Call to order the city council regular meeting for the city of Wyoming, Minnesota, July 1st, 2025. Let the record reflect we do have a quorum. Member Joerger, member Schilling, Member Anstead, Member Luger, and Mayor Iverson
are present. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance 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. Okay, we start with open forum. Open forum is an opportunity for members um of the public to address the city council on items that are on or not on the current agenda. Items requiring council action may be deferred to staff
or boards and commissions for research and future council agendas if appropriate. You will be limited to three minutes and we ask that you conduct yourself in a professional courteous manner and refrain from the use of profanity. Failure to abide by
this policy may result in the loss of your privilege to speak. I have four names on the list. Um Mr. Sickenator, you'll be first. Thank you. Steve Sinator, 6201266
Court. I'm here to talk about e devices in the city. Um I know this is a problem with other cities as well with ebikes, scooters, skateboards, whatever you want to talk it. Uh and I'm here to find out what the city is doing to con to try to
curb the illegal use of those devices on our city streets and in our parks. Just about every night my wife and I walk down Glenn Oak down to Good View Park and then back home. You know, it's about a mile and a half. And I would say every night we see at least three or four
violations. Uh kids on scooters, motorbikes on the road, nine or 10 year olds scooting around, kids under 15 with ebikes. My understanding state you don't need city ordinances. State statute requires that
you be at least 15 years of age just to use a ebike, off-road vehicles. I believe you have to be 16 years of age, but we see off-road vehicles with no license, young kids, and I'm not so concerned about us. I can get out of the way, but these kids are going to hurt
themselves. And there, in my opinion, there's no parental supervision. Now, you see eight, nine year olds scooting along the road and there isn't a parent around. So, I'm just here to say, what is the city doing? Have there been any complaints? If I'm seeing in our
area of town, I'm sure people are seeing in another area of town. And uh now with summer here, school out, we don't see them in the morning when we walk 7 o'clock. They're still in bed. But you know, anytime after 5:00 until it gets
dark, they're just racing all over. That's all I have. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you. Next on our list is Mr. Murdoch. I think he'll speak during the agenda item there. Okay. All right. Um and Mr.
Ostrabower. No. Yes. No. Looks like he's on here. Lauren. Oh, he's a no. Okay. Nope. That's all we need. Okay. Looks like it's going to be a perfect night.
All right. Uh, first on our agenda, um, League of Minnesota Cities LMC City of Excellence Award presentation. Um, and we'd, um, Mr. Fischer, do you want to come on up first and Mr. Vogle, I'll do a quick introduction for both of you.
So, we have um, Luke Fischer, who is the executive director of the League of Minnesota Cities, and we have Evan Vogel, who is the city administrator for uh, Cambridge and also second vice chair on our board. So, welcome to the city of Wyoming. Thank you so much, mayor,
members of the council. We're so happy to be here. Um, and Evan is our newly minted second vice president of the league. So, we're not sure if it's official yet, but we'll we'll make it official here tonight. How's that? Yeah, we really appreciate the opportunity to be here to present you with your city of
excellence award in person. Uh, even though we got to celebrate with you just last week at our annual conference in Duth. Anytime somebody gets recognition though, I think it's important for that that there's some context that you know who you're getting the recognition from. You know us well, so that makes sense.
But my guess is all these people that came to hear about the award tonight probably don't know about who we are quite as well. So, uh, as an association, League of Minnesota Cities represents about 841 of the state's 850 or so cities. Our largest member is the city of Minneapolis. They've got a
population of 425,000. Our smallest member is the city of Barry. Any guesses on Barry's population? 87. 87. Any other guesses? 23. Okay. 12. 12. I had That's so specific. Like five. Everybody in
council is like 13 and a half. 13 and a half. Well, if we're playing prices, you win because they've got a population of just 19 people. So on the western side of the state, often times people say, "Well, what's it by?" I say it's by Morris and they go, "Well, where's
Morris?" And you say, "It's by that bump on the western side." So, it's a little city out there. But, as an association, we get to represent everybody from Minneapolis to Wyoming to Barry. Um, and we do that in a myriad of ways that you know really well, but we answer about 5,000 research inquiries from our
members every single year. Our HR team handles about 2500 questions, managed something like 8,500 insurance claims for our members, and our website had a million views. So, that's all to say that we get to see some of the really best things that are out there and the best projects and some of the most
innovative ideas. And that's why we're so excited to be here tonight to celebrate you. I'm going to let Evan talk about your award. We'll play a quick video. We'll get a picture. Thank you. See how this goes. Um, thank you, Mayor Iverson, for having us here. It's great
to be here and recognizing a partner city in East Central Minnesota for for excellence. We're here today to recognize the city of Wyoming for winning the 2025 League of Minnesota City's City of Excellence Award uh in a topical category. Each year, the City of
Excellence Award honors projects and programs that accomplish one or more of the following objectives: improving the quality of city service. Uh developing an effective and innovative way to solve an old or common problem. Modifying a program from another community or
organization to fit your city's need. uh saving the city money while achieving the same or better results or involving citizens or other city staff in decision-making. This year's award for the city of Wyoming, as I mentioned, is a topical award for successful
collaboration among local governments. The city's age friendly community garden project was made possible by partnership among the city of Wyoming, the Chicago County statewide health improvement partnership, and M Health Fairview. It was funded through an agefriendly Minnesota community grant awarded by the
Minnesota Department of Human Services. One of our goals uh through the league awards program is to showcase outstanding work that can be emulated by other cities like mine um with similar goals. The age friendly community garden is a gold standard model of
collaboration resulting in enhanced food access, creation of an inclusive gathering space for all, accessibility for all residents, and other benefits. By removing physical barriers, the city and its partners created a welcoming space that encourages all residents to
engage in community gardening. Your efforts in this project are particularly admirable since they reflect the ability of leaders in your city, including those in local government and in the health provider community, as well as residents and local businesses, to adapt to the
needs of your diverse population. With the garden improvements, seniors and those with physical disability challenges have an enhanced opportunity to contribute to the quality of life in the already thriving Wyoming community. Successful projects like yours require
hard work, commitment, and enthusiasm among all involved. This that desk plaque, which we hope you will display proudly, is a reminder that successful collaboration collaborations produce successful results.
