what the caliper per inch is. You can you can remove up to 40% of the

[16:37] total caliper inches. So let's say you have a thousand caliper inches, you can

[16:40] remove up the you know basically 400 inches which you know you might have

[16:44] some trees are 20 some are 30 whatever and then after that you have to start

[16:49] replacing trees on a on a schedule which is at a rate of 0.5 for every one inch

[16:54] removed. Um so that's for a new development if somebody's doing a

[16:57] residential development. If they don't move it remove any trees or remove less

[17:00] than that they're not legally required to plant them. If they remove say 70% of

[17:05] the trees, they have to take that 30% over over that number, figure out that

[17:09] number and then find a place on that property to replant the trees. So

[17:12] landscaping plan would show where those trees go. A lot of times they'll try to

[17:16] buffer, you know, busier roadways or, you know, back, you know, so people are

[17:20] looking right into somebody else's house or neighboring properties, things like

[17:23] that. So, you know, it's going to be different in every case, but it gives

[17:26] the city the ability to do that. Uh the tree replacement requirement for uh say

[17:30] a business or a homeowner is 30%. So let's say somebody owned just one

[17:34] individual lot and it had 20 trees on there. They don't want to just come in

[17:38] and clear cut 20 trees. They can remove up to 30% of them before they're

[17:42] required to replace. But so we did have a different percent there, but same same

[17:45] pro um process of how to how to calculate it. Um a new uh I1 light

[17:50] industrial district was also added to the zoning ordinance. Uh basically we've

[17:55] had we've talked about this for a while now. It was actually in the the most

[17:58] recent comp plan update in 2020. It was recommended to add a new industrial

[18:03] district. And for instance, this would be potentially property east of the

[18:06] Shimcore industrial area. Uh and this would be a true industrial district

[18:10] where right now we have a commercial industrial district. So allows for you

[18:13] know a use like Casey's General Store to go in with adjacent industrial type

[18:17] properties. This would be more of a district that would be specific in

[18:20] district uh industrial in nature and could allow some heavier type industrial

[18:24] uses. When I say heavy, I don't mean major factories, but I mean more of a

[18:28] true industrial type use, you know, like business park type structures, things

[18:32] like that. So, um this district was added um in addition to the C1

[18:37] commercial industrial district and we still have our typical um commercial

[18:41] districts as well. Uh there was also a new residential district was added and

[18:45] I'll kind of go through all these districts here in just a second, but we

[18:48] currently have uh three zoning uh districts in the residential districts

[18:52] in the city. The R1, the R2, the R3, and there's kind of a lot of carryover from

[18:58] district as district. And by adding this fourth one, it kind of separates uses a

[19:02] little bit more. So, you know, in some cases, you could have single family home

[19:05] next to apartments, next to town homes, all being in the same district. And what

[19:09] we did here is with the R1, we made that the true single family district. Only

[19:14] single family is allowed in that district. We have specific lot sizes

[19:17] that are allowed. Then we went to the two R2, which is a single and two

[19:21] family. You'll see a lot of smaller single family lots in here and also

[19:25] allows for like a duplex type structure. And um there's also uh like you know

[19:30] like smaller villa type product that could potentially then we move up to the

[19:34] R3 which is more of a multifamily where you'd have potentially town houses. Uh

[19:38] you could go down to an R like a a twin home as well but it has the ability to

[19:43] get a little bit more density a little bit higher um intensity of the

[19:46] residential use. And then your R4 district which is your multifamily is

[19:50] like your apartments um senior housing condominiums things of that nature. So

[19:56] you kind of gradually step up the uh density of the units and it separates

[20:01] that out. And we have some specifics and you know lot sizes. We kept the R1 very

[20:05] similar to what it is now. Um except that we did move um uh these the width

[20:10] back to 75 ft. Currently was 85. There's never been an 85 foot lot plat actually

[20:17] platted in the city since that's been changed. uh everything that previously

[20:21] was developed in the early 2000s when they're at 75 and then they changed the

[20:25] zoning. The recession hit, nothing ever got readopted. As developments have

[20:29] happened, they've gone back to the previous uh layouts which were plumary

[20:33] platted at one time. Cold Water Crossing had it hidden creek did. Fieldstone has

[20:37] that ability and those were all designed at 75 ft before that change was made.

