City Council - Regular Meeting

300 square ft. Um with the application process, it's with the city and the state because it's on state DOT a rightway. DOT has seen the location of it and has will approve the application if it gets submitted if the conditional use of the marriage is approved for that. Um concerns to the north were um their sign being uh not being seen at that location. Um this would be a 16x 24 which is 384 square ft. Um a lot of them in town are 288 ft which is a 12x 24. Um I can answer any questions that you have for me. Um I have not received any comments, concerns, questions since our last meeting. Applicants are here if you have any questions for them. Yep. We're all working again too.

Yep. I'm guessing that's what John's message is about. Okay,

everything's working now. We got it all. All right, sound is back, everyone. Okay, thank you, Mr. Janagus.

Do we have a motion? I'll move to approve. Goldhammer. Second by Mr. Bathky. Further discussion.

Okay. Would anyone in the audience like to discuss this?

Okay. All right. Let's do a roll call on this one. I'm just going to just make a comment that I have received comments um against this and um concerns about uh it being the size, the distraction, all of the things. So, I'm sorry, but I will be voting against it. I'm I feel like it's really unfortunate that uh this sign is not within our city ordinance size. I feel like um that would have been really nice if it had been the right size. Come on up.

Hi everybody. I'm Jeff Trabine from SignPro JTRT Carrie Frederickson and myself. So earlier today I sent some imagery that is Tim sent me an email that said he'd like to see the actual more more two scale renderings of this because the last rendering as I said it wasn't in perspective. This is probably as more perspective drawings that I can get in close to it. That first one was from a south view where one of the well actually two of the letters that came in there. One of their concerns were cuz I talked to Steve Otterby and Larry Tetsy. They are the owners of the Northwestern Mutual building and they were cons one of their concerns were I can't say it was all but one of their concerns were the visual of their sign. That picture there was taken before they trimmed up the trees, but they trimmed up the trees after the the meeting or the first meeting. So you can you can still see plenty of view of that sign. Um that sign's right there. The first Keep going. That's actually the 12 x 24 right there's a 16x 24 sign that we're trying to pass. That sign there's 10 foot off the ground and the 16x 24 dimensions that we're asking for. If you can back up one back to the 12 x 12, that's a 12 x 24. It's a lot narrower, a lot taller. Shouldn't say a lot, how you want to look at it. The four foot on one side or two foot on each side, but myself, the larger one is a lot easier to read, takes less effort. Um, couple other things is is I don't know, Mark, if you've actually talked to Ron himself.

I talked to a lawyer and I'm not sure who his lawyer is, but I talked to Steve Brinkman. Steve Brinkman's. Well, since we're on this picture, we can just

Yeah. So, this picture right here, I'm gonna We're jumping around a little bit, but since this picture is up, I want to explain this picture. This is the picture that I was explaining to you last weekend. Uh, it was in Harrisburg. This particular sign right here, I said was the same size as we're trying to put up. I was mistaken. We actually did the homework on this. This sign actually here is owned by Doug Muth with Booket Billboards. That sign right there is a 12 x 28. That's 616 square ft. Their sign ordinance is 288 square ft with a variance up to 600. Now I said 616 is what that one is. So they didn't just go above and beyond their normal variance. They went above and beyond the 600 even. And the late I talked to this lady at the uh planning and zoning for 20 minutes or better because she's like, "We get more calls and more compliments on that sign because it's an impact." And you guys asked me last week why I wanted it bigger. What was my reasoning for wanting it bigger right there? I look at a lot of 12 x 24 signs. They catch my eye, but that one really caught my eye. You know, Jess was taking pictures as we were driving down the street. I'm like, "Take a picture of that because that one definitely catches your eye." So when it goes back, you know, right there, this one for instance, that one with the black streaks, that's the black is the 16x 24. The the area that's actually lit is the 12 x 24 is the 12 x 24. So technically I'm asking and I mean I want to put the whole thing and light the whole thing but I would like to is it possible or is it allowable to put the 16x 24 sign up and only illuminate the 12 x 24 area to to to accommodate your square footage. I mean it's a waste of money in ours but it's going to save us money in the end because we already own the billboard. It's going to cost us, I don't know, probably 4,000 or better to get it changed back to a smaller

version. I've done a lot of most of my day over the weekend doing my homework. So, I'm kind of glad you guys did table it because I didn't only learn our sign ordinance better. I learned Sou Falls sign ordinance, Harrisburg, Watertown, Yankton, Pierce. I know what I can do, cannot do. And uh for this location, we have we he says he's got a I'm not trying to go against Mark because Mark's got his I'm not trying to do a hearsay, but I talked to Steve Brinkman. Steve Brinkman is is the power attorney for Ron Randall. With that being said is Steve said that Ron doesn't know nothing about this billboard. And maybe he does. But what I'm trying to say is Steve got the letter. He threw it away the first time. Threw away the disapproval letter the first time. He had didn't care. Steve Otterby called him and tried to get, you know, Steve, you got to go with us and disapprove this. Ste Steve still didn't care. He would not against it. He got a phone call from another gentleman this in this room saying, "Hey, I'm trying to rally the troops. We got people against this. I need to get you on our side, too." So, that's when Steve finally that's when Steve finally sent in a disapproval letter. Otherwise, he told me himself that he wouldn't have no problem with it because it doesn't concern him. And Ron Randles probably doesn't will not know the difference between one size or the other. The other one that Steve mentioned to me that had concerns on it is Tim Bottoms. I talked to Tim Bottoms for a good five minutes probably and discussed him what I heard because I don't I don't want to go on the hearsay because I want facts. So, I called Steve. So, the only one that could possibly see if he talked the attorney maybe is Don Peterson. Not saying who his attorney is, but Steve told me that Don and Tim were against it. I talked to Tim. Tim says as far as

he knows, Don has no objections and Tim has no objections. Tim was in me busy all day, but I did try to get to him today again to get a letter to have have him verbally or say that he didn't object, but Tim also said that he threw away the letter because he does not object. So, I think I've answered a lot of the questions as Jeff asked me to do to go do my homework after the last meeting as far as if I've talked to the neighbors and get more freshened up on this. I've gone out of the way to make sure I've scaled the difference. You know, the narrow ones are 12 x 24. It says upper right corner. It's clearly that the 16x 24 is a beautiful sign. I mean, coming in from this that side of town, we're going to hit a lot of nice businesses. Everybody's worried about the the visibility of it and and the hard to see the larger ones. You're going to have to look at it less time because you're going to easily see it. If you have any questions, I mean I mean I got a couple other things I can say, but you know, as far as the Lamar guy coming in last week, we have we I run Carrie and I run businesses from this town. We're from this town. And then to have a competitor come in and tell us his main concern that he does the same, you know, wants the same billboard and then to say that we can't go larger than 300. That'd be like Marty having somebody coming into you that you want wants a bigger house, but UBC says you can't build a bigger house. That doesn't make no sense. I mean, he's one of my competitors. I have a business in this town in my own town. Is it allowing us to do? I talked to Sou Falls City Council on their digital billboards. Talked to that lady for 15 20 minutes. Their billboards is 288 ft also, but they have allowed more billboards to go above that variance from what she was saying. And they almost welcome the bigger billboards when it's in an applicable location.

When it's in a location that is not applicable, they don't even it's it's cut and dry. I mean it's they have their but when it's non-inference she goes we welcome it. So and there's a lot of billboards and I mean uh Marty asked the other last time how many billboards are in town. Well you got Doug backs on San Martin. You got Tyler Grahams. You got Car's one out by Walmart. You got Car's original one by Bank West. That's all. Well you got I shouldn't say that. Yeah the other one that Machesky's put up on the bypass as well. But I do think this would be a amazing addition on the north side of town.

Jeff, were you able to um have Steve Brinkman submit a letter to He's He's actually at camp fishing camp up in Canada. He's been there since um I don't know. He's been there for a week and a half. Him and So you talked to him like after the meeting, but before he left?

Yep. I talked to him last Wednesday. Yep. I've talked to Steve Otterby. I've talked to Larry Tetsy. Um I was trying to get a hold of Ron Randall, so that's why I knew Steve Brinklin was with Ron Randall and he said he was his power attorney. And like Steve said, he threw the letter away three times or two times. Well, one time then Steve Aby called him. He didn't that didn't interest him either. But I'll be honest with Kevin McCardle is the one that called Steve and said, "I'm ringing the troops. I'm 100% against it and we're gonna we're gonna get enough people to get this not to go through. And I don't think that's right.

