royal blue, if you will. >> All right, we'll call the Monday, February 23rd city council meeting to order 6:30 p.m. and we'll join for the pledge of allegiance. Sorry.
He just came back 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. Any additions to the agenda
tonight, Nick? >> Uh, no additions tonight, acting mayor. >> All right. Seeing there's no additions, we'll look for a motion to approve the agenda as presented. >> Motion second. >> All in favor? >> I.
>> Motion passes 40. Now we'll open up for public comment if anybody wants to come forward and has something to say. >> Good evening everyone. >> Good evening. >> My name is Kyle Coons. uh live at 4
street 324 street northeast mayor Minnesota lived there 10 years almost 11 uh previous public works supervisor for 12 years I am here just to say thank you to you all for the generos offer to come back I'm I don't know why
I'm getting choked up but I'm getting choked up but uh the generous offer to come back I truly appreciate it I appreciate everybody's this staff public works all the support I've gotten across the community to come back It's truly mean meant a lot and I I'm just here to
simply say thank you in person. I hope you all received my thank you letter as well. >> Letter was great. >> Um when I left mayor I wasn't disgruntled by any means. I wasn't upset or dissatisfied with the job in any way. I was just simply uh presented or blessed with another opportunity that I
wanted to explore at the time. So coming back and with that the opportunity to come back to a job I did love uh was exciting. So, I definitely considered the offer very thoroughly and I just wanted to let you all know that I really did and um I'm here in the meantime to
help Nick and the public works crew as much as I can while they do you guys do search for your next public works supervisor and I will always be um just a phone call away for mayor whether I'm on the payroll at mayor or I'm not. So,
I just want to see mayor succeed and um be successful >> from here on out. So that's all I have. Kept it short and sweet, less than five minutes. So, um, thank you all very much again. >> Thank you. >> I just want you all to know that. >> Appreciate you, Kyle. Perfect. Thank
you. Thank you, Kyle. >> Seeing as that's the only member in our audience, we will close public comment and move to consent agenda. Anything that needs to be pulled for further discussion? >> Nope. Hearing none, I'll look for a motion to approve the consent agenda.
>> Motion >> second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Motion carries. 40. On to business items. Uh 8. Consider adoption of ordinance 251 amending the zoning code.
>> Thank you, acting mayor. Uh we have the zoning code coming back before us. We had moved for its introduction. uh a handful of meetings ago, there were some questions from the city council in the interim. Uh city planner John Anderson uh included a memo in this packet which
I believe addressed those questions uh that the council's acting and he is here to take any questions or go over any concerns with any parts of the code. John, anything you'd like to add? >> Yeah, so we did uh look at the zoning ordinance been going over for about the
last year or so uh with the planning commission uh back in January 6th. The planning commission actually recommended 4 to zero to recommend approval of the current ordinance update for the zoning ordinance. And at the council meeting a couple meetings ago, um there was some discussion on a couple specific
questions. I have since put together a memo uh for you guys and I'll just kind of page through those items that are listed on there. Um all this was talked at great length at the planning commission meeting and just kind of give an update here to the city council and I'll just kind of start going down the list. And if anyone has any questions,
let me know. or if there anything else that's I didn't list that you want to answer or a question on just you know we'll go through that. Um but first of all we you know some of the things we did you know we did a lot of updating to the ordinance itself which there's a lot of inconsistencies in the previous one or the current one I guess right now
where one chapter didn't match or with the other chapter and we're just trying to get all that to to match. Um so basically we amended the definition. This is number one on the list uh of the animals to match chapter 92 which is another section of the city code. So we
have two different sections of code that had definitions of the same thing but they weren't the same. So we basically amended that. And there's a few other instances like this where we kind of added the definition and made things you know to match say subdivision ordinance language or whatever just so we have consistency and there's no um things
that we're unclear about. So number two in section 15207 single family dwelling requirements. All single family dwelling unit um single family detached units were required to have two tall uh two stall attached garage. And we did have some of those
requirements previously but it was kind of not consistent across each of the districts. So now we are requiring that for all these type of single family dwellings to have that two two stall attached garage. um section 152050 non-conforming building structures and
uses. Uh the language was added to allow for an additional extension of 180 days for applicant to get a building permit if the structure is destroyed. So this was brought up in the planning commission as a specific question. Right now, the current uh state statutes allow that if a house gets burned down, let's