Let's see what some of the project partners had to say about this program. The video you are about to see was first shown at the league's annual conference, uh, which many here attended last week and is now publicly accessible through YouTube. So, the Wyoming Community Garden is on
site at the M Health Fairview Lakes Medical Center campus and has been in existence for now over 17 years. And prior to 2024, there were 14 garden plots. Those garden plots were all uh ground level. The expansion of the garden was necessary mostly because of
all the the plots that were out there, none were accessible. The intended outcomes of the age friendly expansion of the community garden in the city of Wyoming was to really reach those with mobility needs or different accessibility needs in the community and
to really provide further opportunities for community gardeners and community members to have that experience to grow their own produce, increase healthy food access, but also promote physical activity and social connection in the garden space. The city came together
with uh Chicago Countyy's SHIP program as well as with uh age friendly communities uh Minnesota based organization. Together the the city identified the plot of land um which is on Fairview's property. A lot of our seniors stay here. They don't move on. They don't go to other places, but they stay in their homes. And so being able
to have a space where they can grow what they want, whether it's flowers or vegetables or whatever, actually heals that heart. It gives them something to do. Whether you're walking, whether you're using a walker, whether you have a stroller for children or in a
wheelchair, anyone can access it uh to be able to access good healthy food. When we had the grand opening of the garden, we did have an individual over there that was there gardening that day that really talked about how important it was and how this gets her out of the house. It gives her purpose, how she has
all of her friends there and she just gushed about how wonderful it was. It's about people coming together, whether it's a friend or family member. It's really a community space where people get to meet others that they might not know in the community and feel welcome
and have a passion for what they're doing and be able to share that passion as well. We are very grateful to the city of Wyoming, age friendly Minnesota, Chicago County, uh public health and ship uh for making this garden expansion possible. There's a lot of people that really want public service minded and
there's a lot of other people not only just city centric, county centric, but all these other organizations that really want to work together and and make good things happen within your communities. Congratulations again to the city of Wyoming for a job well done. You're a highly deserving recipient of this
year's 2025 City of Excellence Award. Good job. Thank you. We couldn't have done it without our staff, without our partners. Um, it just really came together really nice. So, we're pretty proud. So, thank you. Of course. Do you
want us up here? Yeah. All right. No. So Mark's gonna take the picture. We have other people Get in tight. One, two, Get the I gota get this out of the way. That's can barely fit you in. But then I get
the two. There it is. Thank you so much. Mr. Ericson, are you going to start taking over video audiovisisual equipment and add that to other duties? I'm going to
say this that I would just end it right now if we could because what a great just a great award for the city and really appreciate just like I said everybody involved. So, all right. We are going to move on to approval of minutes. Consider approving the minutes
of the regular meeting of the Wyoming, Minnesota City Council for June 17, 2025. If there are no comments or questions, do we have a motion to approve? So moved. We have a motion to approve by member Lucer. Do we have a second? Second by member Onstad. All in
favor? I. Opposed? So approved. Number three, consider approving the minutes of the work session meeting of the Wyoming Minnesota City Council for June 17th, 2025. Are there any questions or comments? We need a motion to approve. So moved. We have a motion to approve by
member onstead. Do we have a second? Second. Second by member Luger. All in favor? I opposed. So approved. Number four, to consider resolution 25766, a resolution receiving bids and awarding
a contract for the 2025 street improvement project improvements. Mr. Ericson, will you be speaking? I will. Thank you, Madam Mayor, and members of council. Last Thursday, we did receive bids for the 2025 street improvement project. And again, just a summary of
the project location for those that may not be familiar. Um the project location is shown on the map and it is a neighborhood called Hawk Meadows. Includes 256th Street, Grail Court, Grand Prix Court, Grizzly Court, and Greenwood Court.
As I mentioned, uh we did receive bids last Thursday. Um our engineers estimate was $530,700 and we did receive 77 bids that range from $448,900 or $497.50
50 cents all the way up to $578,495.15. So, uh the low bidder is Buminous Roadways again with that total of $448,49757 um or 50 cents. We have not uh worked with them in the city of Wyoming previously. We have at WSB worked with them extensively. They are a reputable
firm. Uh they're located there in Columbus and so hopefully we can build a new relationship with them here. and again provide a lot of competition for our projects in the future. And so again, they are a reputable firm and do high quality work. Uh project costs and
funding. I just wanted to quick highlight this. Again, those are construction costs. And so we've we've done some inflation of those numbers to account for some contingency. Um it's often we do run into issues with projects. Um and we want to make sure that we have accounted for that. And again, just kind of painting a picture
for those that may be assessed or will be assessed with this project. Uh that we kind of have an idea. So we included some contingency. We included all the engineering and the soil borings in the survey and the construction survey and and inspection all of those things and really kind of came up with a number. And so we end up with what you can see
there um with a conservative estimate of 538,000 with a total amount to be assessed of just over 81,000. When we look at our assessments and how that applies, we have 52 parcels and we look at that assessable portion of just
over 81,000 being assessed. We end up with an assessment total of about $1,570. Again, we will use this based on actual numbers. Uh and so this is again just an estimate. We don't know where the project will come in exactly, but again,
just wanted to kind of frame this for prop for property owners and council alike uh to know really where we stand uh with assessments with relation to the feasibility study. And again, it is a little bit lower and so we're very pleased with that. We had received excellent bids. We're on a good streak here of many years in a row with really
good bid prices. So, uh we're very pleased with that. Um as far as schedule goes um again this evening we are recommending award of contract to batuminous roadways. Uh as far as con start of construction we have had preliminary conversations with them.
