Yeah. Yep. 6:30. And so with that, welcome to the city of Orno Planning and Zoning Commission our meeting for Thursday, May 8th at 6:30 p.m. And with that, I'll call the meeting to order. Roll call. Commissioner Kathy
Brandt Rucker, chair, I am here. Commissioner John Evans, here. Commissioner Grant Koser, here. Commissioner Jim Phillips here. Commissioner Scott Sorenson, he said he was going to be gone this meeting.
Commissioner Daniel Spring here. And we do have one current position open. So if you are interested, please tell your friends and family if they are residents of the city of Oronoko and are interested in our open seat. We do have an opening. So something to keep in
mind. Uh application is on the website. You can certainly fill it out, send it to our city or show up at our next meeting with your application filled out and we will have interviews. It's always on our agenda with that. Also, do we
have anybody online? Staff Phil Carlson, staff Joe Kalin. Yes, Phil Carlson here. Thank you. Uh, staff Joe Kalin and staff Jason
Baker. Okay, thanks Phil. Uh, of interest, not on the agenda, but one of the new employees in the office will also, my understanding is be helping us with minutes and other information going forward. Her name is Rachel. So, thanks a shout out and a
thank you to Rachel. With that, I the agenda was posted on the website yesterday and we do have with that uh any changes for the agenda. We have two public hearings, nothing currently under new business, old business. We have an
officer election, some updates that are out there for past and inquiries that have been come have come before us. Any changes? No changes. All in favor of the agenda say I. I. Okay. Anyone opposed? Anyone abstained? Okay,
we pass. We do not currently have any minutes. I do know we've been looking at a process to maybe get them transcribed. It's officially running full force right now. So, I am hopeful that at next months we may have several months worth
of minutes. All the meetings are out there posted on the city's YouTube channel, I believe. So, there are recordings, but the actual minutes will be coming at some point. Yes. So, we will move on past that. With that, we do have to wait till 6:35
because they do have to post public hearings. They post them online in the paper outside the door. So, we do have to wait till 6:35. And we do have two public hearings for this evening. Um, the first one is a lot split. The second one is a variance. So, with
that, you have to hang out. and this is the tedious part of government. So, thank you. Thanks to all the volunteers that sit up here and are willing to come on one of the nicest days we've had this year. So, I don't know any good Jeopardy music
to play or sing right now. So, I will note though with our public hearings, if anybody is here to speak for or against either of the public hearings, we do ask we have forms at the podium over there that you can fill out. But what we would ask for is your name
and address and to get that information on record for the minutes so that that can just be part of the official record. We're on our last minute folks. Thanks for hanging to set up so I don't have to turn
And we are at 6:35. With that, I will call the first public hearing for the lot split at Riverbend subdivision outlot A, parcel ID 841833 083679. I will call that public hearing
to order and open that. Do we have anyone here who would like to speak for or against the application? I do have to say this three times. Is there anyone present that would like to speak for or against the
application? Is there anyone present that would like to speak for or against the application? Just submit somebody in here. So, okay. Anybody online that wants to to speak? Okay. Hearing none. I have asked
three times. We will close the public hearing. 6 I have 636 on my watch. 636. With that, Phil, do you have a staff report to go with that or can you walk us through the one that was submitted? Yes. U Madam Chair and commissioners, the request in front of you is a lot
split and variance. Um my report of today's date is for this lot that is in the Riverbend uh development uh on uh Riverwood Court. And uh as you can see in the report, there are maps in the
report that show when when this uh subdivision was originally platted into single family lots, they left an outlot uh out at the corner for the drain field because these lots were on septic as was everything in Oronoko. Well, now that
sewer is available, that uh septic uh that drain field for the septic system is no longer needed. And uh that outlot is just the right size to subdivide it into two lots that are the same size or almost the same size as the other lots
in that subdivision uh and uh almost meeting the size requirement of 20,000 square foot minimum in the code. So the proposal is to divide that into two lots. One of them meets the code being just over 20,000 square feet. The other