say by a fire or tornado or something of that nature, that they have up to six months if it's a non-conforming structure to apply for and get a building permit to rebuild that exact same structure in the same footprint that was there previously. What this language allows for is, you know, sometimes through insurance or whatever
reason it's winter time that six months may come and they need an extra six months. So, they have the ability to ask for an extension to grant another six months. um to do that. You know, it's not a big deal and there's not a lot of these instances that actually occur where it's an issue, but you know, it
has happened in places before. So, we added that language. Section 152051, home occupations. Home offices were added to the allowed uses and daycarees were added as an accessory use. And we kind of updated that overall section just to clarify it a little bit, but there was some things like the home
offices that, you know, somebody just works out of an office at home. A lot of times it's not considered that, but we did allow that just so there was clarity and, you know, no questions down the road. Um, section 152052, temporary structures. Uh, a site plan review was
required for temporary structures instead of an administrative use permit um to be consistent with other lang uh language in the zoning ordinance. So, this was kind of an update. You know, if you have a temporary structure, uh sometimes they'll do that as like a work trailer for a large construction
project, for instance. I know when the mayor Luan High School built I believe they had a work trailer out there if I recall correctly and uh you know this would just show hey here's where the the trailer would be here's where potential driveways parking things like that would be you know that's what that site plan review would do for you. So um an
institutional definition was actually added to the definition section. We did have institutional uses and a public institutional district. We just added that definition there so we everyone knows truly what an institutional use is which is basically government buildings uh potentially schools you know things
of that nature. So uh recreational facilities were exempted from screening requirements under section 15255 screening. This was something that was also requested specifically in the planning commission um that when you have screening requirements in certain districts that are adjacent to
residential districts. Uh a recreational facility for instance um could be a ballpark or or you know a park or you know something of that nature and to screen an entire park sometimes is not needed. Now, obviously, uh if you're looking at this through a site plan
review, uh there is the ability to add potentially screening in some areas. You know, they don't have ballfield lights shining right into somebody's house or something like that. So, that can be looked at, but it's not a specific requirement as it previously was. Um uses across the street from residential
properties were also exempted uh from screening. So, right now, that was a clarification the planning commission asked for as well. So, if you have say a business or an industrial use on one side of the street and then you got highway uh trunk highway 25, let's say down by the Shimcore area and they have houses on the other side there, we're
not requiring those businesses to fully screen trunk highway 25 because the residential use is across the street. So, the Dollar General that's in place, you know, we do you want them to really fully screen their, you know, business when they're on the highway like that. So, it it basically just clarified that
to make sure. Now, if it's adjacent to it where it backs right up to that property, there is screening requirements there, but not across the street like that. Um, maximum height requirement for accessory structures and residential districts was currently 17 feet. And over the last couple years,
we've had a handful of uh variance requests for a larger structure to be like 20t tall. So, we moved that from 17t to 20 feet just because there has been a few of those here recently where we've gone through that process. Now in some of those cases they would not need a variance. They could just get the
building permit because it meets the 20 foot requirement. I think one of those was actually 22 or 21 feet. You know they still need to come forward but you know we picked 20 at the planning commission. So that's where it's at. We are amending that. So structures can be a little bit taller moving forward. Um
the flood plane management overlay district uh which is currently a separate chapter um in the zoning ordinance or in the the code I should say. Uh technically this is an overlay district. is the zoning um issue. So, we basically took the language from that
previous chapter, incorporated into the new zoning ordinance update, and now it's in a correct chapter where it should be. So, it's more of an incorporation. We didn't really amend any language other than some specific things where it address current, you know, or ordinances and things like that. So, um under the landscaping
requirements in section 152056, motor vehicle sales were exempted from having trees planted around along the property line. This was also something discussed at the planning commission to do with bird droppings. Um, you don't want to have a new motor vehicle district, you know, selling cars and you
got trees above it. So, that was the one item that got exempted there. So, something's uh different from the previous ordinance or the current ordinance, I should say. Uh, landscaped islands were also removed as a requirement for off- streetet parking lots in some instances. There's still some specifics in there that would