It looks like it's falling mid uh August for their schedule mid to maybe third week in August. And so it's not a real lengthy project. Um so there will be no issues getting this project completed this year. But we have had some property owners inquire about timing. And so we'll get some communication out to them
now once um well provided the council awards the project, but we'll get communication with them uh to let them know really what the rough schedule is and what they need to know uh regarding construction. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Mr. And I think it would be kind
of nice with everybody in the audience and watching um to know this isn't a full reconstruct, you know, like we've done on many of the roads lately, but it's a little bit of a different project and to help extend our roads. Could you talk a little bit more about that, please? Yeah. staff um in working
through uh the capital improvements plan really wanted to look at not necessarily the worst first uh but roadways that we could potentially get a little extra bang for our buck if you will and look at other improvements to extend the longevity of our roadways and so this is
a a mill and overlay so it's really just taking that top layer of asphalt off and I think that's a good point that you make because property owners that um that may have been involved in a more extensive project have uh substantially higher assessment amounts. And so this is relatively small. It's still an
expense. And so I don't want to um I don't want to make light of that, but it is significantly less than what we've had on all of our other or most of our other projects. And so again, more of a mill and overlay type improvement. Uh that is again aimed at um at at
targeting projects um to mitigate more expensive projects if we let them go a little bit longer. Okay. This is um a question in terms of a lot of the roads are being finished already in the neighborhood next to it and you've got a lot of heavy m um trucks and stuff
coming through. Will that do any damage to the new roads? Because I know we're going to get that question. Yeah, great great question. And it will not. I mean, the roadways that were built within the 2024 project that did carry into 2025 are are certainly um built to a standard that would accommodate that traffic.
Okay, great. Uh questions from council. We'll start with member Schilling. I actually have no questions. Uh we've worked with him for years down there where I work now currently and they all I know is they do a great job and our staff compliments them a lot. So great. Okay. Member Joerger. No questions. He
basically answered mine. Member Lucer, no questions. Member Anstead, with this repair, with this repair, what's our expected life? You know, we anticipate 10 10 years or greater on that. So I think, you know, it's there's a lot of variables that go into that. Uh but we
know that uh certainly this is not the quality of a full reconstruction where you're removing all of the pavement structure and the subgrade. This is just the top layer of asphalt and so we don't expect to get the same life out of it, but we're hoping uh another good 10 years out of that. There will be some additional uh crack filling that uh Mr.
Reeves and our public works department will uh employ before the life expectancy is up, but it does certainly extend that uh significantly. I've noticed that it's uh appears to be kind of a dead end with no through traffic. You think that will help extend its
life? It sure it sure will. Yeah. I mean, it it is a lower volume roadway. Um you know, we we certainly have much greater volume roadways that uh create issues, but this is likely um nowhere nowhere approaching some of our other roadways. And so, yeah, that does
certainly help with that. That probably explains why it's not as big of a project. Although I did notice that there has been some issues with that road in the past, but there certainly have. Yeah. And so I know public works has spent a lot of time over the years with this roadway and so I know they're
quite anxious. There's a lot of issues with it today as it stands. They're mostly surficial issues that we can resolve most of them. But um yeah, we're we're we're pleased with the bid results. I haven't seen the asphalt prices like this in a really long time actually. So we're pretty pretty shocked
at our office to see that. and we're obviously quite pleased. So, timing sounds good. Yeah. Thank you. All right. We will need a motion to approve resolution 25766 uh uh resolution um awarding a contract for Batuminous Roadways in the amount of
44849750 for the 2025 street improvement project improvements. Do we have a motion? So moved. We have a motion by member Schilling. Do we have a second? Second. Second by member Luger. All in favor? I
opposed. So approved. Consent agenda. Items under the consent agenda will be adopted with one motion. However, council members may request individual items to be pulled from the consent agenda for discussion and actions if they choose. On our consent agenda
number five, 6,7 and 11. Does anybody wish to pull an item um from the consent agenda? Seeing none, we need a motion to approve number five, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12.
Do we have a motion? So moved. We have a motion by member Luger. Do we have a second? Second. We have a second from member Anstad. All in favor? I opposed. So approved. Acknowledge receipts of reports, officer, boards, commissions, and department heads. number 12, 13, 14,
15, and 16. Uh, does any member wish to pull a report? Seeing none, we'll move on to new business number 17 to consider resolution 25763, approving variant V25002,
Fence Height Location 26744, High Pilot Court, application Kevin and Michelle Letson, property ID number 21.103. 10328.00 Mr. W Mr. and Miss Leon are asking for a variance for fence site. Um right now
they're on court which is a dead end private road. Um they built the fence without a permit. It's located within the front non-buildable setback area. In that area the fence is only allowed to be 48 inches in height. Um it's currently six feet in height.
