All the IT department. Here we go, ladies and gentlemen. 6 o'clock. Let's call the Tuesday, August 12th, 2025 city council to order. And the first item is roll call. Council member Barnes
>> here. Jimuya >> here. >> Ross >> here. >> Rowan >> here. >> Teal >> here. >> Mayor Spooner >> here. >> And pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it
stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. Item two, approval of the agenda. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Motion by Ross, second by Don Buouya to
approve the M the agenda. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. All opposed. Motion passes. >> Item number three, presentations and introductions. Residents academy participants. Recognition. Jessica Kinder and Brad Fenel.
ations manager, >> mayor, members of the council, um you may recall following the uh community survey here in late 2024, uh staff pitched the idea of putting together a residents academy. Um we were hopeful it was going to be a huge success. Um but I
don't think we ever could have uh truly seen the the the fruit of it until uh recently completing it. Um we had our last session uh two weeks ago and 8 weeks prior to that we met every uh Wednesday night uh as part of his residence academy. Um and I think it was
a really eye-opening experience for the participants and I think uh staff also learned a lot throughout the process. So um for their commitment uh and their dedication to learn more about not only the city as a community uh but certainly the city as an organization. We want to
take a moment and recognize those who could be with us here tonight. Um rather than going with the traditional plaque, uh Jessica had a great idea to be a bit creative. Uh and we pitched the idea to the folks at our sign shop, uh Michael York and Todd Glendy who came up with a
really neat smaller city of Fairbo Street sign uh that's perhaps a little bit more fitting. So, um if you don't mind, I'll I'll call the individuals forward for forward. uh if you would take your sign and and feel free to move through the line and shake. Council member Jackie Barker,
Judy Becker, Jane Edgard, good to see you again. Congratulations, Chloe Cooer. Congratulations, >> Travis Cath. Yeah. Well done, >> Ibrahim Cle for participating.
>> Congratulations. >> Thanks for participating. >> Thank you for participating. >> Thanks for participating. >> Thanks for participating in it. Go. and members, have I have I as I've noted previously um the city of Farbo is
extremely appreciative for not only your time and dedication uh but your desire to learn more involved with the city. So for the city, thank you >> and I would just like to say thank you to Brad. Um this was something that when we talked about it initially as being
one of those very lowcost, lowhanging fruit things to engage some people in a really more direct intensive way. um Brad just took the ball and ran with it. And so uh uh kudos to him and then thank you to department heads um and everybody
who participated uh in that one night of really showcasing their department and providing some really fun experiences. And so this is the first residents academy and so we hope that they'll help us recruit for our second one. >> That was my next point. Thank you to everybody and we hope you can spend the
next uh year, nine months uh trying to recruit people quickly just just really quickly. I know I'm on the agenda and staff >> help us recruit for next year and tell everybody what a fun time you had. Thank
you, Brad. All right. Item number four, approval of the minutes of July 22nd, 2025. >> I'll move >> take a motion. >> Second >> by Ron. A second by Don Bouya. All those
in favor say I. >> I. All opposed. Motion pass. >> Item number five, request to be heard. Were there any on the clipboard? Did anybody notice? I don't believe so. >> Uh item number six, consent agenda
items. Tonight we have 6 A through 6H. Would anybody like to any comments or questions? >> Mayor Spooner. >> Yes. >> Um I'm going to abstain from voting from 6H. Hey, >> Mayor Spooner, I'll make a motion to approve the
consent agenda items 6A through 6H. >> Second. >> Motion by Ross, second by Barnes for 6A through 6H. All those in favor signify. >> All opposed. Public hearings tonight, we have none.
Items for discussion. Item A, resol resolution 2025-191 approve the findings a fact and the record of a decision for Archer data centers E A and a negative declaration needing
an EIS. Harry Davis will begin this. >> Thank you, Mayor. Uh, good evening, Mr. Mayor and Council. Um, tonight we do have a resolution in front of you to find that there is uh no need for an EIS
for an EAW. Uh, and it's associated with the Archer Data Cent's project. Um, we do have our consultant here that actually uh reviewed this EAW in depth and and provided this this feedback to the city to make this negative uh negative finding of an EIS.
Like to turn it over to them if that's okay. >> Certainly. Thank you. Hey, good evening, council. My name is Allison Harwood. I am with WSB and I've been working alongside Harry and other city staff to review the EAW for the Archer Archer data center project. Um
over the next few minutes, I'm going to go over the process of an EAW, the purpose of an EAW, and ultimately some of the findings of this EAW to get to um staff and uh planning commission's recommendations.