require that, but overall I think there was some specific language about you had to have a certain amount of landscape islands for every amount of parking spaces, we kind of adjusted that language, kind of lessened that requirement. Um, off- street parking requirements
were revised and uh while a lot of the uses uh in off- streetet parking did not change, some did. Uh, for instance, one that came up that we've talked about, I know the mayor had also specifically asked me about this one, was retail uses went from six stalls per thousand to five stalls. And that was something we
looked at. Uh, there's a few other ones that we kind of adjusted slightly. For instance, restaurants um went to more of a one per every 40 square feet versus a one per three seats. Um, office uh was one per 200. uh we basically kind of
adjusted how we calculate it based you know now it used to be five per thousand or six per thousand we're just saying one for every 200 square feet because sometimes you get these odd numbers on the other way it was calculated um so that that was the big one but we did reduce that down because I know once again the Dollar General uh there was a
um variance request for too many stalls I know the uh Mexican restaurant had one a few years back as well um that was kind of an existing situation it's a little bit different situation than the Dollar General but we did reduce it down to be more consistent with some other communities. Um there was some thought
process of going maybe a little less, but when you start comparing it, there isn't too many places that go less. And the reason you look at that is let's say in two years Dollar General goes out of business and a new store comes in that generates a lot more traffic. You don't want to reduce it so much that a new business that could potentially take
over that structure doesn't have enough parking. So we think we're still covered this way, but yet there is given a little bit of a break. Now there may still may be a variance request at some point in the future but you have to take them one at a time as I come I guess if that is the uh request. So um under sign
regulations the landscaping requirement around the base of freestanding signs was removed. Right now you have to put a certain amount of landscaping per square footage. That was just basically removed because it hasn't always been followed and something we just felt was necessarily not needed. Now somebody wants to do it they can. um language was
added to the discussion to allowed uh for River Rock to be used for a semi-improved parking pad. And obviously this is something that's been talked about over time at the city few years back. There was actually uh quite a discussion on that. Um basically this would be along the sideyard and the rear
yard. The river rock uh shall contain a sand base and edg the edge shall be delineated. This was added um into a street parking and driveway section under parking pads and it was brought up uh to leave it uh leave the language in the text. Uh this is adding the river
rock and could be discussed at a later date. I know the planning commission did have some discussion on it. Ultimately, it was approved with that text in there. Uh this is something you could discuss here tonight. Um it was not discussed any specifically further at the public hearing and was like I said recommended for approval. So, that's one that was
addressed uh currently and prior to the previous ordinance um update. It was always required to be paved for that uh parking pad. So, um this would be something that' be a little different from that. Uh so, it's definitely something to keep uh to discuss or look at. Uh storage containers or land seat
containers is a definition we came up with, which currently are allowed in the city in certain districts and instances, but they do have to be 100% screened. Uh this was looked at a couple years ago and it was decided to be put on hold until we did the zoning orance update. So we went through this at the planning
commission and uh basically came up with the language that was kind of previously drafted that never was officially adopted and we kind of went with that for the most part. Um basically it has to meet accessory building requirements. Shall only be located in the rear yard of the lot or the sideyard no closer to
the front than the front of the building. Um and uh basically it shall not be allowed in required parking spaces and it shall only allow three per property. Um so each property is allowed up to three. Now I know there's a few instances in the city that have maybe
more than three. I know there's one over here that they have just three. If they do have more currently they're grandfathered in. Now the bigger thing is the the screening and things like that. So there was definitely the current ordinance allows you know requires it or allows it but requires screening. So that does have to be, you
know, something that looked at. I think we had some specific language that was added in there, uh, due to, you know, I think there's some paint color things you can do with it. Um, potentially some screening, different things. So, so we do have that language in there. We did clarify it from what it previously is. Um, it was something that's come up over
the last few years. And really, we're not trying to outlaw this or anything because it is currently allowed. We're just trying to put specific rules in place so somebody doesn't take advantage of that down the road. So, uh, tree preservation standards were added to the landscaping section, which is 152056.