is just less at 18,000 some square feet. And that's what the variance is for. Uh in my report I go through the various uh criteria for granting a variance. And one of the key ones is that there are unique circumstances
uh with the property that were not created by the landowner. So, uh, the current land owner, uh, didn't create this situation that, uh, sewer would come and the lot is just slightly less. Uh, and really looking at it, uh, you
would hardly notice, uh, that the lot is smaller than is uh, necessary. And of course, for a sewer lot, that 20,000 square ft is no longer needed. That was a standard the city had when they wanted to make sure there was adequate room for
uh for septic systems uh on on each lot. That's no longer uh needed. And so lots less than 20,000 square ft uh can uh be uh approved in the city with no uh concern for public health, safety, and
welfare. Uh in addition, there is a curve in the road out front that that uh where there's reserved a piece of city rightway. And in fact, if that little sliver were part of this lot, it would be over the 20,000 square ft. So looking
at this uh uh without those imaginary lines in place, there really is uh enough uh to make each lot uh 20,000 square ft. But be that as it may, technically the remainder lot uh needs a variance. The tract A of this lot split
is sufficient has the 20,000 square ft and we do recommend approval of the lots split and variance. One of the conditions that's in the engineering comments is that an easement will be required because there is a lift station
uh on the north side of uh this property that the city wants to maintain. And so an easement 10 ft wide by 50 ft uh would be uh requested as part of this lot split. Uh with that otherwise this is a
very simple and straightforward uh lot split with the uh uh variance for one lot to be just under the 20,000 square foot minimum. Uh with that I'd be happy to answer questions. uh and there are conditions that we recommend and
findings in uh my report of dated today May 8th if you wanted to include that in a motion. Thank you. So if you're following along in the packet either online or here in person, um we're looking at the comments that
were on page six of 10. The recommendation from our zoning support is on page seven. Any questions from C from commission? No. I make a motion to approve. Second the variant.
So first from Jim, second from me there. Thank you. Any discussion? And it would be a motion to approve with the findings as specified in the report along with the conditions
as also specified. Correct. Yeah. And I I believe number two has already been done or the uh drain fields already been pulled up and the sewer sewage tanks have been removed also. So yes, there's a big
chunk of hose that's on the ground right now next to it. Just for full clarity here, I live right next to track A when you look at that. So I drive past it every single day. Um, so we've got a first, a second. Any
further discussion? All in favor of the motion to approve the lock split say I. I. Anyone opposed? No one. Any abstain? I'm going to abstain. Just living right next doors. But it does pass 4 to one. So
that will go as a recommendation to city council. So everything that we do here in planning and zoning is an advisory to the city council. So whatever we vote here, they do have to go and approve or change what we've done as
well. With that, that public hearing is now done. We will move on to our next public hearing of the evening. We have posted a variance to build a shed at 720 South Minnesota Avenue, parcel
8417 31 085159. And with it being 6:42, I will open this public hearing. And with this, I do want to clarify that we did not receive
necessarily any type of report like we do for our typical public hearings. So, my understanding is that the application was turned in last meeting last month when we were here. We handlocked it down so it was in the city administrator's
hands that evening. And from that point on the next day, I know it was noticed, but I don't know have all of the details. We did get something here this afternoon that just has some clarifications on dates and times, but
we have not received a final packet unfortunately on with any recommendation yay or nay like we typically would see that we can still open the public hearing for comments. we can receive
comments and we can determine then after the comments what our options are next. So with that, if there's anybody here that would like to speak for or against the application, if you can come up to the podium and state your name and
address. Uh it's Patrick Hawkins at 810 Minnesota Avenue South neighbor. Not for or against it. I'm just here to to gather information about this variance and know anything about it and I'd like to know what the building
purposes building's for. It is going fast and if it's a commercial residential. That's all I really got. Thank you. [Music] Appreciate it. Is there anyone else? Yes.