Um, oh, sorry. So, they're asking for a variance for the maximum height of a fence in the non-billable setback area. Um, currently zoned rural residential one. Um, semi-ural neighborhood lots not easily divided into smaller parcels. The variance is required because they
built the fence that's too tall and left in the front setback area. Um, this is a very untypical lot or neighborhood for the city. It's served by the excuse me about about 20 years ago when um Chicago
County redid um addressing for 911 um GIS service any driveway that had three or more houses on it was made into a street so it was given a name and how court was this one. So all the street all the homes are served by this easement. Um the last two houses are the
applicants and the next door neighbor across the street. Um the road the road easement continues on down to the Sunrise River. Um but there's and parallels both their properties. Um again since it's an atypical lot doesn't
really have a rightway or anything like that. My interpretation of the ordinance is the drawing that's on the left hand side showing from that southeast corner um the 73 feet which would be our setback front building set back from the
center line of a road is 73 feet. Um so in that area that I'm showing shaded in the fence shouldn't be taller than 48 in. Um and you see the drawing on the right um is where the fence actually is. staff's recommending approval of
variance. Um but the seven findings of fact there um it also meets the eight criteria for granting of the variance. Um so we're the staff has recommended approval of the variance. Planning commission's recommendation is also approved the variance but with the
condition of the fence being removed out of that road easement area. So that road easement area is 33 feet from the center line from that from the property line between the two um properties. So from that southeast quarter
time for questions. Okay, we'll start questions um from council. We'll start um with member. Okay, so we started off just doing a a height variance. Correct. So how did we get to having to move the
fence? That was the planning commission's recommendation. Um it is if if the road if that roadway easement or driveway easement is is at 33 feet off of either side of the property line. That would be the typical roadway for a township road.
So 30 33 feet from the center, 66 feet total. So if that road were ever to go down to the Sunrise River and cross the Sunrise River, that fence would be in that right away. Um so they're um reasoning and I don't disagree with it
at all. um is to get it out of the rightway or that future right away um but to allow the the six foot height to remain after it's been removed out of the rightway. Okay. So the city has approved other variances similar to that at the corner of Good View and Wyoming
Trail. Yeah. That that that was a six foot fence and then a little bit further west uh by the Lutheran Church also wing trail and I think it's fair day. Um there's another one that was granted. So kind of same same situation. remember those two.
But if traffic is not a concern for the fence, why is it a concern uh for road? You know, you talk about putting a road in there. What is the chances of putting a road through that, you know, in my well the next 20 30
years? It would take well first it would take everyone along that easement to allow it to be turned into a public road because before we could subdivide it to be turned into a public road and then there would have to be a reason for where where it would be going. So either people along the road there would have to subdivide or
the applicant or even farther along to sub to carry that road farther through the given the obstacles. It's probably not likely that a road's going through there. That that was why I had the recommendation I have. Okay. So then All right. So, if the problem is that
the fence is in the easement, do any of the other neighbors have anything else in the easement? They may. I I I did receive an Well, I did receive an email. I haven't gone out to look at it. I I that's I don't think that's germanine to the the various question. I I think
that's an enforcement question for me to take care of in the future. Okay. Because if we're making somebody move their thing and somebody else has, let's say, logs, I went out there last night in the
easement. How is that fair? I I can't answer that question. Okay. So, okay. So, we're not going to get a road there anytime soon. I I when I was read the planning
commission minutes, there was a concern with traffic with cars uh turning around in the neighbors. That that was some of the questions, something that came out during the public hearing. Yes. Okay. Um if this fence is moved and I saw what's
behind the fence, it's a grassy area. It's got big honking trees. Is somebody going to turn around on that big grassy area? If not, you still have the problem with somebody people turning around in the neighbor's
yard because the neighbor has a little gravel strip in there. So, it's I don't you know, I don't know why they're turning around in there because Yeah. Because there's a like when you look down here, this is where the school bus turns around. Yep. And then further on
up, you have this area before you get to the gate that could also do a turnaround. I don't know why why somebody would be feel compelled to turn around in the neighbor's yard. I mean, do we have any
stats? Do you have any stats, Brian, how how many times this happens? Okay, this I'm just going to say we're looking right now at this particular item, not going into this or that or the other thing. So, we need to stay on point, please. Okay, but the the questions are
arising that the condition is a little off from just the fence variance. I mean, I have no problems granting a fence variance, but when I saw the condition of moving the fence and I saw
what was around it and and whatnot, that adds a whole bunch of different questions like looking at it at a broader scale than on the very narrow interpretation of we're just talking about the height of a fence and threw in a condition. That is what we're talking about. But we threw in a there's a
condition in there that doesn't pertain to the fence height. It pertains to the fence placement. There has been Have you got out there to enforce the fence placement besides telling them that they should have gotten a permit?
That that was I don't that's how it started. That's how it started. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, so it's finally after how many years? Approximately a year. Yeah. Finally, we got that was not on the applicant. That was on me. Okay. So,
I mean, if we if we want to have the the the lessons move the feds, maybe that should be a different um what variance or a different uh enforcement or if I could. Yeah. If if
they had applied for the fence permit without before they had built the fence, I would have told them that it cannot be in the easement um the fence site after that that would have been a discussion we want to be back to right now with another variance. But but I would I would have not issued the permit in that where it's located
now had they applied for it before it would I get that but the fact is you know this the placement is almost coming out of nowhere. The fact is he didn't apply for a permit. That's what it comes down to because all of this
would have been done. Do you have any other questions? Staff has to enforce too. You're right. And if staff doesn't enforce, how do we, you know, force a resident to comp to comply when we're
not enforcing? Anything else? Uh, let's see. The the other thing I have on my notes is that when I looked at the property and saw where the easement is and what would be, you know, where the fence would be moved to,
you would have that a large grassy strip, you would have a bunch of large trees and unless the trucks start going into the grassy area, I think you're still going to have them running down your strip if they don't go anywhere else. So, how
does this solve the problem? It doesn't. Staff recommendation is one thing. Planning Commission. Yeah. Yeah, I got that. But I mean, that's that's what I'm considering. How I mean, if we have a problem of the trucks, how does moving
the fence that's, you know, just going to make more grass on the other side of the fence solve the problem that we have? All right. Anything else? That was about it. Okay. Uh, member Luger. So, if I'm understanding this correctly,
the idea behind moving it out of the easement is it's a traffic thing. It's a future a consideration for a future road thing. I I think it's partly that and that if if again if if we're to take and that that was where the hard part came was to decide where
to call right away. Um, and so if we were to call the rightway that center line down down down the easement, then it would not be allowed in that easement as a part of our our setback would be 33 ft from the center line of the road before you could put in a fence. And if you put in a fence from
there to an additional 40T, that fence couldn't be any taller than 48 in. Once you got that far away, then you could be six foot. Okay. And I didn't I don't know if this was discussed at the I didn't see this in the the planning commission minutes, but I'm wondering like just a suggestion.