So the first thing I will briefly review with you is some of the relevant terms and acronyms that are used and that I may use through this presentation so that um there's no confusion in what I'm talking about because I will tend to use um quite a few acronyms. So the first
being the EQB which is the environmental quality board and they are the they oversee the state um review program. However, implementation is passed down to local government units or other unit other state units of government. Um,
EAWS, which is what we're reviewing today, are environmental assessment worksheets. And these are environmental review documents that are typically completed for individual development projects that have defined concept plans. That type of environmental review
differs from a co a couple of other types of environmental review documents that the EQB also oversees. One of those being the environmental impact statement or the EIS. EIS's are typically compet completed again for individual projects
um that have the potential for significant environmental effects. So some examples of types of projects where you might see an EIS completed would be like a sports stadium. um intra-state pipelines or large minim mineral mining
facilities. And then finally um the definition of significant in this case it means that it cannot be undone and or addressed through other formal review or permitting processes. So again an EAW is a state environmental
review document. It's made up of about 20 questions about um some basic project analysis. And the purpose of the EAW is again to determine whether significant environmental impacts exist and if an EIS would be needed to further study
those impacts. It can also be used to identify mitigation measures for potential more minor impacts. Um inform future permitting, planning, and zoning decisions. Um it's important to note that the EAW or any state environmental review process um they do not approve or
deny projects. They are simply planning documents. The state statute outlines when environmental review is required and that statute Minnesota rule 4410 requires environmental review for various types of development and
intensities. So they may there are um there are requirements for reviews for residential um for mining for water impacts. Um in this particular case, the Archer data center exceeded subp part 14 of that rule for industrial, commercial
and institutional facilities. In that case, the city is the responsible government unit and the owner of the document responsible for ensuring the completeness and the accuracy of the information in that document. uh mitigation measures that are outlined or identified in the EAW
could be the responsibility of either the developer or of the city which would be determined at the time of plan review. The EAW process in general is started when an RGU determines that a mandatory EAW is needed through review of the
project um concept plans and then that um that state statute I mentioned. Once it's determined that an EAW is necessary, the EAW itself is prepared and the RGU then reviews the EAW to ensure that it's complete.
Once it's been ensured that it's complete, it gets distributed out to both uh a list of agency contacts as well as the general public for a 30-day comment period. Once that 30-day comment period is complete, the RGU reviews and
responds to comment comments and then develops a findings of fact document. Finally, the purpose of that is for the um to allow the RGU to make a determination on whether or not the project would require an EIS. As I mentioned, there are about 20 or so
different questions in the EAW. They cover a variety of resource topics. Um they cover potential for impacts to things like cover types, um grading, water resources, habitat, as well as uh public infrastructure such as water and
sewer and transportation networks. Um there might be there may be a variety of studies or reviews completed along with the EAW such as a traffic study. Um but there also may be the need for future or additional studies that would be needed
to be completed after the EAW process is done um during plan review when more detailed um design plans are available to both the city and the applicant. So, for some project background, the Archer Data Center um sits on
approximately 84 acres, and the proposal is for up to 500,000 square feet of data center buildings. That would include up to six one-story buildings, parking lots, utilities such as water, main, sanitary, electrical,
storm water management ponds, a substation, and landscape improvements. And the the construction schedule is anticipated to go from about 2020 fall of 2025 through 2020. Um over the next few slides, I'm going
to go through a few of the um resource areas that the EAW evaluated, what the potential impacts were from those, and then if there are any um additional studies or um permits that would need to be uh
um need to be completed throughout uh additional review processes. I'm not going to go through every single one of those resource areas on that previous slide. Um all of that information is in the in the EAW that you guys have. I'm going to focus on primarily the resource
areas that um the city received comments on. So this first one here are just the general cover types of the area. As you can see, the proposed development will primarily impact crop land um and the impacts related to the other cover types
such as wetlands and woodlands and the increase in imperous surface would be regulated by multiple government agencies. The water resources um category covers a variety of water resource topics including wastewater, water use usage,
storm water and wetlands. Um for both wastewater and uh water use or water demand. Um more information will be needed uh for the city to review on both of those once um the cooling system that the cooling technology that the data
center would use is determined. Um if wastewater is discharged then additional water quality and quantity data would be needed to would be provided um to ensure that there's no adverse impact. And similarly with the water demand
that demand will ultimately depend on the cooling technology used but the project is anticipated to use city water services. The increase in imperous surface from the buildings themselves and the parking lots uh would require storm water management both per city and state
requirements. And then impacts to any of the wetlands on site would be permitted and mitigated through both state and federal um rules. potential impacts to wildlife on the site um are going to be minimized to the extent feasible and if needed the
applicant would coordinate with the US Fish and Wildlife Service as well as the DNR to um further address or identify those potential impacts and any of the areas that are disturbed and um are reveated there would be an effort to use
the native and non-invasive species to vegetate those disturbed areas. Air quality is one category or one resource area where there will be some additional study completed. Um an air quality analysis will be completed
during final design and um if needed the applicant will receive or will apply for permits um through the Minnesota Pollution Agency. And if necessary, um there are some of those environmental review thresholds that are specific to
um emissions. And if the air analysis um shows that the project would exceed those emissions, there would be additional environmental review necessary and the MPCA would lead that review. Uh noise may be generated by a variety
