Planning & Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

And Anderson and Escanola are absent.

I'll vote for a motion to approve tonight's agenda. I'll make a motion. Second. Motion and second to approve tonight's agenda. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? For approval of the minutes for the May 12, 2026 meeting.

I make a motion to approve the minutes from the meeting. May 12th, 2026 meeting. I'll second that.

Motion and second to approve the minutes of the May 12th, 2026 meeting. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Public comments. Do we have anyone here tonight that wants to make a comment on any non-agenda item?

7-0-2, Mr. Clark, let's hear it from you. Okay, residence report. We have nine open single family homes. We had a little spike over in Turtle Creek of four, I think, we added, so that's good. And then number 21, Kyle closed out one of them. Commercial, the city parks shelter job got done. Then we had one over on the Rue Trail. Rue Brothers, that closed out. We had a couple of them running out, so we had that done. And a quick trip, we've done all the footings, the island canopy, precincts, and then now putting up the CMV black wall for the car wash. So they will rapidly get that done. So that's about it for the, not a lot of changes in two weeks, you know.

So we have our access situation on Turtle Creek. Where are we at on structures? 30. So they are full right now and no more building permits, so something's figured out.

Well, you can't have building permits. You can't have occupancy. So it depends on who gets done the fastest. Yeah. For what's out there, like I said, we're right at 30, so those could all get occupied, but then the temporary roads got to get in before occupancy can be granted. You could do a building permit with no more occupants.

Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Clark? Well, I see on updates and stuff we don't have Mr. Christensen on the book. Did you have anything for us tonight? Just my usual tall grass and weeds, parked on grass. It's not on the agenda.

I see them. Not on the one I printed out. I see the one on the agenda.

No, it's the one that was posted on the...

I want to figure out the wrong one.

Website.

What date does it have on it?

May 26th. Okay, so...

He can talk if you want to let him talk. Anything special?

Nope, just usual. Okay. I said you're on the agenda because you're on everybody else's, so. The agenda, the people that made the motion, motioned you on the agenda, so you're awesome. All right, any questions for Kyle? All right, we are at 7.05, we'll move into conditional use hearing, 204 North Kingsbury, exemption request for accessory building material. Teresa.

okay um like i said this is a conditional use application that was submitted to the city it's for 204 north kingsbury um they have moved in an accessory building it's a 10 by 16 so 160 square feet um accessory building is wood siding which is painted brown match the house and then it has a metal roof though on it and it's very similar to the one we had a month ago It's 10 square feet over our current regulations of 150. They've got to be like materials. Instead of the asphalt shingles like the house, it has a metal roof. It is the same color, though, just like the one from last go-around, too. It's a brown roof and not just the brown color. So very similar to the one last month. And I know we talked about we're going to be looking at our accessory building regulations, but this is the one before you tonight.

Comments, thoughts from the board? Did we add any conditions in the last one? We just wanted to make sure the metal roof was, right? Because at the time, did they not have theirs? Purchase?

Purchase had theirs, didn't they?

Purchase is not outside. Not outside.

It wasn't outside.

We just wanted to make sure.

The only condition wasn't same colors. Same colors, yeah. Yeah. Like I said, take a look at this one. It is the same colors.

Because we have talked about moving to 200? Yeah.

That's sometime in the future. Well, it's on new business tonight to discuss accessory buildings. So sometime in the near future. It would go probably to $200,000 anyway.

Like I said, that just stays consistent with the building codes, so it would make sense to have it there.

I think it's fine.

Can you prove the other one? Well, this is a part of the city where we don't have covenants. But most of our new developments all have covenants that it doesn't matter what size the accessory building is, it has to match the house.

Yeah, the newer developments, like you said, have covenants that our regulations may allow, but the covenants won't. This, like you said, doesn't have any covenants.

I mean, I know in Kelly Point we have that. Turtle Creek, I've been through their covenants. I've seen that. Stacy, it's in your covenants, right? Yeah. So all of our new developments, it's in the covenants anyway. I don't see a problem with it.

Please. I'll make a motion to approve of the CUP request.

Do I have a second? I'll second it. We motion and a second to approve conditional use of 204 North Kingsbury Avenue exemption for accessory building material. Any further discussion? That will vote. Miles? Yes. Whaley? Yes. Graham? Yes. Coodle? Yes. Randall, yes. Okay. Move on to, I'm going to call it close enough to 7-10 to have our rezoning hearing for track three of Lefkoe addition.

Okay.

Yeah, that clock says 7-10. Okay. There you go. Teresa, do you want to bring us up to speed on that?

Okay, so this is a rezone application. Like I said, we're track three of the co-edition, and where is the, I put a map in your packet, but where the property is located, Mickelson Road and Western, if you go to the west, if you're on the north side of the road, that property is on the city limits. It wasn't zoned at all, so right now it's zoned as agriculture. So if we're doing anything like that, it would need to be rezoned. The applicant, they're looking at purchasing the property, and the owner is well aware of this. He assigned the application. They could go before you guys for this. The applicant is looking at putting a house on that property, so he'd like to zone it as residential.

Is this the same property that the Steakhouse people were looking at putting their backs around?

It's right next to it. It's right to the east of it. It's right to the east of that property? Yes. Okay. Yeah. So it's the block right there.

May I make a point on the agenda item report that it says, I assume that's supposed to be Mr. Luke and not Mr. Warren? Oh, I'm sorry.

Yeah. Oh, I had Warren Luke before then, but yes.

He goes by most things that you call him.

You listen to the city council meetings, don't you? To find out my typos. This is what there's.

Two, three, four, five.

It's definitely a larger lot, so you know. In order to, this is like one part that has to be rezoned to even put any kind of residence in it. He'll also have to come back before you for a conditional use permit if it gets rezoned because chalices are only allowed through a conditional use permit. So they'll come before you again just to look over those plans. But this is like the first step of just the rezoning.

If we rezone it, does that take it out of the requirement for only allowing like two home dwellings per section or something?

It's already in the city, so that...

There's no housing eligibility.