[20:41] And if we keep going back to that, why don't we just change the zoning district

[20:44] back to that, which everybody seems to be okay with. And you know, it it fits

[20:48] and and works. So, um, this last section here is basically,

[20:54] uh, just a list of all the districts themselves. And I don't really need to

[20:57] go through them, but on on the list in your thing, I put the the purpose or the

[21:02] general intent of each district there is. So, there's a A1 agricultural, which

[21:05] is kind of the area in the northeast part of the city. It's kind of looked at

[21:08] as a um uh area that can remain agricultural but as long-term plan for

[21:14] future growth. So we there's some limits on what you can develop out there that

[21:18] to you know preserve that future growth area. I kind of went through the R1

[21:22] through R4 districts. So I won't really touch on them. Then we got the C1

[21:26] highway business district uh C2 central business district. Uh these are the

[21:31] basically the same. There's some chain tweaks in there here and there. We you

[21:34] know cleaned up some of the language. Um but you know the C1 highway um was

[21:38] general commerce. So we kind of changed that. It's just so everyone understands

[21:41] what general commerce means. It's really more of a highway type of business which

[21:45] is pretty typical in a lot of communities when they call that general

[21:48] commerce that technically could be a downtown business too. So we kind of

[21:52] called them out what we're designing for. Uh the C1 commercial industrial we

[21:56] kind of touched on that and the I1 light industrial. Then the last one is that

[21:59] public institutional district and that's like I said for most of the schools, the

[22:03] churches, the public building, city hall here, you know, stuff like that. It has

[22:07] specific requirements in that. So alto together um those are some of the big

[22:12] items that we really touched on and went through and you know had some you know

[22:15] real discussions at the the planning commission meeting. Um like I said if

[22:19] there's anything specific that you do want to talk about or you look up or

[22:22] other things that I may not have touched on here, just let me know. Otherwise,

[22:27] we're at a point where the ordinance is ready for adoption and um

[22:32] that's where we're at. >> Um I just had a couple of questions.

[22:36] » Okay. >> Um so you did answer the question about

[22:40] grandfathering of the containers, >> just the number, but there's still

[22:45] because previously we the color and the >> screening is required for those because

[22:52] that was in the ordinance prior. >> Correct.

[22:54] » Okay. But just the number if they have four,

[22:58] they're grandfathered in. Now, do we take inventory of that or like is it

[23:03] more just I mean, not that I don't need to get into everybody's business, but

[23:08] » we have looked at aerial photos to try to count them in the past. I know. Um,

[23:13] yeah. I mean, somebody could go out there tomorrow and count the numbers and

[23:16] if you know, there's not many of them and people know where they are.

[23:19] » I'm just curious like how do you even like

[23:21] » Yeah. You know, >> ordinance enforcement is typically on a

[23:25] reactive basis versus a proactive basis. So, it would come as a

[23:29] » hey, I noticed they have six containers out there where they used to have four.

[23:33] What is the city going to do about this versus us actively sending out people to

[23:38] » right >> police it?

[23:40] » Yeah. And I'm not saying that, but like I do know that there isn't any screening

[23:44] on some. So, is it just wait till somebody complains about it and then we

[23:50] have Okay, >> that's kind of where it is. I mean, you

[23:53] know, [snorts]

[23:55] » yeah, you know, some most of them are in like an industrial type use area and

[24:00] it's not like you got people living there looking at every day out their

[24:02] kitchen windows. So, it's >> not the end of the world. So, it's if

[24:06] nobody's really worried about it. >> Well, and even the ones that have it,

[24:10] it's not like they're in the front [clears throat] front of the business or

[24:13] out wide open. I am not complaining about it. I was just trying to

[24:16] understand. >> Right.

[24:18] » Sure. >> The reason we talked about a number is

[24:20] you know what what if somebody bought a parcel and all a sudden they had a

[24:23] hundred of them out there. >> Yeah.

[24:25] » There would be nothing to stop that if they met the other requirements and I

[24:28] don't think that's you know the intent of what the city wanted. So that's you

[24:31] know we talked at length about the number. I think at one time somebody was

[24:34] saying five and somebody was all sorts of numbers were being thrown out there

[24:38] and ultimately they agreed on three at the planning commission.

[24:41] » Yeah. I mean I'm fine. I mean, if it really became an issue

[24:45] again, like there can be a revisions of things if it starts to be a thing that

[24:51] people are like, I really need more and why it makes sense.

[24:57] » Um, and then my last one was, can you just explain a little bit more about the

[25:01] the parking pad and the river rock that you just mentioned? Like, we can have a

[25:06] discussion. You're adding [clears throat]

[25:07] » you're adding this but we could have a >> another me like I'm a little confused.

[25:13] » If you remember I don't know what is it about four or five days ago we had the

[25:16] or we had the >> ordinance update and really what it was

[25:20] it was more of a >> um cleaning up of it because it allow it

[25:24] required paving at that time as well. But we kind of put language at the city

[25:28] council did it that here's more specific language. We came up with the parking

[25:32] pad language where it was truly defined in the ordinance and basically the

[25:37] discussion's always been about these parking pads. Do we need them paved or

[25:41] can they be gravel? Um the planning commission talked about having, you

[25:45] know, river rock and this was a pretty good discussion. You know, I will admit

[25:49] some members were fine with it and one member said he would just rather keep it

[25:53] paved. Ultimately, what they approved was to allow for the river rock on the

[25:57] side or the rear yard with delineated edging and it had to be river rock with

[26:01] sand base so it doesn't get compressed down because if it's class 5 gravel and

[26:05] that gets compacted, it's really an impervious surface. Now, I still

[26:09] question, I'm not an engineer, but I still question if the river rock gets

[26:12] compacted too, that can become an impervious surface as well. So, it just

[26:16] depends how it gets maintained because over time that does tend to silt in and

[26:20] you know, our weeds going to grow up in it and all sorts of different things.