Would it be possible to say leave it? And were there to be road development in the future, which doesn't seem super likely, then there there would be the like a contingency that now it needs to be
moved. And and that kind of ties into fences along side property lines and rear property lines. Typically, a lot of those would be within a drainage and utility easement. We allow the fences to be built right up to the property line with the understanding that if access is needed because of that easement, the
fence is going to come down or it's going to be dam or whatever. It's on the homeowner to take care of that. It's not on the city or the utility company to take care of that in the easement. That was my same reasoning on that because again it's not a it's not a right away but it's kind you know
there's a a lot of things going on there that that you're trying to apply a bunch of different rules that don't exactly apply right. Yeah, because this is a unique chunk of land. Very um I think that's all the questions I
have right now. Remember, just to be clear, it's variances for the height. That that was what they requested. And this it's kind of an odd property that the it kind of looks like the front yard, but it truly isn't.
It could be by one. If you were to look at the front of the house, the front of the house was facing the front of the front yard. That'd be south. This line is east. So, and uh this isn't going to be I want to make sure that this is not precedent setting.
No. Is Mr. Ludson here? Can you come on up a minute, please? You'll also have chance to ask questions to Mr. Ludson as well if you'd like. Oh, I didn't get to you yet. It's okay. Oh, man. So, so shilling.
Sorry. Uh again, I I did not have a problem with the uh the variance because of the hike because we have done that in the past. Um and I kind of viewed this the request for move no different than the side, you know, any of those drainage utility easements because we're under the understanding that if we do
allow them to build up to that that point, you know, it is our responsibility as the property owner to move it. So, I I really don't I I'm not I don't see the need to move it and and especially because of where this property sits. This is at the end of the
road. You keep going, you're ending up in the river. So, you got a property to the left, property the, you know, the right. And when I measured on the GIS, I mean, if I'm reading this correctly, he would have to move it an additional 15 feet approximately. Approximately. So,
and the only thing that's there is his yard. Yes. So, so where would that be? So, if we measured off of the property line, right? Yes. Yep. And we just went 33 feet. Yeah. The fence is approximately 17 ft off. Yep.
So, it' be on the other side of the trees. It would be over here on the other side of the trees instead of where it's at. And I I'm fine with it. So, well, you're fine with it being on that over here? I'm fine with it being where it is now. Okay. Because of the uniqueness of the land, the layout, and
what's in on the north end of it. It's a river. Yeah. We're not going to build another road going across that river. Trust me. What? It's a bridge. You know how much money it is for environmental just to even consider that? Yeah. Really? So, anyway, that's my stance on it. I'm actually fine with the variance
on the height because we've done that in the past and I'm fine treating it as if it was a side type of situation with a fence with a drainage utility easement. It's the responsibility of the owner to move it. If the event that that were to happen, it would be at the owner's cost to take
that down and remove that or replace it. So, okay, that was my comments. Thank you. Sorry, I missed that. Yeah. Okay. So, I have a couple questions for you. Um, I'm curious as to why you did not pull a permit. I see in your letter you you you state that you were too busy. Is
that correct? Is that how that's stated? Not necessarily too busy. I I did ask Google if it was okay in Wyoming, Minnesota to build a fence and they set up to a sixoot fence. Didn't do the right thing when Tw came down
here to find out. Uh, so I didn't do that right now. Okay. And you own your own construction business, right? I own an electrical business. Electrical business. Do you have to pull permits for your electrical business? You do? Okay. Um, and so you thought
Google had the answer to Wyoming instead of coming up here. It was a silly mistake I that I'm paying for. Okay. you know, I mean, I I didn't I didn't think I would need a permit for something that wasn't
incorporated with my house or anything. I didn't think it was a structure. I mean, like I see people build uh bird houses and stuff like uh chicken coops and things like that. I guess I just didn't know. Okay. When they build
chicken coops, do they need to come up here for a permit? I'm just curious with that. They 200 feet or less? They do not. Okay. Okay. Um, and so I know the reason why because I'm the liazison of the planning commission. I know the reason why they put this on there and
um, and I understand why they did it and I do agree with them because you didn't pull a permit. You are in the construction business. You know better than that. You didn't do that. Um, and it really um, puts the city and the commission in a bad light. Do you
understand that part of it? I do. Okay. And because of that, there will be other people who see that that might go, "Oh, you know what? I'm just going to Google or I'm not going to come up or I'm not going to whatever and not pull a permit." And then it creates a lot of chaos. Right. You do understand that? I
do. Okay. So, um, and you understand that they put that condition in there because based on other testimony also, Mr. Murdoch will be able to come up based on what he said in terms of backing around, turning around, and all that kind of stuff. Right. So, um I am
going to ask though, Mr. Murdock, when you do come up, we got to keep the personal stuff out. This is specifically about that fence, right? Sure. Okay. So, um I'm going to just flat out and say I'm not for it. I want you to move it because I believe that we need to make
sure we have permits for a reason. We have construction permits. We have Fred for a reason. And um had he known about it, you wouldn't have got that fence, right? So, I back up our um planning commission and the reason why they did it. So, not for it to set an example for
other people to just go ahead and and build wherever they want. So, um is there anything else you'd like to stay say to the council? Uh, I did want to uh mention the fact that um that it really hasn't affected our