Is that what you're talking about? That's what I was wondering. Once it annexes into the city, the housing eligibility is gone.

And this has been annexed for quite a few years. Okay.

This ground along with everything that goes out there was annexed in when Blaine's, I think the biggest reason Warren did it is because Blaine's wanted to put their event center out there. They wanted to have a city liquor license rather than a county liquor license. So they zoned all that stuff out around to get to that property.

Actually it was even annexed before then. They just That was one of the reasons they liked that property, because then they could get a stipulation. The discussion was...

I bet you the discussion was going on and going, because Lauren and I had discussions about it before it ever came to us.

Part of his land was annexed.

The first part was annexed, but not all the way out and around the corner to where we're going now. Oh, okay.

There you go.

Where the barns, where the corrals used to be here was in the city for a long time.

Right, right.

But then we added all the rest of it going out there and around the corner.

Kind of the corner was more of a zone A as well.

So there's no commercial property.

Yeah, I said when it was annexed, it wasn't zoned because nothing was going up at the time. So that's why it still doesn't have any city zoning.

you're going to go out of the spread. I don't see any reason not to rezone it. If the ground was in the county and there was a housing eligibility there, they wouldn't be able to do anything. And there'd be a, the house would go up there.

Yeah.

So.

And you are a recommendation.

The rezone does still need to go to city council. I make a motion to recommend approval of city council. Protract three of the left for addition.

Second. I have a motion and a second to recommend approval to Rezone Track 3 of Lefkoe Addition from County A1 to Municipal Residential. Any further discussion?

Excuse me one minute. Who's second now? Stacy. Okay. Thank you.

No further discussion? We'll do the vote. Graham? Yes. Coodle? Yes. Miles? Yes. Whaley? Yes. Randall? Yes. Okay. Moving on. Moving to old business. Development variance request for Turtle Creek Highlands. Variance for municipal ordinance. Da-da-da-da-da-da-da. Design standard da-da-da-da-da-da. I was kind of hoping that we would have someone here tonight from... Mr. Asim's organization.

Oh, I'm sorry, I looked right past you. Mr. Wilson, I'm sorry, I looked right past you.

Well, and I needed to talk to Sam tonight, so I wish he'd have been here, but I left him a message earlier today, and obviously babysitting him kept him from calling me. I haven't called him because I want to talk to him about buying dirt, so... I guarantee that if there's money that could be made, Sam will return that phone call. Right? Yes, sir. Yes. All right. So before we start any other discussion, Mark Anderson did send me a text this afternoon. He just wanted me to pass it along. And I think it's correspondence that's fitting to be read, even though he's not here tonight. Correct, Teresa?

Yep. Do we need any response?

So he said, I strongly oppose granting Turtle Creek a variance on the street design and construction. Hartford will eventually build out the gravel road to the east. He's talking about the township road. Because that's the road that the city would be responsible for building. And we'll have to build to the appropriate design standards. If we grant what they're asking, we will have Mickelson Road, Culverton, and a half mile away a similar crossing with a substandard crossing in the middle. If we grant their ask, I believe Hartford will eventually have to rebuild a substandard crossing on taxpayer dollars. I just want to let Mark's voice be heard there. Open up discussion. Teresa, do you have anything to add from what you had last time? Otherwise, we'll go to engineering and have them talk.

I say go to engineering.

we have to move into a variance? No, because this is not a variance. It's a variance to an ordinance. So we do not have to be an equalization.

Yeah, it's not a zoning variance.

It was not tabled.

No, the tabling did not pass. So actually no action happened.

I'm going to fall on the sword here. Because at that meeting, we had a motion to table. And we took the vote and it came to me and I said, well, it looks like we had a tie. And I voted yes. And that was the vote that made the tie. Had I voted no, the motion to table would have obviously failed. Because it was a tie and there's nobody to break the tie, the motion failed and by parliamentary procedure I should have announced that the motion to table has failed and discussion continued.

Yep.

So the little exception to the rule was the fact that we never tabled it, so we have to bring it back up tonight. And if we don't, whether we decide to have an update and then table it, actually postpone is the correct parliamentary procedure to use a postpone to a meeting down road, we'll get the parliamentary in place so that everything's copacetic. I can't tell you, and we'll see how the discussion goes, are we gonna make a decision tonight or are we gonna get more information? We're gonna find that all out as we discuss.