Yeah. I'm just going off of what Steve told me and I'm not trying to be hearsay. I'm just being honest. So that's I've done a lot of due diligence. I wasted all I shouldn't say wasted. I put all day today into it and I put time over the weekend into it. I got, you know, thank you staff for pushing them pictures through, but I got pictures for everybody if they wanted to see them. But I don't know. I just feel that Carrie and I are business owners in this town. Been I've been doing this for 30 years in this town. I mean, there's there's people that have been building houses or like in our neighborhood, they got a variance to build a sixplexes in our backyard. There's a lot of our neighbors that didn't want them. That was a variance that passed. You know, we can't a residential section can't put 10 roofs on our house, per se, years ago, but this comp this complex has 10 roofs. I don't know. That's not my part. Not my I'm not trying to do a fight against it, but that's variances are given.

It's up to you. Let me turn your mic on. Pull the picture up so good. The one where Yep. The one where he he showed the black on the edge. I just have a legal question, I guess. If if he does that, Justin, is that I don't know how to say this. I mean, he's putting up the bigger sign, but he's not utilizing the sign. How does the how does it read?

Yeah, I I don't think that I can give you an answer on that right now. Um if that's something that council wants to discuss in executive session, we could certainly do that or if Mark has an opinion on that. I off the top of my head, I don't recall whether it's measured by the structure or the actual visible area. So, one of my questions is is if this is passed clarificate if this if this if this is passed and at some point and is it possible to ask for another variance and then to use it all you know that's just a foresight future I think you can always ask is the only answer I could give you on that but

yeah what I was getting at is he's got the signbot and he puts it up and he stays within the visual parameters and say someday down the road somebody else puts one up and he's back here asking for it again, then he could expand his sign. That's okay. And I know what you're saying. We can't. So on on that question, I did try to do Can you say your name for everyone at home?

I'm sorry. My name is Jessica Stidle. And on the question that Mr. Batsky asked, I tried to do some homework today and I ran around here and those of you that are in here that help me find this, thank you. I did get the ordinance because um I was trying to find answers to that question actually ourselves. If anybody would like the ordinance or if the attorney would like to see that to be able to answer your question, I have it. Tell us what it says. Well, it's 34 pages and since I wasn't the attorney, is there any way to tell us what it says pertaining to this?

I think the attorney would be able to read it best because I don't know if you'd want my interpretation. I'm I'm just saying that that's something that we would want to discuss in executive session, not an open session. So, and I can clarify, he's not supposed to give us like legal direction in public because that's the way it does. Okay, if that makes sense. Yes. Okay. Does anyone have any questions for them?

So, if if you didn't have anything else, I did have something else here. I just brought that up. Um, let me go back to where I was. So, the reason that I am here is after Jeff gave his presentation, we know as business owners, we can get kind of, you know, really strong about what our opinions are. And really what we need at the end of the day is a meeting of the minds, right? And you are it. So, in closing, um, on behalf of Carrie, Jeff, and JTRT, they want to thank you, uh, the members of of the board, but they really want you to know that they are here today and, and they're in support of their request for the sign variance. That is actually only going to allow an additional 84 square ft. This signed variance can go up to twice the size. This variance was written into the ordinance in 2013 and it allows up to 600 square feet, twice the size of what is written into the ordinance ordinance of 300 square ft. The planning and zoning commission has already recommended the approval and we all do appreciate that your time today. First, we also want to be transparent about why the variance is needed. While it might seem easy to say that an additional 84 square feet is not substantially larger and that it would naturally raise questions of why we need the exercise at all. The truth is that they have already purchased this and then they purchased the sign at 1624 without realizing that it was going to be an issue with the variance. Could we argue that they maybe should have known or they should have checked? Yes. But that is not going to answer our problems today. So it was their intent from the beginning to comply with all regulations and once they did become aware of this issue they looked for the appropriate and lawful way to address it and the

variance process is that mechanism that your ordinance provides. That is why they are here. The location itself supports the request. The sign site is on the north edge of Mitchell near Lake Mitchell and by the bypass where traffic moves at high speeds and visibility is critical. This area serves as a main entrance into your town and the slightly larger sign improves the readability which Jeff has shown you on the screen and it is also safety much more safer for the drivers appro approaching at highway speeds. The additional 84 square ft is still modest well within your allowable limits and it is appropriate for the character and the scale of this corridor. While they understand while we understand the ordinance gives the board discretion to approve additional signage when appropriate, their goal is to fully comply with all requirements and to asssure that their application aligns with the criteria that that board has set that the board uses. For that reason, they also would appreciate the clarification on what standards the board will apply when determining whether this signed variance meets the requirements for such approval. The ordinance that we are working under was adopted in January 21st of 2013 and I'm simply trying to understand what its intent was as it relates to the variance process and what it is today. One question that they do have about the original one question about this they do have about the original what is the original purpose behind allowing a variance up to twice the standard size. Again like I said your your ordinance allows for the committee I mean sorry the board to approve twice the size. What was the intent when it was written

and drafted 13 years ago and whether it was written to provide the flexibility as signage technology and industry industry standards have evolved over time? I'm going to offer you a simple comparison for context today. The average television sold in the United States in 2013 was around 32 to 40 in. It was a transitional time before larger screens became standard. Now in 2026, a 65- in television is considered normal in many homes, of which I would bet that at least all would have at least a 65 in or bigger in their homes today. It seems reasonable that the variance allowance may have been included at that time to prevent the ordinance from becoming outdated too quickly as sign technology sign expectations and visibility needs changed. I also do understand that some members of the current board which would be Marty, Susan, Jeff, and Randy were all serving when this ordinance was first adopted. If anybody in this room is able to provide insight into the intent behind the reason behind a variance provision at this time, that would be helpful for us to understand how our request can either fit into the original framework or will fit into that framework in the future.

Can I interrupt you just for a minute? Yes, ma'am. I'm going to ask Mark a question. Mark, do we have any um signs, digital signs in Mitchell that are exceed the ordinance size for digital billboards that has been brought up would be the one on Machesky's on the bypass. I believe they said that was 330 ft, but thought it was supposed to be 300 square feet. So,

I'm sorry, say that again. Uh at the last meeting it was asked about U Machesky's on the bypass. I thought that was about a 300 foot. Jeff said that he installed it was 330 square ft, but I don't believe there was conditional use that went with that one at all. So that one could be in violation if it is 330 ft like Jeff said at the last one, but all the other ones are under and within the very or within the limits not requiring a conditional use. Okay. One more question that I have. Um the two letters that we have that are against uh the from credit leasing are you're saying that those have been withdrawn?

No, the one that was withdrawn was chromes and I did not include that in the packet. This time it wasn't in the packet at the last meeting but on that Monday after the Monday the packet was the or for the meeting itself they called and said they wanted it withdrawn. So I didn't put it in this one. And for clarification, Steve Brink Brinkman has who I talked to for Ron Randall. Um, and that was before the the last meeting. I've not heard from him since. I have heard from Tim Bottom today. He said that him and Don Peterson have no dog and fight in this one and have no opinions on it at all. And the credit leasing is still against it. Where where are they located? That is the building to the north that Mike Moore that Mike Moore is in.

The which one? the Mike Moore's insurance agency. Is that Northwest? The Northwestern. Okay. Y So they still are concerned about it blocking. I have received no new letters since the first meeting. Mark, did Chromemer say why they pulled their The email said that they talked with the applicant and they had a better clarification for what they were doing there and that was all was said. Yeah. Would you like to continue with your remarks? Sorry, I just That's okay. Good questions.

So, I'm just going to probably start where I don't remember I left off. Okay. Sorry. That we also understand that some members of the current board were serving when the ordinance was first adopted. And that would be Marty, Susan, Jeff, and Randy. And I think she's thinking Randy. Don't I'm sorry. Andy, my bad. That's all right. It's okay. Go ahead. Sorry. Same last name.