of um project uh project elements such as construction, traffic, backup generators, and ventilation systems. This is another resource area where there will be some additional noise study that would can be completed during final design when the applicant has more
details on um the um the design elements that they'll be using. and noise attenuation measures will then be designed to ensure that both state and city noise standards are met. A traffic study was comm was completed
with the EAW um and various traffic control measures were outlined to mitigate for impacts to the traffic ne network um as a result of traffic generated by the project. And obviously the project will have quite a bit of grading, approximately
93,000 cubic yards of earthwork, which will require an NPD NPDES permit from the MPCA. Um, and then erosion control best management practices will also be used throughout construction to minimize
the potential for impacts from erosion. So the EAW itself was determined to be complete on May 14th. Um, it was issued and available for public comment between May 20th and June 20th. There were comments received from two government
agencies, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the DNR, Department of Natural Resources, and nine members of the public. The comments that were received um focused generally on water resources, wildlife and habitat, air quality, and noise, which were the
categories that we just kind of over gave an overview to previously. Um the EAS need decision um was extended uh through August 20th to give the city staff um and the applicant sufficient
time to uh fully address comments. So there will be several future reviews and approvals needed. Obviously review and approval by the city itself as well as through various agencies the US Army Corps of Engineers, Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency, Department of Natural Resources, Department of Health, um, and Rice County, both the soil and water conservation district as well as their transportation department. and the coordination of those permits and approvals will ensure that impacts are
uh minimized and mitigated appropriately. So through the EAW process um and city staff review, it was determined that the information in the EAW and in the response to comments are adequate to determine potential for
impacts. That cumulative impacts can be anticipated and controlled. That the governmental reviews and approvals will ensure the project is designed to minimize impacts. that the impacts that have been identified can be anticipated and
controlled, excuse me, based on the environmental review and experience on similar projects and ultimately that significant environmental impacts are not expected and an EIS is not needed for this project.
>> Happy to answer any questions that council has. >> Questions for staff? Yes, Maddie. >> Remind me of your name, please. Allison Harwood Harwood. Um, you had said there was no significant
environmental impacts that will be that were found, but yet I'm hearing that we don't know the details as far as air effect, um, noise effect, miscellaneous other effects because we don't have the exact plan of what that would
Is this I guess the summary of what you had just said it's just purely based on soil and water only with what we know. >> Um I mean not necessarily soil and water only. I would say that it's based on um the best available information that the
city and the applicant have for the level of design that the applicant has at this time in their design process. And again significant in this context means that you know it can't be undone and or it can't be addressed through other formal review or permitting
processes. So those studies that I mentioned, the noise study and the air analysis, um those are other formal processes that need to be carried out and there may be other um impacts or mitigation measures or permits um that
would be identified through those processes that would then be incorporated into the project or the project may be modified. All right. At this point in time, can I just get a gauge of how many people are here that would like to speak?
Seeing that there's only two of you and I'm going to allow you just a limited amount of time. We we technically don't have to open public hearing, but I feel it'd be right to hear from the public. I would like to hear what you have to say. Uh if you are just simply repeating uh
what the other person has said, uh please stick to a time frame here. We have a very healthy agenda tonight. Please come forward, state your name and your address. I'm going to allow you about three minutes.
And my address is 68 4th Avenue. Go ahead. >> So my concern is about how fast we are without any regulations being put on it is and without knowing what the real con
I keep hearing that it's inevitable this uh trajectory, but I don't think it really is because I do think we have a choice. I think we have a choice to slow down. Um I'm not against all AI. I've seen it used uh in good ways in the school systems that I work in and
medical situations. Like I said, I just think we need to but I'm hearing a lot about uh the negative and darker uses and I would even say frivolous when I consider the environmental impacts. So, and I know that um they found that there aren't
going to be many, but I disagree with that. Um because I think that we have valuable and fragile habitats being destroyed across the country really to feed AI. Um and then another argument about this particular place is that it's just an old farmstead with just a small
amount of wetland and woods, but I work with pollinators and we are losing them due to habitat loss. and um and just and that's just inch by inch by inch by inch that we're losing it. So it's not much but everything is adding up and those um pollinators pollinate
our food and I think um are are crucial to our uh environmental system our whole um and so even replanting with natives is never the same again even if you work with an expert and I don't know if they're willing to do that and if you
put in these this is just one example um if you put in a grass uh lawn you're going to have to spray are they willing to not spray that? And that's like I said just one example. Um and then one argu argument I've heard is it's not as
bad as the worst thing out there. Um and I've heard that uh several times. I won't name the the entity that they're talking about, but that I don't think is a very good argument that it's not as bad as um we're talking about electrical use, water use, noise, light, and air
pollution. And um it look it sounds like these things have been thought out, but is there a promise in there? And that's kind of what you were getting at too that uh there's nothing that's been decided yet. So I don't know how a decision can be made without knowing the final details of what's going to happen.
Um so um so and and then everything said if it's feasible. So that again that doesn't that doesn't mean it's going to happen. So, I just think everything needs to be looked at more thoroughly uh environmentally and um and thought
through and just slowed down. Shodto Spring 16922 Kabat Avenue. I'm four miles from the location of the proposed data center. trying not to repeat. I'm going to
mention that I heard that the uh believe it was Nashville drove the data center people out and they came to Farbo where they would be more welcome. I'm kind of with the people of Nashville on that.