Engineering, tell us what your latest is from your side. Certainly. So in front of you, you should have two documents that I provided to Teresa, one of which is a wall of text, which just generally describes the other one. Just as a quick recap, the request at the last P&Z meeting was for City Engineer to conduct a hydraulic analysis of the proposed crossing to determine the flood depth. in additional storms, such as the 5, 10, 25, et cetera, in those storm events. After discussions with city staff, that is a rigorous exercise that would cost the city, you know, estimate at $20,000, take several weeks, ultimately delaying the procedure with the understanding that one, the board may still strike down the variance, thus sending those dollars, making those dollars go to waste. Or secondly, cost of taxpayer $20,000 typically the city engineer reviews, but does not conduct those analyses independently. Those are the responsibility of the design engineer, in this case, WLE, to conduct that. and then the city engineer to review. So based on that, that is the first part of the recommendation. However, did pull the letter of map provision from FEMA's website. And what this essentially is, is this is the most recent update to the floodplain, whether in elevation, extents, flow, anytime, any sort of study that goes on that impacts the floodplain, this document is required by FEMA to update that so it can be accurately modeled. moving forward, basically creating a living document of the floodplain. So that's what I'll go through now. Any questions thus far? with all of the text are just standard documents that are included in each, describing each, and information regarding the updates, right? So first one we're gonna look at is, on the bottom is page 38, is the table. This outlines the storms analyzed for the crossing at Mickelson Road. So note that this is slightly upstream, so flows will be slightly less than at the proposed crossing. And the storms that were analyzed as far as the most recent one of the 10 year, The 50-year, the 100-year, and the 500-year event. For reference, we typically don't design for the 500-year event. It's a consideration, but the 100-year is typically what it's designed to. On the subsequent page, this one, we have Various cross sections added some notes onto it, just providing some of that context of where the crossings are at. The one I'll say of note is cross section ZX, which is nearest that proposed crossing. I believe it is 200-ish feet upstream. So to the west of the proposed crossing, there you can see the floodway velocity at 8.8 feet per second, as well as the flooding elevations in the 100-year event. Now if we skip a few pages to this page with some of the colorful text on it on the profile view, we can see both the approximate crossing at Shiloha as well as that Mickelson Road event, the old one that we discussed pretty extensively at the last meeting. This is just to get that elevation data for those events to use on later sheets. So pulling data straight from pulling down a street from these profile views. Now, if you go to the second to last sheet, it'll have this graph here that I've drawn on. This is not available online in the letter of map revision. This is actually from when we did our study of the proposed bike trail between Main and Fighter a few years ago. a few requires the whole study area to be analyzed. So we actually had a lot of cross sections, mile and a half downstream, which these are the ones actually being used in the full model. So even though we weren't modifying these with our project way upstream, we still are required to perform that analysis on these cross sections. So what I've done is I've superimposed basically those flood elevations Onto this profile, this is the cross section at that old railroad bridge culvert that was discussed. Unfortunately, some of the text did get cut off. I apologize for that. But basically the gray line is the actual crossing. So where that old railroad bed is, you can see it's a little higher, a little flatter, as well as that approximate existing culvert that's really just drawn in there for show. And then on the right is the actual Cullin channel cross section. And then the 10, 50, and 100-year flood elevations laid over that. Next one, same thing from that bike trail study we did, superimposed those flood elevations onto this cross section. And then similarly, based on the plans we have available for Choloma, basically put the elevation of that approximate crossing on there. So one caveat to this is yes, the 50 and the 100 year will overlap based on this analysis. However, it does not appear that the 10 year will overtop. The caveat that I will say is this is for that full crossing, that full width of that creek. If we proceed with the current plan and put those three culverts in, we are not getting the same channel area, not the same flow area, which I can confidently say will back up water to some degree in the 10-year event and minor and lesser events. I cannot say if it will overtop. That is what a study would do and be able to show. But since plants can still certainly change, that process can change, whether it's elevation, number of pipes, sizes, all of that, there's a lot of variables where we can run one analysis, say that that amount of overtopping is not fine, run it again with a different one. say, oh, that's fine, we can make it more efficient. We're just back and forth. We're spending a lot of time and effort going through and refining that when it may still be potentially shut down by either PNC or the council. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ON THE QUICK ANALYSIS THAT WAS PROVIDED OR ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD HAS.

SO IF I'M READING EVERYTHING RIGHT AND I'M LISTENING TO YOU CORRECTLY, WITHOUT A ROAD BED GOING THROUGH THERE, THE FLOOD ELEVATIONS OF A 10-YEAR WOULDN'T OVERTOP. But when you put a roadbed in and you just put pipes in, you're not going to get the flow. The water's going to be higher on the upstream side of the roadbed than the lower side of the roadbed until it overtops.

Correct. So at a very basic level, flow is... And narrows? It does. It does narrow significant length. So actually, if you look back at ZX on this sheet, you can see how much it narrows. It's a little tough to see, but just where you can kind of make out where Bevelson goes through there, where the roadway swoops down, it's pretty wide. And then at cross-section ZX, it does choke up there, which is one of the reasons why the velocity picks up based on available data. But to your question, Tony, at a base level, flow is velocity times the area. So if you take away some of the area by filling in the road and replacing it with culverts, the speed is either going to increase and or the water is going to also back up.

So on your engineering side, in your design of that road, what you're designing that road and deciding to put in the culverts what what data do you have to show what flows over top that road and what how do you decide how many culverts to put underneath that road we designed a road and uh planted resubmitted the engineering plans past what you understood to be the five year

I guess what we've offered is to do the hydrology studies at its expense to prove to engineering that we're not going to adversely impact upstream people and at the same time have to be cognizant of the downstream people as well.

Well, you can't affect the upstream people because FEMA's going to stand to the no rise. Right.

And if you adversely affect the downstream people, they probably will be in your face as well. Correct.

But I say the no rise as I understand the no rise. I mean, it's no rise, so... If you put it in a road and it backs up water until it gets to the five-year flow levels, you're going to have rise above that, right?

So I believe the way the city ordinance on the rise is written is it's for the 100-year event. So I will admit the 5 and the 10 could raise up.

I'm talking everybody's best friends in the federal government.

No, the no rise is for the 100-year event.

Yes, that only applies. I wanted to get that straight in my mind where no rides came into play.

And that's what we want to show with our flood study that we will install an alcohol

And I guess where we were coming from between engineering and the city is we, I mean, we'd hate to see, I mean, Sam did offer to pay for that study to be conducted. We'd hate for that time to be spent and money to be spent just for, you know, either PMs or your council to still shut it down and we're back to square one. Still have to go through, you know, redesign the road to convey that 100-year potentially, right? We just... But it was our opinion that it made more sense to have a decision here made first.

Well, what we're saying is we'll pass the 100-year. But we want some of it to go to the road. And it's not on Archer Hill Street. It's a collector. And it should be allowed and is routinely And once water goes back down, you can't drive through the water until it goes back down. There's another way in, and it's not an articular street. I guess that's what we're asking.

And my public safety concern take the road and everything out of the equation. And I mean, this goes back to many, many years ago when I drove a tow truck in Sioux Falls. And there's many, many streets in Sioux Falls that, on a regular basis, Now, they're not creeks or rivers or streams. They're low spots. There's not enough storm sewer there to take away the event. But all of a sudden, there's a foot, foot and a half of water there. And 18 dummies think they can drive through it. And they swamp their cars up. My concern here is, if we let that overtop a foot, 18 inches, whatever at, a flow of whatever that flow rate is going across that road. The person who's coming down there, comes down that road, thinks, oh, I can get across here. They stall their car out, and their car, the water pushes their car off and dumps it off the side of the road. How far down is that dump off that all of a sudden we have a tragedy and somebody drowns in their car because they tried to cross a road that had water flowing over? And I'm not saying that they should, but we know in today's world it happens.