If anyone is able to provide insight into the intent behind such variances and the variance provisions, that would be helpful to understand how our request could fit into that original framework now or how our our request can fit into that framework in the future. We simply wish to place a sign that is safe, visible, visible and compliant with Cindy city standards and they are respectfully requesting that you approve the ovarian and they appreciate all the consideration you've given today. Thank you.

Okay. Any more questions for the applicants? Would anyone else in the audience like to discuss this? All right, before we vote, I just want to say for the record, my support, I think it'd be cool to have a nice big sign out there. All right, let's do a roll call. Can I make one quick comment?

You sure can. um possibly of of what Jessica is asking is is we've got a a permitted and then conditional use and our obviously our ordinances have and zones have several thousands that are included in there and and this is in place to say that up to 300 it's a permitted from 3 to 600 you can ask for a conditional variance on it and that's what we've in front of us. And in all reality is the the system is working just exactly the way it should be working because we're bringing it from front of the public and then the neighbors can opine on what they're if they would like to have that in their neighborhood or not. And right now there's neighbors just to the north that have indicated that they're not comfortable. Now, I like the idea of raising the sign and and showing that there's visibility underneath, but at this point in time, we still have neighbors that are against it.

To be fair, they're renters. They're not land owners. I talked I talked to the owner of the building. Okay. Okay. But that did they get to submit a letter? The owner of the building. The owner sent the owner of the building. Owner is credit leasing. So, they have submitted one in dis. Okay. Okay. Then I was mistaken. Say that again. the owner is credit leasing of the building. Those are the two letters that I have uh for the disapproval. Okay. Then I was wrong. Um can I Jeff I'm just wondering if you've had a chance to visit with the owners of that building. I mean is there your assigned man?

Yes. I did talk to Larry last Friday. I believe it was last Thursday or Friday. I talked to Larry Titsy on that and in the realm of everything. I'm not trying to he basically said that he necessarily his he mentioned his concerns to me and the concerns were his the visibility of that sign. Well, I don't know if you all know according to that is just like that picture that trees you couldn't see them signs because the trees were blocking the view of that sign for years. They just didn't grow up in the last year or two. If we go to the well, you can kind of visually see, but if you go down to the one that I had with the south view, I think it's labeled. Um, that I mean, they were concerned about the vis visibility of the sign, their sign. And then they also the other one was they were they thought the sign would possibly lose them a tenant. Well, I don't see how that sign would lose them a tenant. um if that tenant wanted to advertise.

Go back to that one, Stephanie. Can you do that? Right there. The sign their sign is more blocked by the additional trees that were there for years. But you know, they have done they have trimmed them up about 4 foot and that sign that you see of theirs is like 54 in. Actually, it's about just shy of 5 foot. I think it's a 4 by 4 x 12 sign. It's off the ground about 10 to 12 in. Have they seen uh the images with the signs raised off the ground?

They have not. Like I said, like I said last time, that signed to scale that I threw together quick for the state and she was it's what she wanted was enough for what she wanted. Um I didn't know that it was going to get brought up into this city and sent out as into the flyer for for public viewing. I took the time, took new pictures except for I forgot to take a south one. So, I used the existing south one, but tried to get everything to scale and appropriate size to the building and to the landscape. But we are where we are on this. And I think I have that sign set right there of 10 foot off the ground. I mean, uh, for me personally, I I think that it's great for you to be able to stand here and say, "I've talked to these people." But if it were me, I would like to see this table again. I'd like you to talk to show this picture, take maybe take a new picture showing with the trees back and and so that they can see this and see if they still have a complaint about it. Um, and then some of these people that you've commented about, if if we could have some uh, I don't know, a letter showing that Ron Randall or Steve Brinkman are in favor are okay with this and some of these other people who have expressed concerns to I think to a large number of us. I think there are several of us that have heard from um those those people. It would be nice for for me for my peace of mind rather than to just say, you know, I believe you, Jeff, uh to have some a letter or something that says we're okay with this. Um so if I mean I I wasn't here last week. I was sick. Sorry. But I

would, if it were up to me, and I know that this is probably something you'd really like to get done, but I would vote to table this one more time, um, just so that we can make sure that these people have had a chance. Like I I feel like for you, it would be good to show the people to show, uh, Larry Titsy that what that is going to look like with it raised off the ground and with the trees cut back and those kinds of things. I think that it would be interesting to see what his opinion would be given that new what I would consider new information. Um, so again, I apologize that I wasn't here last week but or two weeks ago, but I would sorry to put you off again, but I would like to see us table that. I don't know how anyone else feels about it, but I feel like there are just a lot of questions out there and um I would just like some I guess maybe some verification from some of these people that that indeed they are okay and that see where Mr. Tootsie stands given the layout and given the new signage and whatnot. I I have mixed feelings on this. I mean, I've done a lot of homework this last week like what Jeff asked me to do, you know. So, I mean, it's

until you share it with the neighbors. Yeah. That's where I'm at is I think you've got a good solution there, Jeff. But I think as far as I'm concerned, we we need the immediate neighbors to be comfortable with this. Okay. And and I I mean quite frankly and again I wasn't here last time but when I see it with that raised off the ground uh in my mind that I mean that is uh that makes a difference because you can see that sign. Um but I I'm not the owner of that space either. So I I feel like this is something that is information that might be worth putting it off two more weeks.

Uh Spencer Mason, I'm the leaser or ley leaser

of the ground that this this sign is going on. If you can go back to that photo of the trees um while you guys were sitting or talking about this, I just pulled up Google Street View and the last time that those trees were trimmed was in September of 2009. Now, what you don't know about those trees is that a majority of them are on my property right there cuz I own basically 5T from that building there. So, a good majority of those trees are on my property. And I was asked about a week before, two weeks ago, so let's just say a month ago, if hey, could we trim up these trees, you know, 10 feet, really clean this up? I go, yeah, why not? It kind of looks like crap over here, right? Just to get hit with a bill that I had to pay to get those trees removed for view of that sign. So, until this sign even came up, the the people who own that property, I truly believe did not care. And if they did, I feel like they should have trimmed it maybe 10 years ago or even a year ago and not just a month ago. So that that's my only thing is is for that

and and I I I mean I can hear what you're saying and I mean that's anecdotal. I I can't respond to that. I don't know. Maybe they've been planning this for a long time and this was kind of the impetus for him to get that done. But regardless, this is a completely different issue altogether. This is a issue of a big sign that would be going in. I I think hooray that we've cleaned up those trees, right? U Thank you. Um but I also think that we have to have that. Uh it would be nice for them to be informed and educated and and see what this sign looks like now. um and how it affects the how they can view their their sign. So that would be me.

Stephanie, can you put the property lines on there? Can I just clarify how many people are opposed to this so far? I mean, not no I mean from the public. There's two. I have two letters that were against it and Steve Brinkman called me before the meeting saying he was opposed to it. Okay, that Ron Rhino was opposed to it. I haven't talked to him since it all. Okay. Everybody that got a letter the first time got a letter that Tuesday after saying it was postponed and I never got anything back from anybody on that at all. How many letters did you send out? I'm just trying to I believe it was 11 letters. 11. Three out of 11.

Yeah. Okay. Um, and Susan, back to your question before about size, sizes of signs, um, in different areas for this is off- premise, on premise can be bigger. MTC's is over 600 square feet on their signs along the interstate.

And I remember when we did those, and I feel like that's a kind of a force of a different color. So, but that's a really good point. Thank you very much. That's a really good point. Oh, one of the points that Carrie just brought up to me and I and I have mentioned it to him, but I don't know if Steve and Larry um and I will visit with them again if need be, but I don't know if they think if they oppose that we're not going to put a digital sign up, you know, still, but we we our plan is to still put a digital sign up. I mean, what we're talking about is the the size. So, I mean, as you can see in the renderings, the the larger I'm not trying to I mean, I am promoting, but it is a better looking sign.

So, if you could throw lastly that last picture up where we had the trees, the sign, and the Northwestern Mutual sign.

Okay. I guess what we're trying to also make sure is when we're asking for these requests and to be going back to the property owners again just to follow up when Jeff was trying to say is that the sign from my understanding is already approved that this sign will go up. It's just a matter of what's the width of that display. So does Northwestern Mutual really realize what they are saying yay or nay to? Are they thinking that they're trying to prevent the sign from going up or do they realize that this is just about what size that display is going to be?