Uh, basically what this is is if you had say a 40 acre parcel and it was all wooded right now, the developer could literally come in and clear cut the entire 40 acres and develop it and there really is no specific limitations or requirements to uh replant trees. Now, we do have uh specific requirements to
plant, you know, trees per lot as the house gets built, but there's nothing in trying to keep rear yard trees or buffer trees or anything like that. So, what this does, it came up with a um allowable um you you figure out the caliper inches, which is pretty, you
know, just figure the significant trees what the caliper per inch is. You can you can remove up to 40% of the total caliper inches. So let's say you have a thousand caliper inches, you can remove up the you know basically 400 inches which you know you might have some trees are 20 some are 30 whatever and then
after that you have to start replacing trees on a on a schedule which is at a rate of 0.5 for every one inch removed. Um so that's for a new development if somebody's doing a residential development. If they don't move it remove any trees or remove less than that they're not legally required to plant them. If they remove say 70% of
the trees, they have to take that 30% over over that number, figure out that number and then find a place on that property to replant the trees. So landscaping plan would show where those trees go. A lot of times they'll try to buffer, you know, busier roadways or, you know, back, you know, so people are looking right into somebody else's house
or neighboring properties, things like that. So, you know, it's going to be different in every case, but it gives the city the ability to do that. Uh the tree replacement requirement for uh say a business or a homeowner is 30%. So let's say somebody owned just one individual lot and it had 20 trees on there. They don't want to just come in
and clear cut 20 trees. They can remove up to 30% of them before they're required to replace. But so we did have a different percent there, but same same pro um process of how to how to calculate it. Um a new uh I1 light industrial district was also added to the zoning ordinance. Uh basically we've
had we've talked about this for a while now. It was actually in the the most recent comp plan update in 2020. It was recommended to add a new industrial district. And for instance, this would be potentially property east of the Shimcore industrial area. Uh and this would be a true industrial district where right now we have a commercial
industrial district. So allows for you know a use like Casey's General Store to go in with adjacent industrial type properties. This would be more of a district that would be specific in district uh industrial in nature and could allow some heavier type industrial uses. When I say heavy, I don't mean major factories, but I mean more of a
true industrial type use, you know, like business park type structures, things like that. So, um this district was added um in addition to the C1 commercial industrial district and we still have our typical um commercial districts as well. Uh there was also a
new residential district was added and I'll kind of go through all these districts here in just a second, but we currently have uh three zoning uh districts in the residential districts in the city. The R1, the R2, the R3, and there's kind of a lot of carryover from district as district. And by adding this
fourth one, it kind of separates uses a little bit more. So, you know, in some cases, you could have single family home next to apartments, next to town homes, all being in the same district. And what we did here is with the R1, we made that the true single family district. Only single family is allowed in that
district. We have specific lot sizes that are allowed. Then we went to the two R2, which is a single and two family. You'll see a lot of smaller single family lots in here and also allows for like a duplex type structure. And um there's also uh like you know
like smaller villa type product that could potentially then we move up to the R3 which is more of a multifamily where you'd have potentially town houses. Uh you could go down to an R like a a twin home as well but it has the ability to get a little bit more density a little bit higher um intensity of the
residential use. And then your R4 district which is your multifamily is like your apartments um senior housing condominiums things of that nature. So you kind of gradually step up the uh density of the units and it separates that out. And we have some specifics and
you know lot sizes. We kept the R1 very similar to what it is now. Um except that we did move um uh these the width back to 75 ft. Currently was 85. There's never been an 85 foot lot plat actually platted in the city since that's been
changed. uh everything that previously was developed in the early 2000s when they're at 75 and then they changed the zoning. The recession hit, nothing ever got readopted. As developments have happened, they've gone back to the previous uh layouts which were plumary platted at one time. Cold Water Crossing