Well, but the powers to be have implemented the ordinances that say, no, we do not design storm sewer systems to handle the 100-year event. We design storm sewer systems for the 5-year event or the 10-year event.

We've got a whole different, in a point, Mr. Wilson, in my mind, we've got a whole different thing. We've got a low spot in a street. We have Diamond Trail and Ruge. That about every other time it rains, that whole intersection is six inches to a foot deep in water. because the storm sewer was not designed to handle a 30-day flood, much less a water five-year. We're reconstructing that whole intersection now because we can't handle any water there. But at least it's basically a pond of non-moving water. The only way it's moving is going to the sewer. My concern here is we're going to have a stream flowing an awful lot of water overtopping a road. I don't know what the velocity's going to be when that's coming across there, but somebody drives down into it and their car floats up off, because it's deep enough that their car floats up and loses traction, they're completely washed off the road. And I know that Sioux Falls, and we saw the ordinances and everything else, does Sioux Falls allow rushing water Can the ordinances cross a road to overtop?

Yes. Yes, they do.

As well as many other communities in this area. So in Sioux Falls, can you give me an example of a street that has rushing water that allows a stream to overtop it?

They tax the engineers to design storm sewer to handle a five-year event. everything from the five year to the hundred year event runs down the streets the street corridor is the floodway for the major events so invariably streets are going to flood that's just the that's the design standards that's why you build houses two feet above the street because the street carries the major events okay and i'm following that now

I want to go back to, and I've not read through, Sioux Falls brought up a lot, Sioux Falls allows this, Sioux Falls allows this. Does Sioux Falls allow a stream or a drainage ditch or something like that to overtop and cross the road with a cross flow of water? I understand the street carrying the water down this way. I understand that.

But do they allow crossflow over top? Not a collector or a local.

Okay. But again, my question is, do they allow a stream or a drainage ditch, any type of crossflow, do they allow that to overtop a stream?

Yes.

And do you know anywhere where they, can you give me an example in Sioux Falls, do you know where it's a lot, where that happens? There's hundreds, literally.

Where the stream, where a stream crosses? Where a stream crosses, drainage way, stream way, I mean, you talk about the Blue Line stream. No, Big Suburban, no. But streams and tributaries all over Sioux Falls, yes. But it's not an arterial stream. Arterial streams are not allowed to be on the top. collectors and local streets are. That's what the ordinance says. And again, the storm sewer handles the five-year and lesser events. The roadways are the conduit for the major events.

I'm following every piece of that in the storm.

The water can be done right down the road, two feet deep.

But running straight down the road two feet deep doesn't wash somebody off the road.

Oh, it probably wasn't. In a major event, it probably shouldn't be in there. But storm sewers are only designed.

But we're not talking anything about a storm sewer here. We're talking about a creek.

So you ever get concerned that somebody driving across can get washed in an event?

Major events. That's one of them. mind and and I guess I guess I'm gonna I'm gonna go I'm gonna go one step I'm gonna ask the question and we don't have our legal staff here tonight but if we as a city decide to give this variance and lord help us sometime down the road somebody gets washed off that road and they get killed does the city have any liability because we allowed that to happen

Yeah, I say I'm I don't either and I don't know but a lot the very last thing that I

I'd like us to do is make a decision that opens the city up for possible liability down the road.

I don't know how expensive it would be to put that.

How much more expensive would it be to put in a small area to make it big enough to see it?

That major event flowed. The streets turned that flow, not the storm surge.

I'm following 100% of what you're saying there, okay?

That's what the law says.

But there's two different things between putting a road across the a stream that then backs up and overflows and floods this way across the road as compared to the road coming down to there doesn't have the storm sort of capacity so it's filling up and bringing the water down to that stream. Whole different action that you have going on. And we have that side of it and then the other side is what, What does the city have as assurance that allowing that road to be overtopped is not going to cause damage to that road five years, ten years from now?

I don't know. From my perspective as an engineer, my experience, temporarily inundated roadways, when the water goes back down, there's typically no damage. It depends on the level of the storm. Like, you gotta weigh the economics against level water over top.

I mean, we, fighter goes underwater on a regular basis. And I don't know that we've really had any damage problems there.

no not really you have to go in and do repairs or whatnot and maintenance maintenance gets the same thing yeah you get some gravel that runs over it maybe i can go clean it up a little bit yeah yeah a little is it compromising the integrity of the road bed Not in a temporary situation.

Well, I'm not going to argue, but I just think that there has to be some concern about it because the state troopers and the sheriffs are not going to let you cross the flooded road until they know it's safe to drive on again. And it does wash out underneath the blacktop. Maybe not on every event. I'm not going to vote against my engineer. And I just think if that temporary road's gonna be a permanent road, why not invest it? If you're worried about investing the money, invest it back in and make the whole thing permanent now. You got too many beds.

I'm taking from Madison originally, water flowing through the streets of Madison in a heavy rain, 2011. One of my friends actually slipped in a thing, fell and died in that, because he's walking through it like an idiot, but I mean, that rings a bell of the flow, but you know, once it settles down through the night, then it's fine, right? So I see kind of both sides of the situation, where the road isn't damaged.

Madison has a creek, right?

Exactly, yeah.

No happy medium? Between a five year and a hundred year? Or, you know, if they were not to build Mickelson culverts, but not put in approach culverts, you know, is there a happy medium between a five year flood event that we have at Mickelson? You know, is there a, so it's not costing you guys?

No way. agreed to pay for a study that will show you that up to a 100-year event will not affect the upstream properties. But we want some of that water to be able to flow to the boat so we don't have to build and pay for a 100-year culvert. Right. Like the one they have at Nicholson.

Right. So how many... Your original street design here that was cemented, how many culverts and what size are those culverts? I think they're three and were they 60 inch? I believe they were 60 inch.

There were three of them.

So.

Plus we had the roller topping.