And this is this is probably immaterial material, but if if them two people had did have a pro such a problem with it, how come they're not here? you know, I mean, I understand if they got other other commitments and stuff like that, that's understandable, but if it's something that I want, I'm going to be here. And I have we have,

and lastly, we talked about how many people did oppose or didn't oppose this, and we have less than the majority of the letters that were sent out in opposition. And I know that every council meeting you guys enter into this special board that I never knew what it meant until today. Now I know. But if we were going to start taking into account, and I'm not trying to discredit the neighbor. I'm not trying to come across that way at all. But if we went into every variance with the fact that you were going to approve get approval from 100% of your neighbors, I don't think that you guys would be approving any of the variances that you do approve every meeting. And so take that into consideration because at the end of the day, this isn't going to be the first time you're going to have a variance of this nature. And it's definitely not the last of many variances you get. And we have to be cognizant of what we're looking at when we approve or disapprove.

And while I while I appreciate what you're saying, it the fact that the neighbor directly to the north is feeling directly affected by this sign. Um, I feel like with the changes that you've made, uh, I mean that it may nullify what he what his opinion was. And I feel like, you know, you make a valid point that this sign is going up, whether it's this size or it's 84 square ft smaller, whatever. So, these are things that I feel like these neighbors need to be made aware of. And it would be really nice if we as a board had the knew the full um opinion and impact statement that these people were feeling by this sign with the modifications that you've made and um given the new development in terms of how it affects their signage. So, I would just I'm going to I'm going to move that we table this one more time.

We already have a motion. Okay. Good. We already have a motion for approval. Unless Jim would like to change. That's right. Okay. Mark, is it true that they could build a sign within the square footage tomorrow if they wanted to? As long as the state DOT would approve their sign permit, which Abby has told me that with the location that it is, they would approve their sign permit. Then the city would approve it as well if it was under the 300 square feet. Does that change your motion? Yeah. Okay. The motion and the second is still on the table. Is there any further discussion or anyone else from the audience that would like to say anything before we do a roll call? Can you remind me what the motion is? The motion was in the affirmative to approve.

Yes. And Justin, remind me. We need six to vote. Yay. And if there's if there's less, then uh in order for them to come back, they would have to wait 6 months. Um I think that's correct on the variance mark on the conditional use. I think that's just a regular majority that I I don't think that we have changed that yet. That is in for the next in our amendments that we're doing court. So yes, it is super majority of the whole board for the conditional use. It has not been changed in our ordinance yet. So I guess I'll ask the applicant. Would you like me to change the motion? Hey Jeff, did you hear that? Yeah. I'm sorry.

Would you like Would you like us to table it so we give her more time or do you want us to just let it rip? I don't I'm not trying to go against the city. I'll work with the city. I'll table it. Okay. I'll table it. My motion to table. Try to respect, you know, everybody and talk to Larry and Steve again and show them the new renderings and try to, you know, work with it. I I mean, I'm not going to I'm hoping when it comes to the end if they do not still don't agree with it that I just didn't shoot myself in the foot by doing what you ask, you know, but I will do what you ask. No. And it's not it's not shooting yourself in the foot or not. It's us making sure that that they are aware of what the new ren I feel like that's an important change that you've made.

Yeah. The original rendering was we had to have the permits to mark so that it make the first so we draw out the we didn't miss the first two weeks of meetings. You know, we wanted and I think it was like 11:00 and I had to have them down here by I don't know 1 or something like that. So I threw something together quick. Abby was fine with it and that's and I like I said I didn't know that that rendering was going to go out in a packet. So if we want to I can show them this

and in my mind there are several thing I mean in my mind there are several aspects of this that are key pieces of information that maybe they aren't even aware of and one of them is that whether we approve this at 84 extra square feet or not there will be a sign there. So that's I think that's a really important piece of information. The second thing is I think it's important for them to see the sign the way that it will be with the trees cut back and with their sign I mean in my opinion visible underneath what will be your foundation or your framework of your sign. I think that those are important pieces of information for them to have. And um you know, I think that we're all here to work together and we want to do what's right for the city and whatnot. We're not we're not against you. We're not against whatever. We're not against progress, whatever. But I think that we want to make sure that the people who are directly impacted by this have a chance to see it as it will be and understand the ramifications particularly that you can put up a sign the next day that is 300 ft. No.

See you in two weeks. Okay. So, I move to amend my motion uh to table it. Then we have a second to table it. All right. All those in favor of the motion to table it say I. I. Oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. Okay. We'll do the second one then. Hearing action on the application for JTRT advertised various permit postponed. Move to table. Motion by Mr. Goldhammer. Second by Mr. Basky to table. Further discussion. Anyone in the audience like to discuss the tableabling? All those in favor of the motion say I. I. Oppos same sign. Motion carries. Reconvene as city council entertain a motion for the board of adjustment to adjourn to the city council and reconvene in regular session. So moved. Motion by Mr. Goldhammer. Second by Mr. Baskki. All those in favor of the motion say I.

I. Post. Same sign. Motion carries. An action on application to transfer RL 5763 on sale retail liquor license from the depot Mitchell LLC. Doing business as the depot Mitchell LLC 2 South Main. configured to South Main Street to the depot Mitchell SD DBA. This is a tough one. The Mitchell Depot Mitchell LLC 210 South Main due to the configuration of the license include the front patio chief. Uh mayor, city council police department has no concerns. Move to approve. Second. Motion by Mr. Char, second by Mr. Smith. Further discussion? Anyone in the audience like to discuss this? All those in favor of the motion say I.

Oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. Action to approve applications for renewal of malt beverage licenses for 2026 and 2027. JPL please. No concerns with any of these. Thank you. Mr. Mardle. Second. Second by Mr. Goldhammer. Further discussion. Anyone in the audience like to discuss this? All those in favor of the motion say I. I.

Oppos? Same sign. Motion carries. Action approve hazard mitigation project selection for the Davidson County hazard mitigation plan. Mr. Shreder. Y Mr. Mayor Councel. Uh the city of Mitchell is participating in the Davidson County hazard mitigation plan prepared by the planning and development district 3 located in Yankton, South Dakota. Uh the 2026 plan is an update to the previous plan uh which was approved by FEMA in 2021. The plan is updated every 5 years. Uh the purpose of the plan is to prevent or reduce losses to people and property that may result from future hazard events in Davidson County. The plan identifies and analyzes uh the hazards that the county is susceptible to and proposes a mitigation strategy to minimize future damage that will be caused by those hazards. The city of Mitchell is proposing the following 10 items be part of the hazard mitigation plan. Um continue participation in the national flood insurance program. property acquisitions and flood hazard areas, dry run creek flood control projects, fire steel creek flood control projects, northwest drainage flood control projects, warning siren acquisitions, uh work with large groups or events coming to Mitchell, develop an emergency response plan, continue participation in the storm ready program, conduct outreach to educate people about water conservation, and participate in the firewise program. Some key points uh with the plan is each community must list at least one action or project for each of the five hazards addressed in the plan. And those hazards are um winter storms, summer storms, uh flooding, drought, and wildfires. Um must include a project in the plan, which will give you more credibility if you apply for FEMA mitigation funds. listing an action or project does not commit the community to follow through on it. After all entities which Davidson County identify their hazards, a plan

will be developed and adapted by the resolution. So, I'm asking you to uh make a motion to approve uh the 10 projects uh listed within the hazard mitigation plan. Questions you have, you're good. Sorry. So, Mr. Ricardo further discussion anyone the items like to discuss this all those in favor of the motion say I I

oppose same sign motion carries action to approve agreement A 2026-36 shoreline rip wrap project with Vanderpool drag drag line project 2026-42 Mr. Sher Mr. Mayor Council, Vanderbull Drag Line uh has provided a price to complete approximately 120 ft of rip wrap just north of the spillway. The South Dakota Department of Transportation recently completed rip wrap work within or north of the spillway. This project will complete the gap that exists between the concrete cable mats and the material placed by the the DOT. Staff recommends council approval for Vanderpole drag line at the estimated cost of 30,600. I can answer any questions you have. Thank you. This is the project Mr. for Bington has to be put in the budget last year.