traffic it the way that uh was stated to us because we do have a turnaround directly behind my property which and I do have a a sign out there now stating that have all the deliveries there and
really that road from from basically the end of The fence only drives into my driveway is like the only place. I'm just putting that out there. I know it doesn't make it right around. Yeah, it just adds to the frustration for me that
you did that because it's not in the right place. So, okay. U Mr. Murdoch, your chance to come up and speak. Again, please don't make it personal. Mayor and council, thanks for the opportunity. So, I'll just talk about the kind of the complications with it
being so close. So, before that fence was there, the lessons used their entire property to park their vehicles. The fence goes up and it drives all their parking to the back and they developed the habit of parking all
their vehicles directly next to our drive out on our our garage. Even complicates the entry for their guests getting into their place. the uh trash trucks can no longer come down because they have to back up. The
Amazon trucks come down and have to back all the way up. And that driveway is to both our driveways. It goes to our garage. It goes to our home. It's not just to Kevin's house. So, um if the fence were to be moved, it gets out of the utilities that are sitting there
that he built right over the top of it. Gives his guests ability to get in and out and turn around. Not on our property. Uh we have had one trailer that's damaged by the garbage trucks backing up. And you know, people just don't know. They don't know what this end of
this road is. And to my knowledge, the only other thing in the easement is about the front foot of our garage that I think was built probably before the easement was signed. And so the whole entirety of that road, I mean, when we built our pole barn, we couldn't put it
in the easement. I I don't know why all of a sudden a fence just because it's toward the end of our road should have the ability to I mean be put in the eastment. Um yeah, and I I guess I'm from a former
planning commission member status. Uh I just don't know why we would cater to someone that doesn't get a permit, drills holes with power tools without calling utilities dangering endangering our gas lines and everyone else's utilities just doesn't make sense to me.
So, we're really in favor of the planning commission's finding. Uh we think that it gets the lessons their privacy they want. It gets their sixoot fence, but creates some access for everybody and makes a little easier to get around. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
Any further questions? Well, the other question I would have is if you have that grassy area, how do you think it's going it access is going to be improved? Uh do you anticipate do you
is it sighteline? Do you anticipate that the trucks are going to go on the grassy area and through the trees? Yeah, I should talk about this too. Kevin did just put up a sign that says, "Hey, don't pull down the driveway delivery folks." They don't know who
that necessarily. I mean, they got to come down the driveway to get to our place and they can back in and turn around from our place because we don't have it all restricted. So Kevin signs basically pushing all the vehicles out onto other people's properties and never get into his. So, you know, he needs to
be a good neighbor and open that area up so people can come in and out without having to access everybody else's property. Okay. But my question was more I I understand what you're saying, but my question was more specific. How would opening that up improve that access? How
would it how how would the garbage trucks get out? Are they going to go on the grass in between the trees or are they going to still back up the rest the same way? Yeah, that's what I'm trying to understand. I have a grassy I kind of have a grassy driveway in a grassy area.
They back right onto mine. I don't know why they wouldn't back onto his. Okay. Yeah. All right. Thank you. Okay. Number 18 is the resolution 25 let's see no res number 17 resolution 25763
approving a variance V25002 fence height location. We've got all the other information. Um we need a motion to approve. I will make the motion but with the condition that it has to be moved. Okay. We have a motion from
member and and the reason why I'm doing that is because unfortunately it was done without a permit. It is restricting access. Um and when you read through all of this, this was the only condition. And again, unfortunately, if a conversation would have happened with
Fred prior to this, we wouldn't be sitting here talking about it. So that's the motion I'm making with the planning commission's recommendation. Recommendation to move the fence over 15 ft and keep it at six feet. Yep. was the recommendation. Okay. I'm fine with the
height of it because of the whole Do you want to make a friendly amendment an amendment to the resolution that specifies the fence be moved? You say it's 15 ft just 33 feet from the center line of the property line. So just point
of parliamentary procedure. We don't have a second. So there's not actually a motion on the table. So if you want to word it and do a motion, a second, there doesn't have to be an amendment. Just you just have to state what the motion is going to be. So there's nothing to be amended right now because there wasn't a second amendment. I I would ask that it become that the distance become spelled
out. But we need a second first to be able to do that. Or he can I can change that because we can it's 33 feet from the center line which is in this case the property line. Okay. So that piece of fence needs to move 33 feet from that property line. Okay. That's my motion.
Moved with that condition. I'll make the second with what member Schilling is um on what he's saying. So, does that work? Did that work? So, now can I make it ask for an amendment that we specify it's 15 ft? It would be my motion was 33 feet
from the property and I seconded that the center line over. So, so is that the same does the math work out? What's 17 + 15? 32. So, then it would still be within the easement if you move 15 ft. So, so no, I'm saying 33. My motion is 33 feet
from the property line. If she and if she's saying 15 ft from one of the fence is now 17 ft plus 15 ft is 32 feet, then Dennis's motion puts it outside the easement. Linda's amendment will keep it in the ement. Okay, got it. Didn't know
the exact number. Okay, so we're sticking with that. We have our first and our second. Yes. Okay, we have our first and second on this motion. All in favor? I opposed. So approved. Um, Mr. Ludson and Mr.