No, Father, so you had 360 inches. What happens to your cost if you go to 560 inches or 660 inches?

It just takes more water.

No, what does it do to your cost?

So, obviously, you know, what's it do to the cost? Go way up. And what he said is he would pay for a study to show you engineers that up to a 100-year event, in addition to the culverts and overtopping the road, we won't cause a problem upstream. But we're just looking for, can we overtop the road temporarily during a major event so that we don't have to put in a 100-year culvert like we have in Nicholson? Because that's extremely expensive for a developer.

And your guys' biggest concern is the overtopping or the upstream?

It's both. I mean, the upstream is... Probably mitigated by going over the road, I think. Yeah, well, the upstream is, regardless, they've got to show no rise, so that's got to be modeled, right? You know, our... As I mentioned in the last meeting, if we were to redo Main, Fighter, or Western, Western's an arterial Main and Fighter or not, we would design those to convey the 100-year events because the city is hamstrung when it's just Mickelson and Western, or sometimes just Mickelson that you can cross Dural Creek at.

No matter what you do, you have to go to FEMA to get approved to put this road in. Yes. And to get approved by FEMA to put the road in, you have to show no rides in a 100-year flood event. Correct? Correct. So the study that you said Sam would be willing to pay for, Sam is going to have to pay for it anyway because you're going to have to have that for FEMA in order to get your crossing permit. Correct? That's what they're telling me.

Mm-hmm.

So that study, the study that shows no rise above is gonna have to be done no matter what happens. That study that he's agreed to pay for, he's gonna have to pay for anyway. What we wanted to know, in addition to no rise in the 100 foot on your design, is what does it take to handle a 25-year flood or a 50-year flood without inundating the road. And that's kind of what, at the last meeting, what I asked for is, how often is this road going to go underwater? Is it going to go underwater every five years, every 10 years, every 20 years, every month? Every time it rains. Every time it rains.

A 100-year event has a 1% chance of happening every year.

Follow. I understand all of those terms on that. But it's like, statistically, what's the chances? So we have a chance of a 100-year flood, a 1% chance of that every year. So where does this go? I mean, that's why I asked the question, how much more does it cost to put in one more five-foot culvert? Is it $50,000, $100,000? What's the cost? to have an extra culvert put in there. This culvert is a recliner.

What I'm trying to say is design the storm sewer so the street doesn't flood for the five year event. Between the five and the hundred, the streets carry the water.

Whether it's across the street or down the street.

Okay, so I'm gonna put you on hold and I'm gonna go back over to Michael here. The one, I forget which one of these charts, but you actually show the existing culvert underneath the railroad bed. Correct. Okay. Does anybody look at what size is that culvert?

I did not make it out there. That is purely artistic. I will say that right now. Because when I go back. What I wanted to show with that is just the depth over the old railroad bed. And the free bed.

I'll bring back to, we were talking last meeting when Mickelson was going in and I asked Stockwells at that time, why do we need these box culverts that cost a million dollars to put these box culverts underneath the road? And it was because of the 100-year flood flow. And a 100-year flood flow overtops the railroad bed. And my old farmer mentality is, until it goes over top the bed, all the water we can get downstream is what's gonna come through that one culvert. And I don't think that culvert, maybe it's 10 feet, I mean it's quite a ways off the road, so I can't tell you how big that one culvert is, but I don't think it's more than a six or an eight foot culvert. So if you're gonna put three six foot culverts

Five foot.

Five foot. So 60 inches. If you're going to put three five foot culverts underneath your road, but the culvert upstream with the railroad bed is only one six foot culvert, and that's all the water that can get through there. We're probably not going to overtop your road much at all until it goes overtop the railroad bed, which I've seen happen three times.

There's also additional water coming in downstream of the railroad culvert, though. It's not just the water that goes through that culvert.

The only water downstream that's getting into there is what's coming off the streets in Turtle Creek right now.

There's a little bit to the north from Maple Pass as well in that area.

There's no storm sewer going under 38 to dump that. Maple Pass drains down, goes down into detention pond on the southeast corner of the new Quick Star location, goes into 38 Ditch, headed east until wherever culvert is, it goes underneath the highway. So coming back to your side a little bit here, is I just, my whole thing is how often is this road going to go underwater?

God only knows, man. So what happens when the study is conducted, you know, allowing water to overtop, and we see that, oh, you know, it's 20% chance to overtop every year. Is that acceptable? Or is that too frequent, and then they have to go redesign the road and remodel it?

Mr. Graham, you're being really quiet down here tonight.

You're scaring me. I'm not an engineer, and I don't know water flow, so I'm not well-versed in this at all.

Well, I think the majority of us sitting here that are tasked to make a decision have that same feeling.

I guess I wonder if you put it on Mickelson's way, we're not doing the exact same thing here. Because if the water flow is going through there, it's going to go right on down past us.

Well, the big difference there is arterial straight to collector straight.

Sure. And again, I have to rely heavily, very heavily, on our city engineer because I am not an expert in water flow whatsoever. So if you ask for my vote, I would go with the city engineer. I don't have an opinion.

Teresa, does this go, is this a recommendation that we send to the council?

This will ultimately go to the city council. Oh, there we go. So you're not the final say.

We'll just kick it right down the road.

Last time we did that, we got all kinds of that for us. Maybe we just do that. Let's just send it to those boys and let them figure it out. Yeah, I'll appreciate that.

But yeah, it does need to go to the city.

I really don't want to out-nate the city. It's something I have no education about. Well, if we didn't have it, it would still go to the city.

Yes. even if it's going to be a recommendation of denial to the city council or a recommendation of approval to the city council so either way it goes yes either way it's going to move on and they will be the final say on it but they ultimately will say we recommended to die so they'll say we're going to deny it too well i would just say look at this look at your streets do you know how long it run over your streets now

You can't afford to put a 100-year crossing on every street.

Sometimes you've got to be economically responsible, physically responsible and say, you know, some of the roads are just going over time. We still have our arterials, so we're not cut off. But...