Yes, Joe. How come it's so much less than the budget? I think when we were first looking at it, we thought we might go further to the um north towards uh Sandy Beach. Um but I wanted to make sure that we got this project uh done. We can add additional work by change order if we so wish. Thank you. Move to approve. Second. Motion by Mr. Pathky. Second by Mr. Bington. Further discussion. Anyone in the audience like to discuss this? All those in favor of the motion say I. I.

I. Same sign. Motion carries. Hearing action to approve resolution R26-19 2026 sidewalk project assessment on Mitchell Boulevard from South Minnesota Street in the north to connect place in the south south Minnesota street from Williams Avenue to Norway Avenue and the rest shown on the agenda. Hi, I'm Joel Damon with the engineering department. Um, good evening, mayor and members of city council. At this time, we're holding a public hearing on the proposed resolution of necessity for special assessments on the proposed 2026 sidewalk project. The location of the project is provided to you on the map in the packet. And as the mayor just described, um, this project includes a 5ft sidewalk along with ADA corner upgrades. Notices were sent out to all property owners affected by this project. We have been contacted by some of the property owners and are currently working with them to find solutions to their concerns. Um, if approved, we would bid the 2026 sidewalk project and begin construction this summer. Property owners would have the option to complete the work themselves or to have it completed as part of the project. After the project is completed this year in 2026, um, in the fall of 2027, then they would get the assessment and it would include their final amounts. If property owners let the assessments go onto their taxes, it would be on a five-year repayment plan with 8% interest. The first assessment payment would be on the first half of the property taxes in 2028. Is there anyone with questions about their assessments?

Not specifically on the assessments on the project. Can you please state your name and come again? All right. Am I under time constraints here?

No. Okay. My name is Mark Mishnik. I'm resident at 1418 Mitchell Boulevard in the project area and um I'm going to just state my objection to this whole thing and I'm asking the council to disapprove this uh project. Um sidewalk I it's sidewalk that I don't need or want. I purchased this property eight years ago without sidewalks there knowing it was no sidewalks. I've been thankful every year when I drive around town that I didn't purchase a property on the corner somewhere so that I'd have to take care of the sidewalks during the winter.

I don't have to do that now, but you will cause me to have to do that. Um, I think it's unfair for you uh to put something in that I need neither need nor want and requiring me to put it in and bill me for it and then make me maintain it all winter long because of something you did. Now, I don't know when this ordinance was passed. They tell me there's an ordinance that Mitchell passed requiring sidewalks. Does anybody know when that was? Not long ago.

1992 was when a um if a new residence is built that it's required to have sidewalk uh placed if there's curbon gutter. But there is what I don't know is the year that um council is allowed to um by special assessment install sidewalks uh anywhere in town.

Yeah. Okay. Um my house was built in 1954. I purchased it in 2018. No sidewalks during all that time. You can wait until I die or move to put your sidewalks in. You've been waiting this long. Now, another thing on this letter says it was a a letter of proposed necessity. Who deemed it a necessity? May I ask? Was it this council that deemed that that sidewalk is a necessity?

I can answer a little bit about that. Um, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but we have ADA federal funds that are attached to our making progress every year annually on um improving sidewalks, adding sidewalks, so that we have sidewalks throughout the town. Um, I I think it's surprising to me because initially when this ordinance was passed, and I I remember it really vividly because not because I was on the council, but because I was a young mom and I was on the PTA. Oh. Um, and I remember this very vividly that the point was that we wanted to make sure that any sidewalks that were were leading to a school or a park that were in those vicinities should be handled first. That those were the one places where sidewalks should very first go in. which is surprising to me that this area has been left untouched since 1992 because it seems to me like you have both parks and schools. You have uh walking paths for kids. So, or we need walking paths for kids. So, um I'm just going to say that it is surprising to me that this is an area that we have not done prior to now. um but that doesn't mean that it's any less important or that it's any um less necessary given the proximity to parks and an elementary school that's not very far from where you live. So um that's my short answer to that. Well, I would just say that um would ask has anybody from that neighborhood requested sidewalks to be put in their in front of their houses? Has anybody on Mitchell Boulevard requested sidewalks?

I would say that it's not something that's done by request. It's something that is done by necessity. And this would be, in my opinion, an area of necessity. Okay. Um, does anybody know if they're planning any street renovations or uh street work regarding sewer and so on in that area? Is that scheduled to be done soon? At this time, we are not.

Okay. because it would make absolutely no sense to put in new sidewalks and then tear them up for street work right afterwards. And don't you dare bill me twice. All right. Um, last but not least, I just um learned that okay, about I'm I'm going to say it's about six years ago, I put in a new driveway and I was required to make sure that I had the piece of sidewalk that composes that driveway put in properly. The city sent somebody out, gave under uh the paving company instructions, checked it. It's all apparently according to Hoy, but now somebody measured it and said one corner of that sidewalk is not uh ADA compliant. I'm sorry. That's not my fault. The city inspected it. The city approved it. We have a section of sidewalk that's finished and now you want to tear up my new sidewalk and part of my driveway and bill me for it again. That doesn't seem fair, does it? I would request that you deny this project and can it as far as I'm concerned. Like I said, you can do it in another 15 years be fine.

Joe, can you work with him on that driveway portion? We're still finalizing plans and reviewing. Um, that's something we can review and look at the records and talk about. Thank you for listening. Remember to vote no.

Good evening, Mayor Council. Thank you for giving us this opportunity to uh explain our position on this. Um my husband and I own three Can you state your name for a home?

Sorry. I'm Trudy Morgan. My husband and I own three properties that this will affect. Our home, which is a corner lot, and uh two rental properties, one on Mitchell Boulevard and one on um Minnesota. My primary objection to this entire project is that I think it is a colossal waste of taxpayer taxpayer money because I think that the infrastructure below us for drainage purposes needs to be completely revamped and fixed. Um we bought the property in 1995. We specifically brought bought the property because in 1993 and '94 when we were looking for houses in Mitchell, Mitchell was a swamp. We had so much water that there was hip deep water from the end of Mitchell to Mount Vernon. And this was one neighborhood that did not have water. The house was built in 1971 and had never had water. We have a basement that is a garden level basement. So, the windows are ground level. And we had never had water since purchasing the house in 1995 until the construction improvements were done on the south side of Norway. And all of those properties became roofs and cement. And when we first got our water, we thought that it was a problem with our basement. So, we spent a lot of our own money um in 2019 to completely fix our basement so that we would never have water again. And then it happened again in 2021 and again after that. And one of those times it wasn't even a 100red-year flood or a real significant rainfall for most of Mitchell. And then we read the article in the paper last summer where it was

explained that the reason that the streets are flooding and that our sewer intake is not our gutter intake on our street is not keeping up and floods when it rains is because when the city installed the pipes for drainage to improve the south of us, those are 24-in pipes and they meet up under our neighborhood in 18inch pipes and it goes Instead of us being on a hill and it going to the south of us, it drains to the north of us down the hill to fire steel fire steel creek which already floods. So it backs up into our street which water comes into our yard which then affects our basement. So three times at our expense we have fixed our basement and that is not a fix that can address what happens when the street floods to the south of us. And again, it had never happened from 1971 when the house was built until 2019 after a lot of that south of us was completed. So, in my opinion, your action item, I believe it was number 12 to deal with hazards, should have first dealt with infrastructure under our neighborhood so that we quit getting floods in our street and drowning our homes and depleting the property values that keep going up in assessed value. and now we're building sidewalks on top of that when really you should be ripping it up first and building the infrastructure. So that's my first and primary and most important objection to this project. Um the second one is less important because it's really about the aesthetics, but it is a boulevard. And so the street that not so much Minnesota, but definitely Mitchell Boulevard, that's a boulevard. Boulevards by nature don't have sidewalks. And the problem is you have