I'll just briefly echo that I agree that uh the need for AI is much less than we think it is. And every couple times a week I read a piece of research about what's wrong with AI. And the
recent one comes from MIT and a few other places about the effects on cognitive development. And the three researchers involved did not conclude that there should be no AI. They concluded that there were
problems and that AI should be used in a particular way. I can obviously answer more questions about that, but I'm not in favor of thinking that AI is something that is going to happen and
there has to be lots of it. So we might as well sacrifice our wells, our environment, our air. I will say about air. I specifically moved to the country for my health
has particularly to do with um with air quality and water quality. I'm worried. I don't think I'm close enough to have my well damaged, but I think that the question of wells and the question of wastewater discharge should be seriously
considered. And so I would urge you not to go forward too rapidly, but to get those studies done first and not let Archer go ahead and do its design plans and then be in the position of saying, "Well, but we put all this work into it,
so you have to say yes." And I think I'll stop there. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> That's it. We'll bring it back here to the council. >> Questions? More questions?
>> I just have a comment. Um, I noticed that in the agenda notes, there was a comment or a quote made that environmental, let's see, both the environmental and the planning commission's unanimously recommend approval of the resolution
that we're discussing. And I just wanted to give my kudos to the environmental commission. and they actually did a lot of good research and I appreciated reading um their questions and from what I was reading it sounded like a majority of
them did not want this but I understand what the quote means that means you're in support of this specific agenda so I just wanted to put voice to that >> Mayor Spooner um so I guess my questions
are probably directed towards Jessica. >> Um, we're basically approving the receipt of the EA, >> right? >> Yeah. I was going to say I'm going to direct your questions more to Harry.
>> Okay. Here. Okay. Okay. Mr. Davis, we're basically approving the, you know, the receipt of the EAW and its findings. um like you or I believe uh she said earlier, you know, there's still lots of
other testings that could um kind of set send this project off on a side rail somewhere, including the uh noise in the air. That correct? >> Yes. >> Sure. Sure.
>> Yeah. So, so the decision today is whether or not the project requires an environmental impact statement based on that kind of definition of significant that I had mentioned. And so this would be um the the recommendation is that it does not require an EIS. Again, there
are several other types of reviews um both I mean through the city through state through federal agencies that would need to be uh that would need to occur before the project would ever be approved. And in fact um per state statute the this environmental review
process needs before any governmental approvals can even occur. So that is one reason why these um studies happen early on in the process before there are final designs because those final you know
even preliminary designs can't be um approved until these types of environmental studies are done because it gives um the governments the ability to see even from you know a high level what the potential impacts could be so they have that knowledge going into
those um design reviews. >> Thank you. Um, with that, I guess I'll just state that uh I see no reason to uh accept the EAW and not require the uh is it an EI?
Yeah, EIS. Um, to me, it seems like we've given them a hurdle that that they had to jump over and uh did that. We were to put another hurdle in front of them. this period
seems like we'd kind of be the big bad government that's just putting another roadblock in a business. So, I don't see any reason to not uh forward with this. Entertain a motion on this.
Mayor Smoother. >> Yes. >> How do >> Just so you know, you're voting in favor of the resolution in front of you, which is actually negative toward requiring the environment.
Weird as that sounds, you're voting. >> Mr. Riggs is correct. >> Okay. With that uh said, I'll make a motion to approve resolution 2025-191. Approve findings of fact and record of decision for Archer Data Centers EAW and
negative declaration needing. >> Second. >> Motion by Ross, a second by Don Bouya. I all opposed that motion. We're on to the next item. Item B,
Hoffmeister South Hoffmeister, south of Frederickson Drive, comprehensive plan, amendment, zoning, map amendment, preliminary and final plot. There's about three items here on this. Correct. Uh Harry Davis, city planner once again.
>> Thank you, mayor and council. Uh yes. So the items in front of you, comprehensive plan amendment, zo map amendment, ply plat and final plat associated with um a development called Hoffmeister fourth edition. Uh that's the project in front of us today. Uh submitted by Steve
Underall on behalf of an Hoffmeister. Um the general location for this is near the airport. It's very uh very much close to uh Park Village. Um, and it's just north uh west of the Harley-Davidson dealership.
Here's the project outlined in yellow. So, it's just kind of this weird triangle shape. And then here's the zoning map. So, we can see that the the triangle shape right now is zoned completely C2. Uh there's some R3 in the neighborhood
that's just to the west. There's a little bit of industrial I1 just to the north. Um but then everything else towards the east is all C2 oriented more towards uh being right next to the interstate.