So I'd like to ask our city engineers at night. The culvert at Mickelson, can you take a comparison and say this is so many cubic feet or whatever and say of the culvert itself? And then what would be equivalent of these 60-inch diameter culverts to equal that?

If you keep discussing, I can pull up the plans. You know what I'm asking? Yes, just the area. Right.

How much volume can go through that culvert versus the three culverts at 60 inches? That's my question.

The anecdotal answer to that is when the largest, the highest the water has ever been behind my house in Turtle Creek was in March, three or four years ago when we had the heavy rain, the frozen ground, and snow. Yeah, the water was... running over top of about half of that railroad grid. And downstream, the culverts underneath Mickelson were maybe 30% full. So it's way overkill. So there's a lot of culvert there. I mean, I say, knowing that we have that row of grain, the culvert that's underneath there, I think it takes that 50 year or a hundred year flood to send enough water down to probably fill the culverts on this proposed street to actually hold the top. And again, he's got the numbers over there, but just, Considering the fact that I live alongside that stream and when things start getting high, I have to start paying attention.

Well, I've seen that ditch along Highway 38 pretty full. Way out into the field. There's a lot of water flowing through there. And you narrowed that down into three culverts. That's just going to exacerbate the issue right there at that focal point.

When you fill up Turtle Creek, then it gets to the edge of my backyard. There's a lot of water flowing through there. And you're upstream, by the way. Yeah, but most, a good chunk of the storm water that's getting into the creek is already into it by the time you get to my house. There's only two storm sewers after that to dump in there.

So the area of the box holder, one is a... 11 foot tall, 16 foot wide culvert. The other is a 14 foot wide, 10 foot tall culvert. That total flow area is 316 square feet. The area of three 60 inch culverts is 59 square feet. So it's 15%. I have the plans open for that culvert with the high water level elevations on it. The 100-year high water level elevation upstream of Mickelson is 11.8 feet deep in the 100-year.

So that would make those culverts about 75% full?

It makes them over 100% full. I thought you said one was 14 feet tall. One is 10 foot tall, the other is 11 foot tall.

So it's going to back up in a 100-year flood.

Yeah, back up by eight-tenths of a foot. Not over top the road, but... Because there's more roads above the culvert, you have to hold it back. Correct.

Well, I can't make motions, but I can make suggestions. And my suggestion, knowing this is going to the council, is my suggestion is that we send it to the council with a recommendation to approve and make the council make the decisions on what it's going to do to their roadway, listen to the engineers, what could happen with it, and the flow of the situation. and let them decide if they're willing. I think it's better for the council to make a decision if they're willing to subject their road to damage than it is for us to try to make that decision. They're elected to make those decisions. We're appointed to make decisions.

There are other issues we need to consider. You have to have two entrances for the fire department, police, ambulance, whatever else. This one is under the road by 18 inches. Those people shouldn't be going through there either. they would be limited to one entrance into this area. That is correct. One entrance. So you get four fire trucks in there and two ambulances, one entrance. You've got a kind of bottleneck in there. I'm not in favor of it. I agree with the city engineer. My motion, if I made one, would be to deny it. And I would second that.

Did you make a motion?

I will make a motion to deny this variance request. I'll second it. I feel like it's approved by the city engineer. I'm still going to go to the city council.

Do we have any other further discussion? We'll vote. Whaley. You're voting to deny.

A recommendation to deny.

A yes or a vote to deny? Yes. Miles? No. Graham? Yes. Coodle? Yes. I'm no. So a motion does not pass. So we have not taken... No, because he had... Well, I guess he's not here.

He said... Mark said he would be strong when he goes. Mark doesn't get a vote because he's not here. We can read his comments, but he doesn't get a vote. Ring him up. Ring him up. Yes.

Now, the motion was to deny. That motion failed. Our parliamentary procedure, the motion did not pass. We did not take action other than to not pass your motion to deny. Would anybody like to make a motion contrary to that motion? Otherwise it will go to the City Council with no recommendation from us because it still goes to the council They just wanted to give the opportunity if anybody wanted to make a motion to approve That would make a difference we're just asking for a motion so it goes to the council with no recommendation So it will be on the council meeting next time it didn't die here and It's just going down without us saying anything one way or the other. All right, let's move on to accessory building regulations. We can make this one. as long and drawn out as we want, gentlemen, or we can make it as quick as we want because basically the thing we're concerned about is 150 or 200 square feet.

That's kind of what drove this, or we suggested, you know, a month ago when we started to have the first one come in.

If I would make a motion to increase it to 200 square feet, does that have to go over?

It'll go through an ordinance change, yes.

If you want to do that, I'll come back with a... We're just going to discuss it tonight. Yeah, this is not an action item.

So this is just discussion to get your thoughts, see if we do want to make any changes or not. If you do want to make changes, then we'll have to go through a change of ordinance. We'll come back before you again. I'll go to the council.

Have we had any other situations on accessory buildings other than this 150 to 200 square feet?

That's the most common one. Again... You guys probably know more of any other problems with accessory buildings that we're kind of running into. This is definitely the most common one because a lot of pre-built sheds are having those metal roofs on them now, the smaller ones. They're already built. I mean, you don't order them. You just buy them already built and they're just moved in.

Thanks, Mike. Thank you. Thank you. $200 is where they're coming from nowadays.

well um we might have just bought a shed for a place up north and we went to a lot to have all pre-built on them We ended up getting a 10 by 12, so it was 120. We would have made the requirements, but there were several that were larger, 150, 180. Every single one of them had a metal rope on them. So, I mean, if we wanted to buy one there, the larger ones, we wouldn't have been able to move it in.

I think, short and sweet, we can match the International Building Code. I mean, that's where I'm at on that.

Well, that's what our thought, too, was, you know, me and Kyle talking. If the International Building Code doesn't care what the materials are, if they're under 200 square feet, why should we? I'll keep it more consistent and, you know, across the board.

And to my point earlier, too, is every one of our new developments in town... The covenants call out the same, it doesn't matter what size the shed is.