old lots that have small houses and you're going to put in a five foot wide sidewalk. There's going to be more cement in some of those yards than there's going to be grass. So the aesthetics are going to be completely tortured beyond recognition from a boulevard. And so we we really object to the type of instructure of construction of sidewalk that is being proposed. So those are my two main objections. So we would ask the council to really think about before you put in a sidewalk, we would like you to fix the infrastructure and make sure it drains right before you put cement on top of it and add to the property. Thank you. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Steve Morgan. I'm Trudy's husband. I just want to reiterate some of the things that Trudy said. Um, we were pleased when we purchased our home at 1421 Metro Boulevard back in 1995, uh, with the fact that it did not have sidewalks on either side. We were forced to put in sidewalk on the south side of our property. Uh, we did that grumbly. Um, and now we're asked to have sidewalk right in the very front yard of our property, which uh just like Mark, um, I would like to object uh to, um, it rules the whole aesthetics of our our property and it it it goes against what a boulevard even is under a definition. Um, and and so it it will it will view those aesthetics. Um, and it will uh definitely not be to a lot of our neighbors likings as well. The the other thing um because I'm sure that you're going to go ahead and do this is I I want your guarantee that when you rip up our property and our rental properties that you will properly repair our irrigation systems about six years ago. You came in and repaired some curb and gutter at one of our rentals on Mitchell Boulevard. And after the cement was poured, the crew came in weeks later with fill material and grass seed and

through the dirt on top of my irrigation system and cinched the pipe all the way back over and threw the dirt on it. Now, they didn't cinch it right there at the head about three feet back from the head. And I told my wife, "How could you not see when you're throwing dirt and you're trying to repair something and restore something the way it was that you have bent this irrigation system back over and completely buried the head?" So, I went forth, dug it all up, and repaired it myself and restored it the way it should have been done. My point is, I shouldn't have had to do that. Thank you.

Well, I I have never been in front of a crowd like this before. So, but uh I'm Judy Barnes. I live at 1407 Mitchell Boulevard. And uh kind of like Steve was saying, I worked three jobs. I worked my tail off for 49 and a half years. to go ahead and own my home. And I feel like people are invading on my property. You know, number one, the mere idea of cement all the way across front of my house, it will make a difference. I've had so many people walk by who aren't even from Mitchell and they would go in and say, "Your neighborhood is impressive. It's got a homey atmosphere. You don't have a ton of traffic. You only have people, you know, in your area walking anywhere. You It's just a homey atmosphere and it's beautiful. And there too, my home is my retirement investment. If I didn't have my home to sell, I would be having a job and who knows what because I couldn't afford to live there very much longer. And you had mentioned something about the school, the parks. I went to the school when I heard that, you know, they were putting in sidewalks. I went to the school that's like a block away from me. I watch after school. They don't even have a bike rack. And so I went I said, "H, but everybody's being picked up by cars." And so I went ahead and called some people that work at that school. And I said, "Do you know I I mean, I really want to know, are there kids that ride their bikes from there?" Because believe me, I don't I don't want any kid

endangered. But yeah, uh they said they're not kids that ride bikes anymore. Okay. So then we've got the people that you say, you know, if they have walkers, wheelchairs or whatever, or want to go out for walks for exercise, to my knowledge, everybody hits the gym. And then, you know, walkers and if you're at that point think you're in a wheelchair, you're in a nursing home or assisted living, you know. And I've known of one person in my life of living here in Mitchell, which has been since I've been like 20 years old, and one person that ever existed with a wheelchair and had to wheel every place he went in the city. So, I mean, I really don't want this. And I've got uh a neighbor down the street. She had her neighbor placed today and uh there was no way she could come which was obvious and uh yeah her heart is because it's a home place that she has the old trees in the neighborhood same thing you know it's like what our world should be like you know it's like God's creation it's not all the buildings the cement the it's just Hold's pretty simple pet like to address the council. My name is Alan Schult. We live 40 miles southwest of here. We farm or west of Stickney. My 93year-old m mother lives at the house on 1416 South Minnesota. I think she bought it when I got married

in 1990 and moved to Mitchell with the idea. Same reason that the older gentleman first started. She didn't want the sidewalk. She don't want to deal with snow. I mean, she's in a walker or whatever. And I agree with this mentality of I like to look at trees and grass, not concrete. And for for me and my wife 40 miles away to have to have the snow removed within 48 hours. Is that what you I mean it's an it's an undue burden on us and it's just more financial let alone the initial putting the sidewalk in and then you listen to these people that want the the drainage improved first. I mean, that don't make sense to pour cement over something that needs to be tore out. So, I guess I'm not in favor of it all. Um, thank you for my time.

Thank you. Anyone else in the audience to come up? Joe, was this part of town included into one of our drainage studies that we have completed or Yes, it is. It would be part of the um Sunnyside edition drainage study that was completed.

Joe, I know we've talked about the Williams and Miller intersection. Uh would any of the changes that would be going into that intersection for drainage purposes come into Mitchell Boulevard? Uh the the biggest area of concern uh within that drainage basin is the uh Williams and Anderson area. Not to say that the others aren't uh a concern. Um but that is the area that experiences um some of the most inundation. Um there's also an area along Miller uh which experiences some uh longer standing water in the street. Um yeah, and a lot of that is located at the very upstream portion uh of that drainage system. Uh we had that presentation quite a while ago. Um but the majority or all of that system uh does drain to uh Dry Run Creek. Um I did hear comments about the other uh underground utilities. Um water was replaced in the uh 90s. Um so the water man in that area is in good shape. I know there's some older stuff closer to the college. Um but the majority of those water lines within that area are in the '9s. Um sanitary sewer, not a lot of issues um that we've experienced. Um into the irrigation line comment, uh we do hire uh the local irrigation contractors in town um to fix those. If they do have an irrigation provider that they use, uh we will hire them directly for their irrigation system because they're familiar um with anything that uh we disrupt and those dollars are at the city's cost.

Um what about the 24in pipe that goes into the 18 inch pipe? I can't speak specifically to um specific pipe sizes. Um I can't remember any areas. I believe we all go I believe everything in this area does go from uh smaller to larger. I can't remember any areas that were recommended for an individual um upgrade replacement. Um if we were to come in and do a uh a storm sewer project, typically storm sewer doesn't necessarily affect um sidewalk. Now, if we were going to do a water and sewer project, the services um would be replaced up to the property line, which would affect sidewalk, but with the water man being installed in the 90s, majority of its PVC um sanitary sewer, this would be a good um location for a lining project, we may not necessarily have to dig up the street uh for those items. um say if a storm sewer project was done, not necessarily um sidewalk that would need to be removed and replaced uh with that.

So to clarify um if you ended up doing some uh infrastructure work that was in the street um and something happened to someone's sidewalk, the city would replace that sidewalk and bring it back to the Correct. We do uh once sidewalk is installed um city projects that remove any sidewalk we replace with city dollars. That's correct.

I listened to uh the signs where we talked about the listen to the neighbors and and I know that's a variance of different deal and I understand we're really close to the elementary school over there and probably two blocks away from where I'm at but um with with not only this my word it's my neighbors. So, um I'm going to go with her wishes and my vote and um um you know and I understand the sidewalk pro project is something we pushed and we wanted to do around the um the elementary schools the closer in elementary to schools but um I'm going to go with her wishes on my vote. I also think that if we're looking at the drainage in that area, like they stated, until that's resolved, doing that work is even if we're not necessarily going to be affecting the sidewalk, I think it's still something to consider uh as we look at the long-term project of that area. Jerel, do we have another area in town that um I mean I know that it's important that we stay on track and that we continue to show progress uh in order to qualify for those $88. Is there another place in town that we would that we have I know that we've laid out fiveyear sidewalk plans. What's our next year's sidewalk plan?

So, uh I'll take that one. Um, our next year's project, we were going to focus on code enforcement. Um, we'd sent out letters earlier, um, saying that we were going to give them until this year to get those done, and if they weren't, then we were going to focus next year on, uh, fill-in projects while we prioritize um, a different location. I do know there are three or four different areas that have been discussed um, and talked about in town. Um just at previous meetings this was um one of the number one areas to complete uh just due to its proximity to um Dakota Wesley and LBW.

Can I interrupt one more time? Just say your name again, please.