had it hidden creek did. Fieldstone has that ability and those were all designed at 75 ft before that change was made. And if we keep going back to that, why don't we just change the zoning district back to that, which everybody seems to be okay with. And you know, it it fits and and works. So, um, this last section
here is basically, uh, just a list of all the districts themselves. And I don't really need to go through them, but on on the list in your thing, I put the the purpose or the general intent of each district there is. So, there's a A1 agricultural, which is kind of the area in the northeast
part of the city. It's kind of looked at as a um uh area that can remain agricultural but as long-term plan for future growth. So we there's some limits on what you can develop out there that to you know preserve that future growth area. I kind of went through the R1
through R4 districts. So I won't really touch on them. Then we got the C1 highway business district uh C2 central business district. Uh these are the basically the same. There's some chain tweaks in there here and there. We you know cleaned up some of the language. Um but you know the C1 highway um was
general commerce. So we kind of changed that. It's just so everyone understands what general commerce means. It's really more of a highway type of business which is pretty typical in a lot of communities when they call that general commerce that technically could be a downtown business too. So we kind of called them out what we're designing
for. Uh the C1 commercial industrial we kind of touched on that and the I1 light industrial. Then the last one is that public institutional district and that's like I said for most of the schools, the churches, the public building, city hall here, you know, stuff like that. It has specific requirements in that. So alto
together um those are some of the big items that we really touched on and went through and you know had some you know real discussions at the the planning commission meeting. Um like I said if there's anything specific that you do want to talk about or you look up or other things that I may not have touched on here, just let me know. Otherwise,
we're at a point where the ordinance is ready for adoption and um that's where we're at. >> Um I just had a couple of questions. >> Okay. >> Um so you did answer the question about grandfathering of the containers,
>> just the number, but there's still because previously we the color and the >> screening is required for those because that was in the ordinance prior. >> Correct. >> Okay. But just the number if they have four,
they're grandfathered in. Now, do we take inventory of that or like is it more just I mean, not that I don't need to get into everybody's business, but >> we have looked at aerial photos to try to count them in the past. I know. Um, yeah. I mean, somebody could go out
there tomorrow and count the numbers and if you know, there's not many of them and people know where they are. >> I'm just curious like how do you even like >> Yeah. You know, >> ordinance enforcement is typically on a reactive basis versus a proactive basis. So, it would come as a
>> hey, I noticed they have six containers out there where they used to have four. What is the city going to do about this versus us actively sending out people to >> right >> police it? >> Yeah. And I'm not saying that, but like I do know that there isn't any screening
on some. So, is it just wait till somebody complains about it and then we have Okay, >> that's kind of where it is. I mean, you know, >> yeah, you know, some most of them are in like an industrial type use area and it's not like you got people living
there looking at every day out their kitchen windows. So, it's >> not the end of the world. So, it's if nobody's really worried about it. >> Well, and even the ones that have it, it's not like they're in the front front of the business or out wide open. I am not complaining about it. I was just
trying to understand. >> Right. >> Sure. >> The reason we talked about a number is you know what what if somebody bought a parcel and all a sudden they had a hundred of them out there. >> Yeah. >> There would be nothing to stop that if they met the other requirements and I don't think that's you know the intent of what the city wanted. So that's you
know we talked at length about the number. I think at one time somebody was saying five and somebody was all sorts of numbers were being thrown out there and ultimately they agreed on three at the planning commission. >> Yeah. I mean I'm fine. I mean, if it really became an issue again, like there can be a revisions of
things if it starts to be a thing that people are like, I really need more and why it makes sense. >> Um, and then my last one was, can you just explain a little bit more about the the parking pad and the river rock that
you just mentioned? Like, we can have a discussion. You're adding >> you're adding this but we could have a >> another me like I'm a little confused. >> If you remember I don't know what is it about four or five days ago we had the or we had the >> ordinance update and really what it was
it was more of a >> um cleaning up of it because it allow it required paving at that time as well. But we kind of put language at the city council did it that here's more specific language. We came up with the parking pad language where it was truly defined in the ordinance and basically the