Murdoch, can I just suggest that you try to your neighbors and I'm really hoping that you'll try to just really get along or whatever, but um it's kind of become very contested. So, please before things get really bad. So, thank you for coming
in. Appreciate it. All right. Um, let's see. I think the rest of these might be pretty easy. Number 18 to consider resolution 25764, a resolution approving a conditional use permit C25002,
a planned unit development master plan for Land Development Company of Wyoming LLC, property ID number 211030232. Um, Mr. Ericson, Mr. Mr. Ericson, it' be myself. Oh, Mr. Wag. Okay, we're back on track here. So, Madam Mayor and council
members, um this is a new name, Point North of Carlos Avery. Um this was the old Greenwood Golf Course site, um which has had a couple different plats, but this would be the residential portion of it. Um so, it's Point North at Carlos Avery, phase one. Um
so, they were approved for a master plan, PU, CP for a PUD master plan, um two years ago. That has since expired and this is a little bit different from that plan. Um so, we're kind of coming back to it again. So right now they're in the phase one. They're proposing 30 single family single unit family homes
and then a sixunit row home. It's currently zoned mixed use. It the housing mix meets the district requirements. The plan unit development is a conditional use and the comprehensive plan does designate it as mixed use. So it's in compliance with that.
Um they're proposing building setbacks and styles. Um the the first resolution contains those those setbacks. Um some other things. Um the park board met um is recommending at least a twoacre park. The remaining
acreage would be it should be four acres total of the 9% or approximately four acres. 1.9 remaining acres would be cash in L of the the land. And based on the county assessor's value of of just the land of the property, that works out to
$17,35163 cents. Um access will be off Viking Boulevard. Um there we're anticipating left and right turn lanes at both access points. Um the development complies the rightway with um they're proposing sidewalks
within the development. Chicago County, I think WSD is also working with them looking at the corridor along East Viking. Um and at some point um Kettle River Boulevard will also need to be realigned. Utilities um city sewer water um they'll
be installed through the commercial area which is out lot A which is immediately behind um the village in in the veterary clinic. Um the water line is coming from the new tower. Um sewer water is coming off of East Viking down by the
McDonald's. um it's outside the cover Lake Forge Lake Wershed district. It will need a MPDES permit um and the peak discharge rates for per um city requirements. Um it part of their development was um
the wetland um bank that's to the north. Um so we do have some wetland documentation that we just need to verify any impacts on this side. Prosing one tree per single family lot, additional landscaping inside and rear lots. Um there's minimal tree removal with this
phase. There'll be more work with the next phase. Um and they have submitted an elimination plan. Um staff's recommend approval of CU to establish plan unit development. So we're approving development master plan with the five conditions of approval. Um and then
we're also recommending approval of plary plat with the 19 conditions of approval including increase in lot sizes to meet the 9500 square foot minimum. Any questions? Mr. W, I'm going to start with some questions. This has been a long time coming. I want to say 15 20
years, maybe 30. I don't know. Seems like that way, right? Um we've had about four different different developers. Three, I'm lost count. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, um lots of different plans. Yeah. And I um being a liaison in the planning commission, I do know that um they're
wanting to put shovels in the ground and get this moving because we need this housing, right? So, and um planning commission did approve it um exactly like it is. Um they made their recommendations, whatever they made their changes, their recommendations.
Correct. Um so, by all means, it looks like that it's a really good um development. Um and um they'll come back later on for a phase two, but probably not that long from now. That'll be up to them, but hopefully hopefully sooner rather than later. Yeah. Okay. Um and so
I know that I'm in favor of this development because it's been a long time coming. I like the fact that um we have a park. I believe a trail as well is going to be put in there and sidewalks. All my favorite things. So um
we'll leave uh next questions go to I left off with you. You should go first probably, huh? So, members, no, I'm actually fine with all of this. I'm uh quite excited. I know we went out and took a look at it on our road tour, just the whole layout of that area. This I think is a great fit for that uh
location over there. So, I'm excited. I I do agree with planning commission on their recommendations and changes were made by the developer to do that. So, I'm I I like it. I think it looks great. I I can't wait to get her going. So, okay. Member Anstead, no questions.
Member Luger. No questions. Member Joerger. Well, when will the next phase be started? You don't know? Undetermined. Okay. And also the commercial part of your development is also undetermined.
It's not part of what you're seeing. Yeah, I know. But it's a separate development. I know. Oh, it's going to be a separate development. And when are we going to see any of that? Undetermined. Okay. Okay.
So, I was here when we went through this a couple of years ago. What happened? Uh why did why did it stall for two or three years? I don't think it did. I think this is a different developer. These are different. These are
different. Yes. So, did these So, did the last developer sell to you guys? Did the last developer sell the property to you guys? Yeah. All right. That wasn't quite clear in the in the thing.
That's why I was asking. Okay. If there are no further questions, I got everybody this time. Okay. I move to approve resolution 25764, a resolution approving conditional use permit C250002, a planned unit development master plan
for Land Development Company of Wyoming LLC. Uh, do we have a second? Second. Second by member Luger. All in favor? I opposed. So approved. Thank you. Number 19 to consider resolution 25765
a resolution approving preliminary plot D250003 approval of preliminary plot the point at Carlos Avery for Land Development Company of Wyoming LLC property ID number 21.1030232. Mr. Wack, you're on again. It is the Mr.