Um without you guys having pack Oh, I'm sorry. I'm Josh S. I live at 720 Minnesota Avenue wife or my wife Rose Jim. Um without the packet for you guys, what are we going to do at the meeting here? Do you just want me to go through
all the details that I have or I mean she told me you guys had the um blueprints contractor all that been turned Yeah. What's been turned into the city and to our zoning support did not make it to us. So, it's still
under review at this point. We don't have any termination from them on how it does or doesn't that we received as a formal report. But you have the emails changed back and forth from Sante. I do
today. Yeah. But I we haven't gotten anything. I was surprised to get the call or the emails yesterday, the day before the meeting. I've been doing this since March or February. So, if you I'll let you have
your say and then I might ask you some extra questions about dates and times if that's okay. Yep. Uh Pat, we we took down the 35x40 building that we had up. You've seen it. We're trying to replace it with a 40x 56 uh pole shed. Um the
one before there, the rafters were rotted. The building was there be when we bought the property. the whole entire his property, our property was a one homestead at one time. Um the allowed square footage is 3200 square f feet. We
are grandfathered in at roughly around 5800 um with all the buildings that we purchased the property with. Obviously, um, by taking the building down and building it 15 ft longer, keeping the
same width, uh, we would exceed or what we bought the property with in square footage. Um, we're informed by Sante that we can go ahead and build the same size of building with no variance, just a permit and go ahead and start
building. Um, because we were already at that square footage. If we we are willing to stay under that square footage if we can or not exceed that square footage. We have other out buildings on our property that we are willing to tear down um to stay within
the square footage that we purchased the property with. Uh we have three teenage boys that all drive cars now. Um our garage is full. It would be nice to have that garage. I do have boats side by side, lawnmowers. Uh my family keeps a couple boats there,
snowmobiles. Um the building is a beautiful building. Uh we tried to borrow, you know, some of the business aspects as you guys were looking for. We put a Wayne's coat on it. Um it's a very nice building, a beautiful building. So I don't think it's, you know, going to be
anything not something pleasant to look at for the surrounding neighbors or Pat the community of Warco as well. I mean, it's going to raise my property value. Property taxes go up. Um, the future of the property down the road is going to
look better to somebody else coming in maybe if we ever decide to move out. Um, so there's a lot of benefits to my family and to the community. Uh, I really feel uh, if you guys are willing to work with me, I feel like I don't know, you know, not
exceeding that square footage, I think that's a fair deal. Obviously, we already have that much square footage on my property, so I don't see why we can't just put up something and stay within that square footage that we were at. Uh when we started this process back in
February, uh you know, I came down, I talked with uh Jason either end of February, beginning of March, asked him what we needed to do. Um you know, he said, "For the same size, apply for a building permit. That's all you need. If you're going to go bigger, you need to apply for a variance."
Um, not his fault or I'm not pointing any fingers. I was never informed about the allowed square footage or your acreage that you own within the city limits. Um, so obviously with all the tariffs and the talk of prices and
everything going up, we did go out and purchase the building. Um, so I do own a 50x 46 building. The contractor has been paid. Um, so I'd really like to come to a agreement or a plan that we can work
together. I apologize. I get really nervous in front of people, so sorry if you can't hear me or I kind of stutter, but appreciate. That's all I have to say. Thank you. And I have any kind of information you guys need. So packets, I
printed out aerials of the buildings on our property. I do have dimensions um from the city homesite county. So, anything you guys need? Thank you. Appreciate that. Josh, I do apologize. I have I asked once, twice. I do have to
ask a total of three times. Is there anyone present who would like to speak for or against the application? Is there anybody online? Is there anyone present that would like to speak for or against the application? And this is the variance to build a shed at
720 South Minnesota Avenue. I'll ask one last time. Is there anyone present that would like to speak for or against the application? Hearing no one and there's nobody currently online. I will close the public hearing at
6:49. With that, we don't currently have a staff report. And that's one of the things that we would normally have. they take a look at all the information that's submitted, go through this the different codes and the statutes to make sure what is there lines up. So, we
don't currently have that yet. Um, but Madame Chair, if I may, I I may be able to provide some of the information even though we don't have a formal written report. Go ahead, Phil. Thank you. Okay. So, let
me put this in in context. as as Josh said, he um uh submitted applications to city hall. Um but for whatever reason, uh as your city planner, I didn't see that application until Tuesday afternoon, uh you know, a little over 48
hours ago. So, it it came in, there was an application for a variance and it described wanting to put up a new building. Uh and at that point, I didn't have any other information. Very soon after that, then there were emails back and forth. Uh we got the building plans
that showed the new 40x56 building that that Josh wants to uh wants to put up on the property. Uh but we didn't have any kind of a site plan that showed where it would go or how big the existing building is that it would replace or
anything else like that over the course of u yesterday and this morning. Then more emails were passed back and forth. Uh but the situation on the property is this. It's a little less than 2 acres in size. The um the Oronoko code has uh
standards for the size of accessory buildings and actually these are this is a code that was just changed fairly recently. Uh so that there's a formula. uh the intent being uh you know we don't want properties overrun with uh with
acres and acres of accessory buildings and so there is a limit on that. The formula in the code would give Josh's property about 3,200 square ft of accessory buildings that are permitted. Uh and to put that in context uh your
