[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