[26:22] So, the language right now would change what's currently been there and

[26:27] previously been there before the last update or amended amendment um by

[26:31] allowing this River Rock type of parking pad on the side of a garage, for

[26:35] instance. Now, obviously, it still has to meet setbacks and drainage and all

[26:39] that. And I'll be honest, there are some lots that don't have enough room on the

[26:43] side of garage to fit one in. Just the way that lot is. It is what it is on

[26:47] those. So, we've had a few instances over the years where somebody asked for

[26:50] it and they only got six feet. Well, you can't put one in six feet,

[26:54] » right? >> So, so yeah. So, I guess it's um this

[26:58] was definitely one of the bigger items that was discussed.

[27:00] » Yeah. >> That that clarifies it. No, I remember

[27:03] those conversations.

[27:09] » And there was at the last one, which we've kind of carried over there, we

[27:12] added, you know, a driveway definition. We added, you know, what was specific

[27:16] yard. Um, I think it was improved, semi-improved, and non-improved

[27:20] surfaces. Where not improved would be like grass, and semi-improved would be

[27:24] like gravel. And the improved would be like, you know, black top or concrete or

[27:27] something. So, so that's all still in there. Just it's allowing a technically

[27:31] a semi-improved specific surface on the side or rear.

[27:35] » Okay, perfect. Thank you. That was all the

[27:39] questions I had. >> Any other questions?

[27:45] Then I'll look for a motion to consider the adoption of ordinance 251 amending

[27:51] the zoning code. >> Motion second.

[27:55] » We have a motion and a second. All in favor?

[27:58] » I. >> Motion carries 40. Thank you, John. No

[28:02] problem. >> Hard work.

[28:03] » Lot of work. Yeah, >> I know. Now we're not going to see you

[28:06] anymore. >> Yeah. Well, I've been helping out on,

[28:09] you know, one other site here and who knows, I could still be back. So, as

[28:12] things come up, people still call me once in a while about stuff. So,

[28:16] » I got what, 17, 18 years worth of knowledge.

[28:19] » Yeah. >> You're still going to be on speed dial

[28:22] for some people. >> Yeah. Well, kind of like Kyle, I'm just

[28:24] a phone call away, I guess. So, yeah. I mean,

[28:26] » Municipal Development Group and Holly is still going to be, you know, here and I

[28:30] work with her and she's from our firm. So, I mean, if she ever has questions,

[28:34] she's calls me, too. So, >> yeah. Perfect. Yeah. Nice.

[28:38] » Excellent. Thank you. >> Thank you.

[28:40] » All right. Next business item. >> Consider approval of quote for the 2026

[28:46] sewer jetting services with overline and sun.

[28:51] Thank you, Chad. Uh we have the quote for uh sewer jetting services. So each

[28:56] year uh we do a third of the town for sewer cleaning and this keeps our mains

[29:01] nice and clean so we don't have sewer backup issues. Again, we do one-third

[29:04] every year. And then every other cycle we do televising services with that. So

[29:10] the te so the jetting cleans the pipe and then every other cycle so once every

[29:14] six years we get a televised that makes that uh lets us know how the condition

[29:18] of the pipes are doing if we have any sags or breaks or things that we need to

[29:22] take a look at as we continue on in the future. This is uh the quote is from

[29:26] overline and sun. We only got one quote because we get uh in years past we have

[29:30] had multiple quotes and they're always the lowest and they do a fantastic job

[29:35] and the per linear foot that they are charging us is the exact same rate as it

[29:39] was in 2025. So this area will uh take care of the in

[29:44] Hidden Creek and Cold Water Crossing areas as part of our plan service.

[29:51] » Any questions or discussion? Hearing none, I'll look for a motion to

[29:57] approve the quote from Overline and Sun Sewer Jetting Services in the amount of

[30:04] $24,760.

[30:07] » Motion second. >> All those all those in favor?

[30:13] » I >> I

[30:14] » All oppose. Motion carries. 4 Z. Moving on to council report. Sam,

[30:22] anything? >> I don't have anything.

[30:23] » Emily? Nope. >> Nikki.

[30:25] » Nope. >> And I have had no other meetings. So I

[30:30] guess I'll look for a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion.

[30:33] » Second. >> All those in favor?

[30:35] » I. >> Motion carries. We are adjourned.

[30:39] » Nice. >> Thank you.

[30:40] » Thank you for making the zoning stuff >> easier.

[30:44] » Yeah. Yeah. It's a lot >> because when I when I was going through

[30:47] it, I was like, "Oh, this is going to be a long meeting." [laughter]

[30:50] » Well, I mean, I read your memo. >> Yeah. And that was super

February 23, 2026 City Council Meeting

Transcript