typical twocar garage is between uh 500 and 600 square ft. So, this is the equivalent of five or six twocar garages that he already has on the property in buildings of of various uh sizes. Um
uh that's what he would be allowed. What he has currently is almost 5,000 square ft of uh accessory buildings on the property in these various buildings. So, it's well over the uh the allowed amount
of accessory buildings on the property. Now, as he uh he mentioned the word grandfathered in the the technical term is legal nonconforming structure. So, uh what he has on there uh even though it exceeds the code, they were put up
before uh that code was uh written and these rules were in place. So, he gets to keep those. There's no question that he can keep those structures. he has on the property. And state law actually allows someone with a legal non-conforming structure to uh repair
it, improve it, maintain it, etc., and even replace it. So, he could take down any of those structures and replace them. But they need to be replaced in the same size and location so that if they are nonconforming in some way, you
get to put back exactly what you have but not expand it. And that language is in state statute and also in our uh local codes. So it's the expansion that is the issue here. So the existing uh shed uh that he wants to take down he
said is 35 by 38. That comes to a little over 1,300 uh square ft. So there's no question he could take that shed down, put up another uh new shed uh the same size and shape in in that location. No questions
asked. he would simply need to apply for a building permit. What he wants to put up is larger than that, 40x56, which is uh 2240 square ft. So almost 900 square ft more. So on top of
the 5,000 ft he has now, he wants to add 900 square ft uh more. Um and there's nothing unusual about the property uh that would prevent him from meeting the code. Uh and that's that's one of the
standards as you know. Are there unique circumstances uh with the property not created by the land owner that pose a practical difficulty to meeting the code? That again is the language from from state statute. And so uh it's hard to imagine
that there's anything with the property that prevents him from putting in a smaller building that would stay within the allowed square footage. So, uh, the the even though we don't have a formal application or a site plan, we've got
enough numbers here that we can see what's allowed on the property is about 3,3200 square ft. What he has is about 5,000 square ft or well above the numbers that are allowed and he wants to put in another 900 square ft more. So
based on that uh I think it it is clear in my mind that even if I did have more information this simply doesn't uh meet the criteria for granting a variance and I would recommend against it. Now he brought up an interesting um approach
which is could he take down that that building and maybe uh some uh part of the other buildings uh such that the total square footage that uh 5,000 square ft or whatever the exact number is so that the the property stays at
that number. That would still require a variance because the uh what's allowed is not the one number, but it's each each uh structure there uh uh contributes to that number. And he would take down one and put one up that's
bigger. That's an expansion. And that's the term in state statute and in the local ordinance that we'd be looking at. Is he expanding what he has there? So, uh, it may seem reasonable to you, uh, and to the city council to allow him to
keep the total square footage, that that he has on the property, even though it's not the exact same buildings. And, uh, I might agree that that's a reasonable approach. It would still require a variance, but it's a variance to keep him at the 5,000 or whatever that number
is square feet instead of increasing it to 5,800 or 5900. So there really are a variety of approaches here. You could say a no, we're not going to grant you a variance and you are not required to grant a
variance. You can say why can't you meet our rules, stay within our rules, uh keep the buildings you have or uh put up a building that is the the same size and shape as what you have. Or the commission could say, "Well, we think
there's a way to justify this and so we'll let him put up the 2240 square foot uh building." Or a third option is, "Well, we think it's reasonable that he keeps the the total square footage on his property and not increase that any
more than he has. So we would require as a condition that he take down uh some buildings or a portion of the buildings so that the total square footage of accessory buildings on the property it isn't an increase isn't an expansion over the square footage he has now. Uh
those I I think are the the three options that you have in front of you. um because we don't have uh a uh full-sight plan uh which would be required with any variance application and because we haven't had uh the
opportunity to uh prepare a report for you or conditions or findings of fact. My suggestion to you is that you continue this to your next meeting so that we can get that more information and provide you a a report with
conditions and findings and then you could act on it at that time. But uh this is your commission and you can uh uh operate it as you think is fair and reasonable. Thanks Bill.
So folks, we don't have a written report yet from our zoning administrator, our support. We have heard from Bill verbally though what his thoughts are on this knowing that he just received it on
Tuesday. Through no fault of yours, thank you. We appreciate your due diligence trying to get everything turned in, even coming to the last meeting and we walked it down that night so they had the application. Uh with that, we've heard
one option is to deny. One option is to continue this hearing that we're having right now to the next meeting. Um of course another option if you're saying deny is approved, but we would have to come up with some findings in fact and
phrase that. Um can I ask you a question on this stuff, Josh? Okay. What's going on? Um, well, let's we need to have a motion before we can do discussion or since it's open, I guess we really don't because it's not a formal We're still
trying to formulate our motion. So, yeah. So, we don't have to worry about that. Um, and and I've got the picture here of of what you've got for your your sheds that you've got up there right now. Um, are you willing to take down those other sheds that that you have to
stay in compliance with everything that's going on? Sir, I'm absolutely willing to do that. Um, I would ask that we have some kind of agreement in, you know, before I go rip down the other sheds and stores. That would be what's in the varian that's all a part of it.