So the three main questions in front of you tonight. So the first one is a comprehensive plan and it's to change part of this triangle lot uh the western portion um from commercial to commercial residential mixeduse. Reszoning would be
to change that same area where the land use map designation changes is is is occurring. Uh that same area would go from C2 to R3. And then the plat would be to actually divide this triangle-shaped lot into three resulting
parcels. So here's a diagram in front of you showing just you know the orange area would be this commercial residential mixeduse. It would also be zoned R3. And then the uh red portion would remain C2
and commercial uh per the comprehensive plan designation. And then here's just removing those overlays what the three lot layouts would look like. So lot one, which would be next to the neighborhood uh that's adjacent just to the west. Uh the intent
for that property is to be a single family home for the property owner. um they would retain u the uh tree line that's along that western edge. That's their intent. Um they are also dealing with some very restrictive impervious
surface requirements based off of the overall Hoffmeister edition plat which includes a lot more than just this triangle property. So they are very uh deliberately and cautiously planning uh only a a small amount of impact to the
property with their resulting development. Lot two which is next to lot one would end up uh in the future it's intended to be a storage building associated with that Harley-Davidson dealership essentially overflow for that.
So in terms of the request in front of you, the comprehensive plan, uh we do support that change from commercial to commercial use. Um it would be a little bit more in tune with the residences that are just to the west and allow some sort of transition to the commercial
elsewhere. Um the reasonzoning itself, R3, is compatible with other properties that are zoned R3 just to the west. It's compatible with those uh residential uses that are on those properties as well. Um and it can in this situation potentially be um sort of a a a spacer
element between commercial future uh commercial on these properties and the adjacent residential neighborhood. Uh the plats do meet our criteria for approval. Uh we're not recommending any parkland dedication as that's been satisfied with previous editions of this
plat. So it does meet our zoning and subdivision requirements. And so we're recommending that you approve uh the resolutions and the ordinance uh the ordinance in front of you uh 2025-193, ordinance 2025-9,
and resolution 2025. I'm happy to take any questions. >> Right. Any questions on all three of those items? >> Thank you, mayor. Um, just to just to clarify, is the owner of the property planning on
putting a home on this triangle lot or are they planning on developing it or do you even know? >> Yeah. So, um, kind of what I was talking about earlier. So, lot one, which is that western portion. Uh, and if you look at the screen, it's the uh it's it's the orange part of that that is
intended to be the single family home for the current property owner. And no other I mean they're not going to develop uh lots like is just on the uh west side of the trees. >> Yeah, they >> I mean that's not their intent anyway. >> Yeah, they they want to develop more on
the eastern side of that western lot. Um they don't really want to impact the trees. Uh we'll potentially have some conversations with them about some of the existing trees that are downed just to try to preserve that barrier, but um we will we will try our best with that.
But it's intended uh per the property owner that lot wouldn't be their single family home. >> And then this really, excuse me, this really it wouldn't be a city issue. I mean, we come into play on it, but if I remember correctly, there's a a lot of
uh underground utility lines that run through I believe it'd be lot two. And I would assume if if she or the owner is uh planning on building a house on the
assume she'd be aware of that. >> Take that into consideration. >> Yes. Yes, sir. So, um, as of right now, based off of the title work and the work that the surveyor for the property has done, um, none of the lots within the
within the triangle area, those are all, uh, free of some of the really encumbering uh, easements that you would find just to the south and southeast and to the east of the triangle property. So, you can kind of see uh
I'm not sure if it's still on your screen, but um there's kind of this no man's land in between the Harley-Davidson dealership and this triangle lot. Uh that's where the significant easements are. >> Yeah, that's what I thought. I thought they went through about there.
>> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. Uh thank you very much. Um mayor, I don't see any problem. Anyone else? >> Right. At this time, we're >> make a motion to approve resolution
2025-193. >> Motion by Teal, second by Barnes. On resolution 2025, approval of the comprehensive plan amendment to guide certain property commercial/residential signify by saying I I all opposed.
Motion passes. Next one is our ordinance. >> Mayor Spooner. >> Yes. >> I'll make a motion to approve ordinance 2025-9. >> I'll second. >> I have a motion by Ross, second by Ron on. Ordinance
2025-9, approval of reszoning of the property on the south side of R3. And this is a roll call. >> Council member Barnes. >> Dumba. >> Ross. >> Roland.
>> Hi. >> Teal. >> Hi. >> Mayor Spooner. >> Hi. That motion is the last one. The final resolution. >> Mayor Spooner. Make a motion to approve resolution 2025-194.
>> Teal, second by Barnes on resolution 20-194, approve. >> I. All opposed. Motion passes. Thank you. Next item, Rice County,
1283rd Street Northwest comprehensive plan amendment, zoning amendments, preliminary and final plot. Once again, same issue. Gary Davis, here we go. >> Thank you, mayor and councel. Uh, so this project is uh similar in terms of the processes that are involved, but a very different location. So, uh, Rice
County has submitted a, uh, plat and some changes to our comprehensive plan in our zoning map for, uh, the big block that they own, uh, just north of center downtown. So, it's submitted by
Sarah Folstead on behalf of Rice County. So, here it is just, you know, a little bit north of us, uh, right here is city hall. Um, here are all the properties involved. uh sort of uh outlined in yellow. And then here's what our zoning
map looks like in terms of uh the existing zoning on the property. So most of the property is currently zone PI for public institutional. Uh that's more of a reaction to the fact that Rice County owns pretty much all of the land. Uh the two parcels uh to the southeast are
zoned central business district. So that's our downtown zoning district. the requests from Rice County. Uh the first one is the comprehensive plan. They would would like to uh redesate the property from institutional, which it
currently is, um to downtown. And this is more in line with the fact that they uh would would intend to sell off bits and pieces of the resulting block that they are reorienting or or sort of rechanging uh the property lines. uh
some of those properties are intended for potential future commercial. So they would like to be able to facilitate that as a part of this process. Uh the reszoning would be on those same properties that are changing to the downtown designation per our
comprehensive plan. They'd also like to make those our central business zoning district. So that would be, you know, a little bit more in tune with a lot of the other development that we would find nearby. It's a lot closer. uh you know, buildings closer to the sidewalk, uh
what have you, a a bit of more urban uh feel to development that happens within. Then the plot itself would be to reconfigure the existing 12 lots that make up that entire block into just five.