Right, exactly. So if you're in a newer development, they're going to have their own covenants that are going to regulate it, regardless of what the cities are.

It could be 80 square feet or it could be 200 square feet. It's got to be the same as the house.

In the new development. How often do they change this IBC?

Every three years.

And does this typically change?

It has been there forever. It's a standard.

It's been 200 square feet for forever.

There's no need to.

Would it be wise to change the ordinance to say something to match IBC or meet IBC requirements rather than putting numbers in it that we have to change every time IBC changes?

I would say the currently adopted code for the city of Hartford, something of that nature. So then you're always up to date with whatever the city of Hartford's updated.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but the IBC code doesn't really say like materials. It just said if they're under 200 square feet.

It's not regulated.

Yeah, it's not the same verbiage, you know, so, you know. they just say, you know, we don't regulate under 200 square feet. It's basically with IBC code, so it's not talking about like material.

I think you, rather than, and I appreciate your comment, Jim, as one of that change in IBC or whatever, but if we take it to 200 square feet, we probably don't have a discussion about this for

along yeah i think two hundred yeah i know the same thing happens too with the national electric code every five years they update that yeah so if we had everything in our ordinances we'd be updating every five years right right so teresa would that have to change would you have to change anything

in Ordinance 723, Section B, Item 7 and 8, where they've got 150 square feet specifically mentioned in there?

Yeah, we'd have to change it. To 200? When it talks about like materials for anything over 150 square feet, we'd have to change that to 200, yeah.

Well, I just thought I'd ask so it didn't pass, and then, oh, we forgot to change that. Let's start all over again.

No, that's what we would be changing.

That's what I would come back to you with the change.

Another meeting? Yeah. I'm with you. Just one more comment. I did talk to a shed manufacturer. The reason they like to give metal sheds is the transportation. When they're going down an interstate, those roof shingles are flying off. When they get to the job site, they have to re-put them back on. So metal roofs, good to go. Some of them are giving up totally when they have those shingles.

Does it call for it to be the same color or... I mean, you don't want to have somebody out there with, although I love purple and gold, but.

Similar materials, similar. You didn't say color. No, just like material. Yeah, similar like, that could be a little judgment.

So what do we need to do here? Do we need a motion or is it just discussion? Just discussions. Just give me some direction.

If that's what you guys would like to see, I'll come back with the change in the ordinance.

Okay, what about campground regulations?

So you put in my report, I have a question about campgrounds. Looked into our zoning regulations, first time I ever really had somebody interested in putting one in. Looked through the zoning regulations, it is not listed as a permitted use or conditional use in any of our zones. We have a definition for a campground and what it is, and it talks about under our mobile home zoning, it talks about campgrounds have to be permitted, but it's not allowed to use there. So I guess the first thing in discussion is do we want to allow a campground in city limits, and what zonings would we like to? And then if we go there, then let's figure out, do we want any additional rules or regulations? And I did have Seacock put together, you know, a poll with a few other towns have. We can definitely, as we discuss this more, we get some more progress. But I guess if you guys want.

I was trying to think about where we would put my in-city limits, you know.

So where I had a question about was basically going east of town. via the station just south of there. The gentleman owns the property there. He's kind of wondering what to do with it.

Where was that?

So do you know where our lift station is east of town? The land right south of there. Oh, okay. Because unfortunately that is in city limits. I'm just thinking of undeveloped ground like north of Park T. Rose Stumpy has some acres there that's in city limits. I don't know if that would be a place to have one either. You know, I guess Warren Luke's had that. He has a stream going through there. Could be a campground back in there. I mean, that's not out of the realm of possibility. The stream going through there might be nice.

The chunk of ground you're talking about east of town, I mean, the question that I have for that individual is you want to build a campground or put in a campground in a floodplain.

Yeah, I said a large portion of that isn't gonna be used, but you're not gonna be able to put, any structure like a bath house or a shower house or anything there. And yeah, do you want campers sitting there?

I mean, look how well those campgrounds are in, you know. And some are in more areas, I'm just saying.

I mean, they can, I mean, you can put the pads there, no problem, because that's, you know, right, the cement pads, you could.

Yeah, look how well that's worked for uses. And they're building onto that. They're putting more campsites in there.

Like I said, if we want to allow it, I mean, we can put in regulations like can't be in a floodplain or, you know, really, you know, whatever we deem the best. This is just to start a good discussion.

What about swimming pools? We made a city this long without one.

mean if we if we wanted to do it i would say that we put it in i mean any of our business zonings general whether it's community commercial commercial light industrial whatever i mean any of those but all any it would be only allowed in any of those areas with a

Yeah, I think that would be the way you'd want to go. Just so you can put conditions on it.

Let's just take the example of the ground between Sidelight and Diesel and the fire hall. It would be a nice little place to put a campground. But do we want a campground there? So we should be able to say, we're going to give you a conditional use or not.

Right. Plus it allows a public hearing. So residents around there can have a say. I mean, it opens it up to be more of a public input. Yeah.

I mean, I would suggest that you come back to us with. Should I have Seacock kind of put something together? Put something together for it.

So just FYI.

Like NRC ground, like park ground.

NRC, it should be allowed in NRC.

Those are the two I was kind of thinking. If we do those only, NRC or commercial would seem the most, you know, reasonable places to put it. Definitely don't want them residential.

Don't we as a city, don't we have non-improved camping? Lions Park.

So in the park, we have in our city policies, we'll allow somebody to put a trailer in there for up to three days. We don't have any services, like electrical.

So we have a campground in town.

I mean, technically, we do allow you to do that.

So it appears the city's breaking the ordinance because we don't allow campgrounds.

And it's not really a campground. We don't collect any fees, and we don't have any services. We're just letting them park it. It's a parking lot. It's a parking lot. You get a park there. It's a camper parking lot. It's a Walmart.

Yeah, it's like a Walmart. They don't like to do it anymore, don't they? Okay.

Okay, I'll try to put something again.

I'll see if you can help me and come with a future meeting.

Mr. Clark, what are the significant changes that we need to know about these building codes?