Right. You know, some kind of assurance that, you know, that would be part of the variance. Right. Right. Yeah. Yeah. I am absolutely open to that. Um, I have a print out from the Homestead County public property records of the sizes of those buildings and they actually will
get us under what we're currently at. Um, so it's going to be smaller square footage on our property. Which out buildings would you be taking down? And do you know the square footage of This one has concrete. So, I'm going to
save that. This one. This one. This one. This is the one that's being replaced. This is the one place. This has horse stru and just highlight the ones that you would take. Yeah. Go ahead. And then on here on public records, they show our
lean to on the horse stable or the horse barn as 500 square feet for the lean to. So I mean the leanto is technically not included in square footage of out building because it's opened. So that shouldn't even be counted. But everything highlighted there is the what
I'm willing to take out. He will keep it. [Music] I did see that. This is gone. This is gone. This has concrete. I don't know what the square and then I give them the print out. So I
got this one here which is the one that you given. Okay. And so I had just kind of done a rough and it was hard to tell which some of those numbers were. So the pole shed you know is going to be this one. Okay. So is this correct? That would be the new one. That's the ones
that would be removed. It seems like your message is unclear. Please say, "Hey, otter." And clarify your question or request. That one. Okay. Josh, you're going to take down this this poll shed. Yeah, they got a copy of the one.
Okay. Those are the ones that you're going to go. Oh, here. So, you have a full picture. Perfect. Great. Thanks, Josh. And um Madame Mayor, if I may, I've heard some of this discussion for the purposes of defining the structures that are on the property. Anything that
has a roof over it, whether it's enclosed with walls or not, is considered a structure. So, a lean to even if it's open on all, you know, three sides, it would still be considered a structure. And the square footage under that roof would be counted in the total for the property for
accessory buildings. Okay, I think it's still Thanks for the clarification. Thanks, Phil. So, I did get a map from the applicant and on that we've got it marked what the new replacement building is and then the other structures are
highlighted and lined of which ones would be the removal pieces. You see that on that one? Mhm. Okay. The ones that he would be willing to remove. Like he's not on it right now, but should a variance be worked out, those would be the ones he'd
be willing to remove. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. And I just want to pass that around so everybody gets a chance to see that, too. I have the math on what that comes
out to. 5616. So, just to confirm, so right now you're at 5,900. If you were to remove those buildings and then add the new one, you'd be about 5600 roughly, right? Roughly. Yeah. And I think the 59's high, but yeah, we'll say I'll still be under the number that we're at. Okay.
And if I would have known about a site plan two months ago, I would add that down, too. Thank you. just so you guys can see it too. That's something we've marked up. I can verify that. What's on there is circles.
So kids, here is one point in life where that math that you take in high school and college is actually being used. So thank you everyone for running numbers for us right now. Appreciate it. Any more discussion? Any thoughts up
front here? I know we're working on math right now. I know. I like math for the record. Yeah, I know you do. I do. We work for a bank. Or find things at banks. Let me put it that way. That's a better way to put it.
And remember, anything we do come up with here, one way or the other, either would go to next month's meeting or gets sent to city council at their next meeting as a motion to either approve or turn down or change what we've done. So,
that's the other piece of it, too. So, our word is not the final word. It does go to council as a recommendation. be good to see the map too for the offset. So what is to make sure we've got that part of it. Is one of these the
one option is to approve it as requested. One option is to deny it as requested. One option is to continue this public hearing. We post the public comment of it but to continue it to next month. Another option is to come up with a
different variance. It sounds like one that would allow a variance but with no increase in the total square footage of the property which which would be to take down the other and I think it I think it honestly that's that's the right way to do because it would clean up that whole property and make the
property so variance that would allow for the construction provided there's not an increase in the total square footage already existing or very close to where it is. you know that that's what I I would I'd venture to go that direction which is I think make the
whole property the credit for everything that's going on. Sorry. Oh, no. What I was saying, I'm leaning towards taking down the other, you know, structures that are there, keeping what's there for the the major square footage underneath there and and
maintaining it that way. I think the property would look better that way as well. So, I mean, that's that's my comments. I was while you were doing math, we kind of went through the the options are one to approve it as requested, deny it as
requested is option two. One is to continue this hearing next month. Another option that's been floated is a variance that would allow for construction of the requested size provided the total square footage currently existing doesn't increase,
which would require they would have to take down some portion of other buildings. You have a build date with your builder already? Oh, yeah. We were hoping this meeting went great. Next week goes good and he started next weekend. Yeah,
because they they had a delay of what there was and they did their building permit and it went into the black hole with Renee. Yeah. And yeah, it didn't come out. So, we also were hoping to have my brother's daughter's graduation party and Yeah.