So, um just to help show exactly what's going to change. So the uh blue area in this diagram is what is intended to be institutional for the comprehensive plan and remain zoned PI for public institutional. Uh the areas that are
pink would be uh shifting over to this downtown land use designation per our comprehens uh would also change in terms of zoning district. So central business district the lot layout itself it's it's a little wacky and there there there's some
reasoning behind it. I do promise. So, lot one is uh to the north uh west and so that is intended to be one of the future commercial lots. Uh to the northeast is intended to uh be a future parking lot um that would be downtown.
Three would remain associated with uh the enforcement center um and sheriff's office. Uh four would actually end up being associated with uh the friendship house. they're doing some additional development in that area and they just
room. Um and then five would actually continue to be the soil uh soil and water conservation district office. So four and five would be downtown as well as lot one. Lots two and three
would be institutional. So in terms of uh going through our processes and and meeting our criteria and findings, so the comprehensive plan does does support this. Uh the intended future uses of these properties are going to change slightly. So it should follow the intended future use, some
commercial, some office depending on where you are in either corner. uh the resoning central business district is very compatible with uh both this location the adjacent uses and PI uh the remaining and for the plats they do meet our
criteria and u our standards for approval. So generally we are recommending um that this is meeting our zoning and subdivision requirements. So we do recommend that you approve uh the resolutions and ordinance that are attached to this project. Uh resolution
N uh sorry 2025-195 uh ordinance 2025-10 and then resolution 2025. >> All right. Any questions for staff on these rigs? Uh do I have to recuse myself from
this because you should be fine. >> Anyone else? All right. Thank you, Harry. We will roll through these just like we did on the >> Go ahead. >> I make a motion to approve resolution
2025. >> Motion by Don Booya, a second by Barnes to approve resolution 2025 property at the corner. signify by saying I. I. >> All opposed. Motion pass. Under the ordinance.
>> Mayor Spooner. >> I'll make a motion to approve ordinance 2025-10. >> Motion by Ross, second by Barnes. on ordinance 2025-10 approval of the reszoning of the property on the corner of four street avenue northwest
>> business district and this is roll call >> council member Barnes >> I tumba >> hi >> Ross >> hi >> Rowan >> I >> mayor spooner >> I motion passes on to last resolution >> approve resolution 2025-196
>> a Second >> motion by Barnes, second by Rowan to approve resolution 2025. Preliminary and final plots for Henry M. Rice Square. >> I. All opposed. That passes
on to item D, resolution 2025-195. Once again, Harry Davis. >> Thank you, mayor and councel. Um, so the resolution in front of you is for an interim use permit. It is submitted by Michelle Keller uh on behalf of Ben Estep as as the owner for from Van East
Land Development Company. The location, it's 1512 30th Street Northwest. So, it's up here in our in our industrial park on the on the north side. Um here's the property that's outlined in this cyan blue color. Uh the interim use
permit focus area is going to be more on this uh on the north side of this property um sort of adjacent to their driveway along Industrial Drive. The request by the applicant is to allow uh up to six storage containers to
remain uh at that property for no greater than two years. The uh property currently does actually have these storage containers. uh they've uh in a way they they've actually been there through a previous interim use permit
from 2020. Um but what the applicant is trying to do is they're actually shifting their business in this particular building from from sort of one one part of their overall business plan to a completely different uh part of their of their business. And so
there's a lot of uh equipment that is shifting in between these two parts of the business. And so they've really needed these storage containers for a while in order to help manage some of that inventory. Um they are going
through the process right now of applying for one of the recent business um uses that are being approved by the state, particularly a cannabis based b uh cannabis based business. And so, um, they intend to continue using these storage containers to help make sure
that their additional inventory that they have time to manage it, get rid of it, and to process it out. Uh, they would they would like these storage containers to remain on site in this sort of focus area up to six, so no more than six. Um,
we do have some conditions in there. Uh, just kind of getting into the discussion, you know, we do have some conditions in there that the area around these storage containers be uh kept clean, that there are no uh equipment or materials that are outside of these containers, which is currently an issue
with their with their current setup. And so part of this intermuse permit would be to rectify that situation. Um, generally from a comprehensive plan point of view, uh, you know, utilizing this property within a very reasonable means, that's definitely covered and this is a very reasonable situation so
that they can kind of get started, um, and to have a place to to store all this equipment. And then from the zoning side of things, a interim use permit, um, it's a very reasonable thing to ask for. In this case, they're asking for no more than two years. That's very similar to a previous interim use permit that we
granted them back in 20. Um, it does meet our criteria within the UDO for approval. So, we are recommending that you approve this resolution in 2025. >> Thank you. Any questions for staff?