Trudy Morgan. If you look at Ket Place, there's a sidewalk that goes from Miller to Ket Place all the way directly to LB Williams. And then there is a sidewalk right along the edge. So I don't know if you can show that. So there's a direct sidewalk to um from the east to the west. And then there's another direct sidewalk from the north to the south um right along the edge of Dakota Wesleian. So the main paths that anybody would walk or connect to already connected by sidewalk. the the only people that would use a sidewalk to get to school would be the people that live directly in our neighborhood. It's not a neighborhood that people drive through even because it's a it's a wonky street. And the same with Minnesota because it ends in kind of a an intersection. You don't get much driving traffic and you don't get much foot traffic on our streets because they're not straight throughs. So, I would personally feel that delaying the project isn't putting a lot of people in danger by walking on streets because it nobody walks in front of our street to go to school. They all very few live in our neighborhood with little kids that walk to that school, but the ones who do all drive their kids there and then drop them off and go to work. So, I don't I mean, I understand the concept and I don't disagree that we want to be ADA compliant and use the grants available to us. I'm just saying I don't know how many sewers drain into that area. I don't know what all the infrastructure is, but I'm also not an engineer. Far from it. I can just tell you from living there, it's screwed up. And I would really rather have somebody look at it and fix it before you start. I mean, I get you're saying the city would pay to

replace the sidewalk, but why would you do that? You know, why would you spend that money to put down cement that you have to take up again if if you need to? So, I would rather have it delayed until you know what you need to fix before you lay down all that cement. So, do you know how much drains into that area underneath us into Dry Ry Creek?

Yep. Yep, we do. We there was a study completed. I can't tell you um right off my head what it is. Um but like I said, typically when you're doing a storm sewer project, you're not you're not dug out to the property line. So the sidewalk is quote unquote safe. All I know is there are two places where it empties underneath our property into a storm sewer. So I don't know if it would affect the sidewalk or the street. I just know that there are two inlets that go underneath our property and they both back up.

Sure. No, I understand what you're saying. Typically, storm sewer is limited to um curb replacement and might get into the a little ways into the boulevard, but typically it does you're not required to remove sidewalk in order to install storm sewer.

Can I ask a question? I'm Steve Morgan again. Can I just have you recclarify so I understand what you're saying? So all of the water and and we assume this because the water in front of our corner property uh goes down connect to Miller that's where that that's where all the rainwater drains. So all of that the drainage system from right there connecting Miller goes all the way down to Dryrun Creek. Am I understanding that correctly?

That is correct. Has the city ever done an assessment to try to divert and drain some of that water south outside of Mitchell to the south? So Norway also drains to Dry Run Creek. Everything there drains to Dry Run Creek. Yes. everything uh south of the interstate and uh Spruce Street also drains to Diamond Creek and it's through a different storm sewer system separate from this one. It backs up right here and it backs up right here and this is where our house is and it backs up here and it backs up here.

All right, I'm just going to get us back on track. We should be talking about sidewalks. You're saying the storm sewer doesn't go under the sidewalks. So, let's just get we're going to get back on track here. We understand we're looking into that. Okay, I'm Dave Thuringer. I own a property at 1129 South Miller. It's right off of Minnesota and Miller. And I guess my objection to the system is it's going to be a 5ft wide sidewalk, 7 foot back from the curb. My house sits 16t from the curb. So when they walk down that sidewalk, they are looking in the living room. I would like to see it either abolished, there's a sidewalk across the street, or else moved away further from the house.

Is it possible for us to do some of these without it being with it being curbside? We don't like to do curbside if at all possible just because that doesn't allow us a place to uh put the snow um if at all possible. We we really push for um Boulevard sidewalk. Okay, I know you push for it, but I know variances are made or exceptions are made because I had a house on North on South Raleigh that the house was 7 foot from the curb and you were going to put a sidewalk in there. He said it won't fit. You're going to have to move the house in order to put the sidewalk in. So, I know it can be done. What I'm asking is don't go 7 foot from the curb. If we can go fort from the curb, at least it gives us some breathing room so that my people that are do walk along there are not eavesdropping or looking directly into the living room.

Yeah. If you're not opposed to having some or some distance of boulevard. That is correct. I am not opposed to it. I would prefer not to have it there, but if we're going to have it, I want it moved closer to the street. Okay. We can discuss it. Thank you. Um I live on Pebble Beach Road and when we built our home, we were told that we would never be required.

Yeah, I know. I know. I thought Dave might bring that up. Uh that we would never need to build sidewalks because we were this self-contained neighborhood and and nobody walked to school and nobody there was no reason for it. And um I remember a meeting much like tonight when uh and I wasn't there but I my neighbors came out in mass complaining that this should not happen and um we were told that we needed to put in those sidewalks and everyone was like no one is going to walk on these. Nobody walks in our neighborhood. Nobody will be using these. But I will tell you that those sidewalks are constantly being used, whether they're being used by people um who are walking their dogs or if they're being used by kids that are coming and going from ball practice or whatever it is. I remember watching that first year after they were built and I thought, how did we live without these sidewalks? And I am not unsympathetic to um all of the things that you're all of the concerns. In fact, your area and the the past 13 years. We have I would say that we have put off this area because of some of the very concerns that you're expressing. And I know that there have been places in that area, I wish I could think of what the streets are where we have put in sidewalks. Um, and there have been, you know, likeminded people who have complained that this isn't right, that this is take I remember one family that has a house that's built very close to the street and it was a big deal and and

I know that the city crews have done a really good job of trying to work with people and I know I I hope it's okay, Dave, that I say this, but I know that your property on Pebble Beach Road was one that they did some really nice accommodations around some trees that you have. So, um, so I I'm so conflicted about this because my heart understands where you're coming from and I know that my neighbors shared those concerns. Um, I I guess I didn't get involved enough and I didn't feel strongly one way or the other and I I was willing to put in the sidewalks, but um, and we have a double lot. So, we have the double amount of sidewalks that need to be shoveled. But, so I I am I my heart is sympathetic and understanding. Um, I understand having a a neighborhood that feels very cozy and homey and you don't want the sidewalks, but I also know what a blessing it's been on Pebble Beach Road. And I think Dave would maybe agree with me. Um, I know that it has been something that when all was said and done, uh, I would say our neighbors are almost probably completely in agreement that this has been a really good positive thing. And and of course now our neighborhoods has grown and we have a lot of other places. So, I have to say I'm really conflicted about this because I I hear what you're saying and I want to be supportive. Uh, I also know that this has been part of a plan that we've had and I don't know. I kind of want to wait until I'm off the council and let the rest of you guys decide about me. So,

that's exactly what I was expecting you to say. I know. So, I only have three more meetings, you guys. So, I'M GOING TO PUT IT OFF a little longer. Table it. All right. With that long speech, why don't we move on to anything else before we make a motion? Who's ready to make a decision? Okay, we got a motion to approve. Second. Second by Mr. Bington. Further discussion. Anyone in the audience like to discuss this any further? I do have to abstain because uh I got a financial investment in this. Is that true? You'll have a

that's what he was saying impacting properties. Look at this guy. is getting out of it. Yeah, but then he would say no, right? Okay, that makes fair. That that makes a lot of sense. I would have never thought about that. All right, let's do a roll call then. Doer, hi. Bington, hi. Bky, no. Charts. Hi. Smith. Hi. Sabers Goldhammer. No. Five to two. Okay. Motion carries. Right. No super majority on this.

Okay. That's correct. Okay. Motion carries. All right. Action to approve resolution R2026-25. A resolution adopting the Mitchell area safety action plan and 2050 Mitchell vision zero safety goal commitment.

Mayor and council. Included in the packet is a resolution that is asking that you adopt the um I'm on the wrong resolution, excuse me. The Mitchell area safety action plan and the 2050 Mitchell vision zero safety goal commitment. In the resolution, it's summarized at the end if you look at the wherefore resolved. I'm actually going to move it to the screens so everybody can see what I'm looking at. Thank you.