You know, it's Yeah, we're just whatever we got to do, guys. So, we've got four different options. Is there any discussion on any one of those? Well, I the last option if if it was a question that I had, keeping the
square footage basically the same, eliminating the other buildings and and being able to have a nicer structure that would be in there. So what I'm hearing is you would approve the variance that would allow for the construction provided that the total
square footage of the existing property does not increase Now with that, what we don't currently have is the additional conditions and the supporting
doc for that one and then the layout plan. So would you put a condition to that that it would be approved for a variance that would allow for construction provided the total square footage of
existing property does not increase and then one condition is that a site plan is provided. I think we just need to do that everything is provided and approved by Phil take a look at that one.
Any other Phil? Yes. Yes. Would you agree with that then? Um that uh could be uh workable. I mean certainly we would want to just verify the square footage of uh buildings so that we have a paper trail and know what
we're looking at and know which ones would come down. So, and uh I I don't want to put words in your mouth, but uh uh from from the discussion, what I'm hearing is that u allowing this property owner to keep the existing square
footage of accessory buildings is a reasonable approach and requiring him to um keep a building um uh keep all the buildings as they are uh really poses a difficulty and that would be part of the
findings that u um you're willing to have this reasonable approach such that total square footage of accessory buildings is not increased again go ahead Josh just you know that paper that I gave oh sorry the paper I turned in there is offside county
property and records um that's what they base our taxes off of so I hope that's pretty accurate so I think it should information right there to keep keep us within the numbers. All right. Thank you. Appreciate that. Thanks.
So, if I heard you, Phil, that this would be a re reasonable approach and not allowing that would be cause undue hardship. Madam Chair, I don't know if you can hear me, but I've lost audio. I cannot hear you. Yeah, we can hear you,
Bill. Oh, we can't hear us. Can you hear us? The wonders of technology. Sorry. Giving us his finger. There you go. How about now, Bill? Yeah, I know.
I'm not hearing anything. I don't know if you can hear me. Yeah, we can hear you. Are you at work? Yes, I get mobile. Let's see if I can come up on mobile.
You must be aware. Hey, now the now the the audio came back. Okay, good. What happened there? All right. So, what I'm hearing is the variance would allow for construction
provided the total square footage of the existing property does not increase. So, something would have to come down to put an extended but total square footage cannot go up from what it is today. Uh site plan would need to be provided and
approved. Mhm. Uh verification of sizes of buildings and structures. It sounds like some of that's already there, but it's already here. Yeah. Yep. Buildings and structures just to verify which ones specifically would go and which ones would stay. And that it sounds like it's a reasonable approach
for us to take and not allowing this would cause some undue hardship. Am I missing anything there, Phil? No, I I think that sounds like a reasonable approach. So, is that what I'm hearing correctly? Yes. Is that your motion? That's my motion. Second that. And you're going to
second that. That's beautiful. Any more discussion up front here? Hearing no more further discussions. I would call for a a vote on that. All in favor of this motion that we have, I I I. Anyone
opposed? Any extensions? Okay. So, what this would do is go as a motion to approve with those additional conditions to the next city council meeting. So, during this time between now and then, it sounds like you are in contact with Phil right now to get the site plan and
the sizes and what we need to have done there so that that can be included for the council's packet. Is there anything else it sounds like here that we would need to be included for them? If so, I'm sure Phil will let
you know if there's additional. And Madam Chair, do do one of you know when that next council meeting is that we're shooting for on the 20th. Next Tuesday. May 20th. Okay. All right. May 20th. So, I'll just get all
that and email it to Phil. That's who I'm sending this to. Send it to Phil. Yeah. for and that's the only person I need. You can CC anybody you want, but please make sure Phil gets it. Yes. Yes.
Yes. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thanks for your patience. Sounding like you worked on this back in February and early March. So, yeah, we heard about it exactly one month ago tonight. So, thank you very much.
With that, we can move on to the next item in our agenda. We did not have any new business. We do have under old business though, officer elections. So, what we do need is somebody to think about considering being vice chair.