>> So, they got a permit in 2020, short-term permit, five, six years, and now we're give them another one. would not be in favor of this. I I do I believe I remember um this when
we approved it said you know they did get the shorter fiveyear approval but I don't see any reason to not two years if they're trying to uh build up or change their business and
they simply need storage for some equipment and stuff. I I been waiting a while for the state to make a decision. >> I agree. Yeah, I'm in favor. >> Yeah, but aren't we concerned?
>> This is going to keep extending it. Am I wrong? This is right in the heart of the industrial park and right across the street there's 21. >> Then why I just don't understand why I have a a process for a temporary
>> Well, I think that's part of the city code. A lot of times what we do Right. >> Yeah. I appreciate the proactivity too to come in. >> Okay. Any other questions for staff
this point in time? I >> and a motion. >> Yes. >> I make a motion to approve resolution 2025-197. >> Motion by Barnes. A second by Don Booya to approve resolution 2025. >> Interim use permit to allow storage
containers at 151230th Street Northwest. >> I opposed. Motion passes. On to item E. Once again, Harry Davis. >> Thank you, mayor and councel. Uh so this is the last you'll see of me, I promise.
Uh so this is ordinance 2025-11. So, uh, previously we had we had discussed, uh, with a, um, previous project, uh, that staff should go back with the planning commission to take a look at some of our
accessory structure requirements um, and potentially move forward with some recommended uh, amendments to this ordinance that would allow this previous project that council had approved through variances um, as more of a by
situation. It was on a large lot, but it was a very fairly large accessory structure. And so, uh, with planning commission as well as a number of other, uh, parts of of of city, uh, city staff, I sat down to kind
of work with everyone and to identify some some areas that we are suggesting changes. Uh some of these changes are going to be more focused on issues that uh I personally have had issues trying to figure out how to administer. Either it's strange wording or inconsistent
wording. Um in other situations, staff has run into code enforcement issues that have really brought to light, hey, we need to change something otherwise we will never be able to deal with some of these code enforcement issues that keep popping up. Um and then uh you know of
course dealing with uh you know trying to allow uh larger accessory structures especially on larger properties. So um terms of changes I will not go through all of them unless you'd like me to go through all of them. uh you know
generally clarifying things, trying to figure out, hey, you know, are there areas where we can be a little bit more flexible with our code in order to allow uh certain situations? Um you know, just a little bit of variation, putting a little bit more trust into staff to to
figure out, okay, what are some of these situations? Giving staff a little bit of um I guess leeway in terms of being able to apply the code in different situations. um clarifying a few things, especially when it comes to requirements for
garages, uh which I know has been somewhat of a of a of a of a topic that's been gone through quite a bit in the past uh with with past city council city council makeups. But, you know, in terms of moving forward, trying to help
with uh people's ability to re remove their garage in the case that they have a dilapidated garage, that's a safety issue. Um but then as soon as they're improving their house to a certain point, then making sure that they are bring have a number of code enforcement issues
that are essentially we're requiring from the planning and zoning side of it that they have a garage, but code enforcement is requiring that they take that garage down. You guys have seen anything with uh construction prices, a garage is easily 60 grand. So it's really hard to
tell people that they have to spend 60 grand all of a sudden after removing the garage. So um just you know a few other things uh you know here's what we are proposing for the detach accessory structures for most of residential properties within
city limits. Um an increase in the number of structures allowed uh an increase in the amount of square footage allowed and that be cumulative across all accessory structures not just uh you know your first structure is x amount of square footage and your second is an you know x amount. This is just for all
accessory structures. Um, we did remove uh the sidewall height requirement. Uh, building height typically deals with that anyway. And so we didn't feel like it was adding a whole lot of value and it was really significantly um restricting uh property owners from be
able to make improvements to the property. That made sense. Um the uh I guess in terms of uh council's ask of both city staff and planning commission, this is kind of uh the main event. So this is a accessory structure allowances
for large single family lots. So we're talking like you know two acres for one sort of tier and then five acres or more uh in a next tier. And so that at that point we're allowing more structures. We're allowing larger size structures
cumitively. Um, but we're also requiring some uh additional stepbacks to make sure that we're not all of a sudden putting a 4,000 square foot building right on somebody's property line. So, you know, trying to balance things uh in order to make it fair for adjacent
property owners even though, you know, we are liberalize a lot of this section. So, from a comprehensive plan standpoint, you know, looking at this and trying to find a uh a a good balance between uh community interests and
property owner rights, we do feel like that we've we've achieved that or at least, you know, striven very hard to achieve that. Um, and from the zoning standpoint, this removes a lot of barriers or or minimizes them for a lot of properties uh within Farbo um and
provides some appropriate limits on being able to make investments in people's properties. So, summary, we do feel like that this meets the criteria for zoning text amendment as well as rates of plan criteria. So, we are recommending that you approve the first
reading of ordinance 2025-1. >> Right. Any questions for staff? >> Uh, thank you, mayor. Um, so, Mr. Davis, in the last few months, we've approved a couple of different variances. I believe it was uh one was
for a large garage basically that didn't have any um residential living in it and then we've approved a accessory dwelling unit that was specifically for residential use. Is
this kind of combining the two of them? So C council member Roso ADUs or accessory dwelling units are uh at the moment governed by a completely different section of code and so those are actually pretty limited. Um, so this
would not this I believe would uh work well with our current code, but I think in in the future in the the the intent to deal with housing
across Farbo um and to and to better address that within our zoning ordinance, this would integrate better, but currently ADUs are are kind of dealt with in a in a completely different section. >> Okay. So, cuz I'm looking at your little chart and when it and so when it says one or two family residential use,
that's not the new structure, that's the existing struct structure. >> Yeah. So, that could be >> kind of classifying the lot as to what they can do. >> Yeah. >> Correct. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions?