discussion's always been about these parking pads. Do we need them paved or can they be gravel? Um the planning commission talked about having, you know, river rock and this was a pretty good discussion. You know, I will admit some members were fine with it and one member said he would just rather keep it
paved. Ultimately, what they approved was to allow for the river rock on the side or the rear yard with delineated edging and it had to be river rock with sand base so it doesn't get compressed down because if it's class 5 gravel and that gets compacted, it's really an impervious surface. Now, I still
question, I'm not an engineer, but I still question if the river rock gets compacted too, that can become an impervious surface as well. So, it just depends how it gets maintained because over time that does tend to silt in and you know, our weeds going to grow up in it and all sorts of different things. So, the language right now would change
what's currently been there and previously been there before the last update or amended amendment um by allowing this River Rock type of parking pad on the side of a garage, for instance. Now, obviously, it still has to meet setbacks and drainage and all that. And I'll be honest, there are some
lots that don't have enough room on the side of garage to fit one in. Just the way that lot is. It is what it is on those. So, we've had a few instances over the years where somebody asked for it and they only got six feet. Well, you can't put one in six feet, >> right? >> So, so yeah. So, I guess it's um this
was definitely one of the bigger items that was discussed. >> Yeah. >> That that clarifies it. No, I remember those conversations. >> And there was at the last one, which we've kind of carried over there, we added, you know, a driveway definition. We added, you know, what was specific
yard. Um, I think it was improved, semi-improved, and non-improved surfaces. Where not improved would be like grass, and semi-improved would be like gravel. And the improved would be like, you know, black top or concrete or something. So, so that's all still in there. Just it's allowing a technically
a semi-improved specific surface on the side or rear. >> Okay, perfect. Thank you. That was all the questions I had. >> Any other questions? Then I'll look for a motion to consider the adoption of ordinance 251 amending
the zoning code. >> Motion second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor? >> I. >> Motion carries 40. Thank you, John. No problem. >> Hard work. >> Lot of work. Yeah, >> I know. Now we're not going to see you anymore.
>> Yeah. Well, I've been helping out on, you know, one other site here and who knows, I could still be back. So, as things come up, people still call me once in a while about stuff. So, >> I got what, 17, 18 years worth of knowledge. >> Yeah. >> You're still going to be on speed dial for some people.
>> Yeah. Well, kind of like Kyle, I'm just a phone call away, I guess. So, yeah. I mean, >> Municipal Development Group and Holly is still going to be, you know, here and I work with her and she's from our firm. So, I mean, if she ever has questions, she's calls me, too. So, >> yeah. Perfect. Yeah. Nice. >> Excellent. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> All right. Next business item. >> Consider approval of quote for the 2026 sewer jetting services with overline and sun. Thank you, Chad. Uh we have the quote for uh sewer jetting services. So each
year uh we do a third of the town for sewer cleaning and this keeps our mains nice and clean so we don't have sewer backup issues. Again, we do one-third every year. And then every other cycle we do televising services with that. So the te so the jetting cleans the pipe
and then every other cycle so once every six years we get a televised that makes that uh lets us know how the condition of the pipes are doing if we have any sags or breaks or things that we need to take a look at as we continue on in the future. This is uh the quote is from overline and sun. We only got one quote
because we get uh in years past we have had multiple quotes and they're always the lowest and they do a fantastic job and the per linear foot that they are charging us is the exact same rate as it was in 2025. So this area will uh take care of the in
Hidden Creek and Cold Water Crossing areas as part of our plan service. >> Any questions or discussion? Hearing none, I'll look for a motion to approve the quote from Overline and Sun
Sewer Jetting Services in the amount of $24,760. >> Motion second. >> All those all those in favor? >> I >> I >> All oppose. Motion carries. 4 Z.
Moving on to council report. Sam, anything? >> I don't have anything. >> Emily? Nope. >> Nikki. >> Nope. >> And I have had no other meetings. So I guess I'll look for a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion. >> Second. >> All those in favor?
>> I. >> Motion carries. We are adjourned. >> Nice. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for making the zoning stuff >> easier. >> Yeah. Yeah. It's a lot >> because when I when I was going through it, I was like, "Oh, this is going to be a long meeting."
>> Well, I mean, I read your memo. >> Yeah. And that was super