Thank you. Good night. Thanks, Josh. Uh, is there anybody interested because I may have a conference next month, so I could end up having a conflict. So, we are looking for somebody who'd be willing to say be a temporary chair. A temporary chair. I don't know if we can
do that as council. I I think we have to do a vice. So, we don't want to say Scott, you're the only one that was missing this evening and you are not. But Scott's looking to step down anyways.
long. I would say um and I'm not quite certain if I end up out in Indianapolis that I can necessarily make it back here in order to chair that. Right. So, I'm not sure in the absence of us actually electing
one how that would run. I don't know. We're not allowed to. I don't think we're allowed to. I I I could be wrong, but I don't think we are with temporary circumstance. I don't have a problem stepping in, but I don't. So, we'll figure that out. I mean, if if
need be, you know, Daniel and I, you could open it up and then put somebody in. Yep. So, we will push that to next month under old business once again, but we might run that at the very beginning of the meeting. So, all right. Uh,
monthly incoming zoning applications and questions is next on the list. I know other months we've gotten a report. We I've got everything that's that's here. Yeah. I prefer when they actually give us a report so we can
because I want it to be out in the open for the entire community. But if you if you want that's that's it. So, um, building permit maintenance. There's a lot of maintenance. So, I am assuming we're going to start you can go you can go up and go from that point, but I
think most of those for this month were water meters and uh hookups. Um, it says it on the one otherwise go ahead and and go over so you can move. I touch screen so go ahead make it simple make it easy
on me. Repair and replace items. Looks like we have some exteriors, some windows. I'm I'm gonna be a future roof on that list. So, I think we roofs aren't on there yet from what I was saying. No, mine's not there yet. So, but it's
coming. So, I'm hoping that by next month we'll get two reports, one that we should have gotten this month and one for next month. So, thank you. Yeah, at least I try to keep track of what's going on there. That's good. Um, I do have an
update. Next would be on the WSB project update. So, the code is written. It's that part's done. There's two bits outstanding. One is we have an extra sign ordinance that once upon a time we asked them if here's our zoning code.
Here's this little sign ordinance. Do we want to have them look at this? And the thought was well yeah maybe if we can get it all done with everything else. What they're finding right now is in the last couple two three years couple there have been a lot of lawsuits surrounding signs and freedom of speech. So it's a
much more complex chapter. And so although they've got some proposed text, it's sitting with the city attorney. So we may want to just for the sake of keeping things moving forward, just go with what our original proposal was to do that. Keep it clean. The only other
question that's outstanding, and this one is also with the city attorney, is the percentage of parks that you have when you do a subdivision or development type of deal. So that's one that they can figure out, get ironed out for us.
But the code itself, the draft is done. They've inserted photos or not photos, drawings. So there's actually some explanation of what it will look like. What I'm going to be doing is scheduling a half an hour meeting. I have not scheduled it yet, but what it will be is
a half an hour to do a highlevel look through of just here's the table of contents, here's how the code works. You know, we're going from 6 or 700, 800 pages, whatever it is, down to 400 with photo with illustrations. Hopefully, it's clearer, more concise. But what
they'll do is a 30 minute highle review. I think we're going to do all of planning and zoning. We'll do all of the steering committee that's worked hard reading these hundreds and hundreds of pages of code. And I'd also like to have city council on that if they wanted to
attend the Zoom as well. Because once that's done and out, then what we're going to do is release it next to that same website we have for this process where we had people go to enter their likes and dislikes. So the code's out there for the public. Everybody can go out there and look at it in the city. My
thought is we won't have a specific public hearing on it in June, but we will in July. And then in July, it goes to council after we're done with our public hearing. Now, if we have to continue that, if there's a lot of interest and a
lot of people want to talk about things, it could end up going into August, but then it would end up at council. I'll make a comment too about the sign ordinance that we were working with. We've had a few sign ordinances and variations already come in and we handle
those one-on-one. Uh, one of them uh was with Glenn's Motorcoach that the sign was bigger than than what could be uh approved, but we said, "Okay, it looks good." And if you look at that sign, even though it's out of a variance, it
looks very good, you know, and we did it the right way. So, everything we've done, and there was also a variance that there was a two sisters, too. Biggest issue on the signage has been that some of these things are suddenly requiring a public hearing, which doesn't make sense. And so whether it goes through
that process or they come up with a different process, most cities do not put sign variances through a planning and zoning type of process. So, but we were able to do it and we were but it did take more time for this body which