Wack show. Yes, but I have nothing to add. This is this is still the same development with I think with 19 conditions. All right. Any other questions? All right. I'll move to approve resolution 25765. A resolution approving preliminary plot D25003.
Approval of the preliminary plot the point at Carlos Avery. We know the rest. Do we have a second? Second. We have a second by member Schilling. All in favor? I opposed. So approved. All right. To number 20 to consider the
This is exciting. Hey, it's someone else. Hey, Fred, you want this one? Yeah, Fred, are you sure you're you're all good? Okay. Number 20. This is very exciting. To consider the promotion of Wyoming Police Officer Jack Breitbach, to the position of Wyoming Police
Sergeant. Chief Bower. Thank you, Mayor I. Members of council, u as you know, we have a retirement of a longtime sergeant, Lance Beardley Beardsley, towards the end of this month. Um previous council we asked to uh create a
process to promote uh one of our officers to this position. Uh we posted the position had two excellent candidates. Um the candidates participated in responding to a written scenario where they had to respond to
three different scenarios that were was evaluated by multiple different members of my staff. Um they then participated in an interview with city administration and the north branch chief to evaluate their leadership potential and kind of their understanding of policing in
general. Um they had a interview with community panel that was made up of stakeholders in in our community including executive director of Lake Center. Um the community the Chicago county outreach coordinator um and then met three members of our Wyoming police
multicultural advisory committee. In addition, they participated in a leadership assessment with a uh psychological uh firm that does leadership assessments. It was a half-day assessment that they participated in. So um this was a very
intense engaging process um that allowed us to really evaluate uh who was going to replace Sergeant Beardsley. Um Officer Breitbach uh demonstrated that he rose to the top for this process. Um
we're very excited to get him started training um get him integrated in this position as we look forward to seeing kind of what our leadership looks like in this department moving forward as we do this um looking to bring him in based on the LLS sergeant contract the
collective bargaining agreement um at 4823 an hour um with an appointment date of August 11th of 2025 that allows us to uh have him finish field training uh one of our new officers and get him started as soon as we can before the fall. Any
questions? How long has um Officer Breitbot been with us? Five years, six. Yeah, it was uh early 2021. So, just prior to me starting. Yes. Yeah. Okay, perfect. Uh questions from council. We'll start with um member. I have no questions. However, I've heard many
compliments about his professionalism and his fair treatment of um people that he works with um people that he has to deal with at both the city level and the county level. Excellent. Thank you for that. Okay, member Luger.
I have no questions. I think this is great. Member Joerger, no questions. Member Schilling, I have no questions. Thank you. Um, I will move to approve the promotion of Wyoming police officer Jack Breitbach to the Breitbach to the position of Wyoming Police Sergeant. Do
we have a second? Second. We have a second by member Anstead. All in favor? I opposed. So approved. Uh, Chief Bower, are we going to have some type of um ceremony or P whatever? We'll do a swearing in for him. Um, we're working on which uh council meeting works the
best for him and his family so they can attend and celebrate as well. So, we will work on that. Yes. Okay, thank you very much. Number 21 is a building discussion. Are we closing this or is this open? Uh, mayor, I was going to actually speak to you. We we are staff is going to be recommending to go into
close session regarding this portion tonight through that discussion. So, if you'd want to do council reports to that and then we could potentially review this uh this item and then ask the council if you'd be interested in going to close session. Okay. So, we'll do council reports. We're going to start with member Luger. Uh, I attended the
special um special council meeting last night. Um, thank you all for coming. Okay. And then we'll go. Member Onstead. I attended the special council meeting last night and the ribbon cutting for our brand new for you. You go for our brand new fireside park which is a
gorgeous park. It is. I tried out some of the equipment. It's fantastic. Go go go out there and try it. Okay. I'd like to see the video of that actually. So I thought you were there. You saw me spin around. Okay. Um, anything else? No, that's it.
Okay. Member Shelling, I also attended the special council meeting yesterday and thank to those that attended today and anybody watching. Okay. And member Jagger, I attended the special council meeting yesterday. Thank you all for coming and thank you for watching. I
also attended the special meeting last night. Um, I attended the ribbon cutting at Fireside. um the what the park the pack committee did for that park was simply amazing. So, good job leading that and good job to city staff that
also helped with that as well. I think it's it's just such a great addition. Plus, it's very updated, which is super cool because my age, I have no idea what half those things are except for the slide, right? So, very excited to have that in that park and I hope we can do
that more. Um I also attended um the League of Minnesota Cities Conference on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. Um just an amazing amount of information and um talking to different cities and
um I just I can't say enough what the League of Minnesota Cities does and all the great um new ideas that I have. So I'm sure staff's going to love that when I come to them with all these great new ideas. Um, and then I would again like to really thank our partners um for this
award because if it wasn't for those partners um we would not be able to have gotten done what we did in the community um gardens and um I really want to give a special shout out also to our staff. They gave up a weekend to come out and
help do this and um two of our planning commission as well. So you gave up your time as well besides all the planning that went into it. Unfortunately, Grant had me as his partner and um kind of slowed the process down just a little bit. So, um all right, I think that is
all. Um so, with that, um we're going to move for a close session. I'll make that motion if we have a second, please. Hold on. Yes, mayor. Oh, you got to talk about it. Yeah, we got to we got to give an introductory on the public record. So, should we take just a two-minut break and clear out? Whatever you want
to do just before we go into close session, we have to put a little bit more information on the public record. Okay. Um, so let's do just a twominut recess just to clear out so we go into closed door session. So, um, yeah, sorry about that, but thanks for coming.
appreciates.