Well, let me kind of give you a little historical background. So, in 2000, before 2000, there were three model codes in the country. There was the CBO, and that was the western states, and I'll make this quick, and then in the north, upper northeast was Boca, and in the southern was the southern building code down in Mississippi and Alabama. And then some people got together and said, you know, it's crazy for one country to have three model codes, and so all the powers that be got together in the smoke-filled room, and They decided over a period of a year to come up with an ICC, so that's what we have now. So as of 2000, we started country-wide, and each state kind of came on board, started adopting international codes, and there's residential and building and property maintenance code and fire codes and whatever. So every three years, as I mentioned before, they will adopt it. So this is just a residential code. There's one just for building codes for commercial, and then As you mentioned, Tony, the significant changes, this is just the significant changes for the residential code from 21, which we've adopted now, to 24. So sometimes those changes can be new codes because there's something new that happens out there. Sometimes it's just modifications. Sometimes it's clarification because enough building officials are out there making the wrong decisions and they figure it out and they say, well, we've got to get this guy from Phoenix or Hartford or wherever. It won't be Hartford because Kyle's a smart fellow. They're misinterpreting it, so we've got to clarify it. So they have these meetings every three years. And they start writing these three years in advance. So, you know, as Teresa put it in the write-up, the state legislature got behind and didn't approve it last year, and they did approve it this year for adoption. So now a jurisdiction can then adopt the new codes. um of course you know we're adopting 24 code we're almost into 27 here another six months and that's when the next code is going to hit the prince so what shoe poles does is about as soon as they can get a hold of a hard copy they'll sit down with um the bill dillon wheel inspectors their staff their plan reviewers contractors engineers architects and home build association And they go through there and they become amendments. And they have been for historically, you know, forever. And those amendments have historically been adopted by the Hartfords and the Midtown counties and the Brands and Garrisons. Because we're trying to be workable. Most contractors do ten projects, nine are in Super Bowls and one may be in Hartford. But we don't want to be a troublemaker and not go with the flow. At one point, Crooks had a building official that wanted to go against the flow. They took this book word for word and never made an amendment. And so the contractors would tell me, boy, I hate working at Cook's because every time I get on the highway and go to Cook's, I got to de-memorize a few things over in St. Paul's and then re-memorize them. So luckily, this board and the city council for Hartford has always adopted the new changes to amendments along with the ICC codes. You know, I've put together some significant changes, but that's just a snapshot of what this book is. There's another book that goes just on building code changes, too, whatever. So we certainly don't have to. Those changes will never apply to Hartford unless we become a Phoenix or a Miami, whatever. So they're really for your interest. As we get closer to adopting it, it'll probably be sometime almost in August by the time we get through the first reading and second reading and... Yeah, we'll have to put our advances together and so it'll take a little time to come back before you and then we'll have to go to the city council, so... yeah july 1st july is when the sioux falls is going to go uh brandon's going to try to hit that mark as close as we can orford will do as well um and the home build association wants to see these things adopted as close as we can but they're not on the mark you know if you're going to wait but um so uh again the certificate changes are it's just a snapshot just of interest to you if you're not in the building code stuff Kyle and I will, like every building inspector around the country, when you adopt these codes, it takes months to go through, figure out the changes, for us to de-memorize something and to memorize what the new codes are going to be, and then to play it out once a building permit comes in. So effectively, let's say it's artist first, any permit that walks in that door on artist first will go under the 24 code and the amendments and stuff. And the contractors will be aware of that. That's the nuts and shells. So I don't think we'll be back here next year for the 27th. I think it will be a year or two. But hopefully we'll stay on target. We really don't want to get behind the country. These things are thought about and voted on countrywide by extremely educated, smart people that do this thing, that live and breathe it every day. And so when there's a change made, it's for a good reason. There's track records, something's happening at a home, something's happening at a commercial facility. They're seeing a trend, they want to stop it, if it's something bad or whatever. So it's for safety.

I guess, correct me if I'm wrong, the peer won't adopt the 27 codes until probably 28?

Whenever they bring it in front of the legislature. It doesn't usually come the next winter. Right.

The codes will get adopted. We're usually a year behind.

They're usually a year behind.

The state is. We can't adopt any higher than the state.

So this is a discussion item. If this board feels that we want to move forward, then Teresa will put together the ordinance and then bring it back in front of this board to vote and then city council first reading, second reading. Bring it on.

Bring it up. All right. Yeah, might as well, right? Well, yeah. And like Paul said, you know, we'll wait, make sure, you know, Sioux Falls, Adoption County, make sure that we're doing the same thing, just so it's, you know, keeping consistent for contractors and whatnot. So we're just saying July 1st, Sioux Falls. July 1st is the time. So we'll try to hit later July or August. Okay.

Yeah, that works.

Just kind of give you a snapshot preview. Okay.

Teresa anything you want to add to your report?

I just want to point out I don't have anything to add unless you guys have questions for me but I do want to point out the city council is supposed to meet next week but after the last council meeting it came that I wasn't going to have a forum I have too many people gone on that so they moved it to the Tuesday you guys are supposed to meet they said they kind of just 730, or if you don't have anything for this agenda, then they would meet at 7 rarely. With what's gone through tonight, I mean, the code, I'll probably have to work with Seacock, the camp count regulations. accessory building might be the only one that we'd have for them that would be ready but we could push that off for the next meeting too unless we have a hearing pop-up i mean if you guys are okay we will not have the next meeting and then just go to the second meeting i won't be here anyway so you won't be here okay yeah so whatever you guys decide yeah unless it's june night you don't want to call in no

I think I'll be all right. I think knowing that, we just go as we normally do. We don't plan an agenda unless we have a hearing item that's time sensitive. Then we have to.

That's the only thing I could think of. A hearing might be time sensitive, but if nothing pops up, I'll let you guys know that we'll just plan on

Can I make a motion to adjourn? You can, because Keeley's not here, so it's your turn. I'll second it. The motion is second to adjourn. All in favor? Aye. Opposed?