is fine for now but with the thought that they fix that and move on and figure it out. I don't think that should be the thing to carry and hold this down. I agree with you guys are good with that thought process. Yeah, same thing with that question on the park. Every other section has been reviewed by
the city attorney and they're good moving forward with it. So, with those two caveats that we won't include the sign knowing there might be some tweaks yet on the parks section, what percentage you have to give or square, I don't know, however that'll work out, but they will walk us through that piece
of it. And then comes the hard part where you get to read some of that if you really want to in your free time sitting on the side of soccer games or whatever else you might want to read it. But um we are on track to move forward. So it's nice to have a project moving forward. I know we've got other folks
and developers waiting wondering when we can do something here. So that's my thought process. That's my current timeline on that. It gives us a whole month to first of all have us all look at it and then have a good period of
time. It's not going to be out there for two or three days and we suddenly have a public hearing. I want the community if they want to look at it be able to look at it. That's fair. Out of curiosity, does it change any of the currently areas how they're zoned? So if something's zoned R1 now, does that
change it or just the parameters or the guidelines inside change what applies to what the current zoning is too? Okay. Yep. I'm just curious. It doesn't change specific zones. Yep. Okay. Good question though. Doesn't even touch the future. That's what I was curious
on. What's what's mapped today? What's on the map today? City of our maps. It just literally is the So today we talked about 20,000 square feet. It's written for a time period in some of the areas of town we'd want to have maintain those larger lot sizes and
that's included there. But it's written for a time period when you had to put in septic right in a well. So a lot of these places you saw in town once upon a time everybody had their own well. Everybody had their own little septic field and that's what the code's written
to. Yep. So that's where we're kind of dragging kicking and screaming into modern century here. But I do appreciate all the community members that have sat in on steering committee meetings and read through oodles of code till their
eyes are blue. So anyway, that's there. There's the update. Um, I will be sending out probably some type of survey to see what date might work the best, trying to come up with a date. I do plan on that 30
minutes to probably be a Zoom call. And what I'll probably do is similar to other ones is we'll probably have people join the Zoom call, but I'll probably have everybody muted so that we can run it more orderly and then we'll take
questions in order until we finish up our time. And if there's other questions after that, they can be submitted in writing. That's a great idea. Great plan. 30 minutes. That's what I'm hoping for.
Um, with that, we have a next on the agenda is an open position. There are no candidates present, so we'll keep that on our agenda for next month. I have nothing further on that driveway request letter E other than it sounds like they've just decided to
hold. Yeah, I talked to Mike about that and and he just hasn't gone ahead with with that, although he purchased the land and everything else that way. And my understanding is the city told him he needed to purchase the strip of land. So we did and now it's kind of sitting here. Yeah. So we'll we'll just leave it
on till we hear one way or the other. Yeah. And the other thing too is his street address, you know, even being Fifth Street, there's no accessibility to his house with that address on Fifth Street. It comes off of Minnesota. So it's Yeah. So we'll see what happens
there. But I'm just going to keep it on here just like I do other things. If they have come through city hall, I want them on here till I know they're resolved or they've determined that they don't want to do it and I hear from them directly because I don't want things falling through the cracks. Correct.
Uh next up was Gold Rush Gold Rush Crossings. We had heard a presentation in September and uh on our side on planning and zoning, we've had nothing further on that one specifically. I don't know what other discussions have happened between city, township, other
officials, gold rush crossing. I don't know there. So just again leaving it here till we know one way or another. Right. Uh then we had the zoning change at outlaw a cedar woodland. So this was last month we and that was approved. It was sent to council and was approved
there. So I just put that on there as an update for everybody and then that will disappear for next month. So it's nice to have something get crossed off there. And then we did have it if there's any update on that Mary Nash property. There was a followup from CMS. Yeah, I talked
to CMS and there's nothing else that they can do because they posted the shed or whatever you want to call it. So it it shouldn't be occupied and it is occupied on a regular basis. So it's I think we need to run
it's a city enforcement issue. Yeah. I think we're going to have to bring that up to council and figure out what we want to do that way and and either have the sheriff go out and go back through it again or figure out take it down. So, at this point, it's no longer planning and zoning. That goes to council as an enforcement issue and Jason. Okay. I'll
have to go to legal. I'm sure Michael needed to go. All right. With that, is there anything further? There's no one else in the room. Anybody further? I make a motion to adjurnn. Second. I got 7:30. I have a
motion to adjurnn. All in favor? I. Anyone opposed? It passes. We are adjourned. Thank you very much. Thanks for running the Zoom Zoom magic. Now we'll see how this all turned
out allows me to go 30 minutes. Yay.