>> I think with city council, our goal is to make remove barriers for homeowners and with how quickly I think it's uh it agrees with our housing and our comprehensive plan
or motion to approve ordinance 2025-11. Have a motion by Teal, second by Barnes to approve ordinance 2025-11, approve the zoning text amendments to accessure requirements. >> Council member Barnes, >> I
Ross. >> Hi, >> Rowan. >> Hi, >> Seal. >> Hi, >> Mayor Spooner. >> I motion to our final resolution of the evening, resolution 2025-19. Thank you, mayor and councel. On June 10th, uh the council approved a
resolution that um approved a purchase and development agreement for the city-owned property south of the vioaduct. And it really was intended for the second phase of the Riverchase Apartments. That resolution gave us some flexibility to make some minor changes to the development the purchase and
development agreement. But if there were any significant changes, the the expectation was to bring it back to the city council. In this case, when we first passed that on June 10th, the idea was um both parties wanted to close on this property this year and see
construction happen this year. That's not going to be possible. So the um developer has asked for the closing date to change to April 1st of next year. So that's a significant change that we wanted to bring back to you is that the closing date would move no later than
April 1st, 2026. It happened before then but no later than April 1st, 2026 with the expectation that development would begin in April. Um the second thing is during the first phase of the river chase, the apartment that's up there
right now, there was some soil corrections that needed to be done. There was an economic development tiff for that. Um the city did approve some changes to that economic development tiff to be able to account for the additional soils work. Um and the intent
with this um agreement that before you is that um Riverchase uh 2 would also involve an economic development tiff and should they encounter some soils similar to like what they did with the first one that we would negotiate together the
parties would negotiate together to make changes to that tiff to account for the so those are the two major ch changes um in the development agreement and purchase agreement. There's some other minor ones, but those are the two that we really wanted to bring forward. Happy
to answer any questions and I know the um developer is here is tonight uh tonight as well. >> I do have a minor one and this headed towards administration. We had talked about this closing in this year.
happy with this. I >> um earlier on the consent agenda was a budget amendment for 2025 for fund 437 which is our public facilities fund where this would go and I removed this as revenue for 2025. Um and so what
you'll see next week is revenue coming in in 2026. That fund did end in a negative position um for 2024. And so ultimately it just means that fund's not getting interest. Um uh but we do see the revenue coming at a a certain point.
So we can talk more about that through the budget process and that impact. >> All right. This time I'll entertain a motion. >> Spooner. I make a motion to approve 202 resolution 2025.
>> Second. I have a motion by Donboya, second by Ross to approve an agreement on the property described as lot two riverchase additional. >> I all opposed. Motion passes. Thank you
everyone. No board no bids. Boards, commission reports, announcements. So, Paradise Theater of the Arts, uh, they have their last Holy Smoke event, the Christ Lutheran Church this Wednesday from 5 to 8:30. Proceeds go to
three different um profits, including Paradise Theater. They're also they have there's a new gallery opening uh reception this Friday, August 15th from 5 to 5 to 7 pm. And last but not least, uh Paradise is hosting music trivia
kicks off coming Thursday, August 21st. >> Administration. >> Yeah, I have a few things. Uh um August is turning into a very busy month. Um tomorrow we will do our council chat from noon to 1 in Central Park. Um,
again, not a nighttime thing, but we're also trying to vary things up. And so, uh, we'll we'll be in Central Park. No topic. Just, uh, come and chat, ask any questions, and we'll go from there. Um, the joint boards meeting is on Friday at
11:00 a.m. at Bucken West. I have two that have said they'd be there, and so I don't know. Okay. Three. >> I'll be there. >> Okay. Okay. Um, so we'll RSVP on on your behalf. And then uh reminder on Monday
uh the 18th at 6 PM at Buckham West um we'll have an A H EDA city council joint work session as well. >> Buckham West. Good. >> Mhm. >> Else All right. I'll take a motion to
adjurnn. >> Motion by Barnes, second by Don Boya to adjourn. All those in favor? I >> I all opposed. We are adjourned. Thank you everyone for coming.