Um it says that the city is committing to the mission uh the safety mission and that you recognize that a share of that a share of the fatal and our serious injury crashes within the surrounding m area occur on other jurisdictional roadways. So it shows the partnerships there and that we're striving to make progress towards reduct reducing those um safety risks and that we would designate the mayor act as a signature signatory, excuse me, on any future grant applications. I believe Thomas Cook is here from AC. Okay, there was a big crowd in the audience, so I couldn't see him back there. And he has a presentation that will kind of show the overview of the of the plan. And I have to apologize. I'm doing three things at once tonight. I'm hitting the pot between the three of us. So,

we're short and Andrew tonight. I can definitely tell. And I'm off. All right, just check things. Okay, good evening, mayor and city council. Uh, my name is Tom Cook. I'm with HDR Engineering, uh, project manager for the Mitchell area safety action plan. So, I just want to give a brief overview, uh, give you some context to the resolutions about the safety action plan tonight. So, um, to start, what is a safety action plan or SAP? Essentially, it's a comprehensive plan uh safety plan rather aimed at reducing and eliminating fatal and serious injury crashes uh affecting all road users, motorists, uh bicyclists and pedestrians. Um it uses datadriven analysis to characterize roadway safety problems and determine projects and strategies that can address uh the most significant safety risks. Um, additionally and uh uh a main element of this, it's a key criterion for the safe streets and roads for all SS4A implementation grant program. Um, so the need for a safety action plan in Mitchell. So number one, it outlines the safety's goals and creates a framework to identify safety issues and strategies for the Mitchell area transportation network. Number one. And then number two, following up on what I said on the last slide, the safety action plan is needed for the city of Mitchell to be eligible for this SS4A implementation grant funding. And so this is essentially to design and construct safety projects. Um, and to be eligible for this with this plan, you have to follow seven criteria um outlined to the right on the graphic. I'll talk about a few key items just briefly. Um, in addition for the cycle that uh the city is looking to apply for this year, the safety action plan must be approved by city council by May 26, 2026. Just a little background about the SS4A program was a grant program established in 2021 through Congress. Uh the US DOT manages this program with about $5

billion in funding available from 2022 to 2026 uh and likely to be renewed in the next transportation uh bill that will pass. Um again program helps fund regional and local safety projects and has an overall goal of reducing uh roadway deaths and serious injuries to zero if possible. Um just a little context. So, this plan is essentially an extension of the Mitchell uh area master transportation plan. This is something that HDR helped the city with along with the DOT and Davidson County just a few years ago. Um we've really tried to use all the information that was uh baked into this plan, carry it forward where uh necessary where possible um to really build off this baseline. So, uh we utilize the crash history analysis done for years 2016 through 2020. Uh we incorporated roadway standards and uh guidelines as well as citywide plans like the bicycle and pedestrian plan. Uh carried that forward where uh possible um into the safety action plan, made it compliant with the new requirements. So you're utilizing all the good stuff you have already. Um we also utilized an overlapping study advisory team. A lot of the same members that were part of this project also uh were part of the meetings for this project. Um, and then finally, uh, we carry forward a lot of the safety and multimmoal projects that were outlined in the MTP just to make sure that, you know, anything that's safety related, you can go ahead and apply for a grant, uh, in the future if you so, uh, choose to do. Um, just briefly, this is a graphic of the study area. So, it includes uh, obviously the current city limits as well as a one to two mile buffer around the city consistent with the MTP study area. Uh so just briefly I want to touch on some of the key components and the main one here tonight and most uh applicable to the current resolution is the leadership and commitment leadership commitment and goal setting criterion.

And so basically they require that there's an official commitment to an eventual goal of zero roadway fatalities and serious injuries and then a commitment target date essentially. So that's what the resolution says for the 2050 uh Mitchell vision zero goal is that uh you're be looking to uh affect change so that there are zero roadway deaths and u uh serious injuries in that time. Again, it's a visionary goal, but that that's kind of the main criteria here. And so again, that's part of this res resolution here tonight. In addition, one of the other key components is that there's a pretty robust safety analysis. And so for this we again built on what we did in the MTP. We looked at the most recent five full years of data 2021 through 2025. Um again building off the 2016 through 2020 data in the MTP. So we have a really solid 10-year look at crash history in Mitchell. Um just briefly uh when we look at the most five years uh uh period of crash data we see a 9% reduction in total crashes about 15 a little over 1500 and then roughly 250 injury crashes. That's a reduction of about 11%. So seeing some declines in those categories. Um in addition just a few quick findings. Um in this time period we saw zero fatal injury crashes, 26 serious injury crashes. Um I am aware that there have been a few more recent crashes that have had fatalities and serious injuries. So we did discuss those during our open house meeting. So we are aware but uh that's just reflected in the data that we analyzed. And we also noted some areas with multiple serious injury crashes and uh bicyclist and pedestrian crashes as well. Um finally the third component I'll touch on is our engagement and collaboration criterion. And so basically the program requires that there's some type of public and community engagement. Uh again as we did throughout the project we utilize what

was done for the MTP. There were two public meeting and stakeholder openhouse meetings with the MTP a travel survey. I think that had about 470 respondents to that survey a few years ago. Um similarly we held a public and stakeholder open house on May 5th uh just a few weeks ago. uh similar setup. Uh the public was invited to attend uh give us their thoughts on uh safety improvement locations, safety strategies to prioritize. Um there was a travel survey to fill out again with that. So um saw some really good feedback with that. Um in addition, all that material was shared online on the city's website as noted there. Um and and really and most importantly, the feedback informed prioritized safety strategies and projects in the safety action plan. So briefly just uh the next steps following this uh the approval of this resolution. So we will finalize and post the safety action plan on the city's website. It's another uh criteria item. And then in terms of the city's 2026 SS4A implementation grant application, we're looking to finalize that. That includes uh three key Mitchell area projects. Uh 1 Avenue and Bur Street intersection improvements. uh a controlled crossing device at 1 Avenue and Mener Street by the elementary school and then uh a Lake Mitchell Lake Mitchell, excuse me, shared use path on National Guard Road and Harmon Drive. Um so again, all that is predicated on the safety action plan being approved by city council uh and as well as the visionary safety goals here tonight and then the plan being posted publicly uh likely later this week and certainly by May 26. So, just wanted to keep things relatively brief, but are there any questions about the plan? Any questions?

Thank you. Thank you. And I I'll put the presentation up on the website under this agenda item for anyone watching online tonight, too. Thank you. Okay. Move to approve by Mr. Mardle. Second, Mr. Bington. Further discussion? Would anyone the audience like to discuss this? All those in favor of the motion say I. I oppose the same sign. Motion carries. Second group agreement R 20 26-26 Mitchell safe streets and roads for all SS informationmentation grant funding application sponsorship.

Mayor and council. This resolution is what was discussed at the end of the presentation and would authorize us to apply for a grant for those three items that were listed on the screen. It was the first and bur first and mentor menor intersections and then the shared use pathway by the lake. Thank you. Move to approve by Mr. Cameron. Second by further discussion with the like to discuss this. All those in favor of the motion say I.

Sign motion carries. section approve resolution R26-27 creating tax increment district number 46 and approving the project plan. Mr. Johnson. All right. Uh this tax increment district would relate to the legacy point project. Um it is a proposed multifamily housing development consisting of 38 units along with various amenities. Um in uh compliance with TIFF guidelines. The rental rates for those proposed units would be under the 80% area median income guidelines. Um as we start working through the project plan here, um you do see a brief description of the projects um uh public benefits and a description of the project itself. Uh we went over that, so we'll continue to go down. You can see a map of the proposed improvements um including uh the proposed view of the structure. Um it does include a but for statement. Excuse me, I should back up. Um staff did meet to uh review the project plan uh for compliance with the city's uh own guidelines and the state's uh statutes for TIFFs. Um with the changes that the applicant did make to the project plan, we do believe that it is in compliance at this point. Um which brings us back to that but for statement uh stating that the project would not be feasible, would not move forward without the use of tax increment financing in this uh in this situation. Further down the project plan, uh you can see the legal description for the property. Um there is a note that Legacy

Point LLC which is the developer for the project um at this time does not own the property but they do have a purchase agreement in place to acquire the property. Uh you can see the map of the property including uh the lot itself and then also the adjacent roadway. Uh the next table includes the values of uh tax increment districts in uh existing tax increment districts in the city um including this proposed district. Uh there is a requirement that that be under the 10% total value of the city. Um at this point it's under 2%. So we're in compliance there. The next page shows you the distribution of these uh tiff funds with the 1,144,413 uh being placed as discretionary costs and grants towards the developer. Uh there is also the 250,000 ad administrative costs that would be paid to the city um after uh the proceeds or the grant would be paid out to the developer. uh this tiff would be in place for 20 years uh from the date of creation or until those funds are paid whichever occurs earlier. There's no interest rate associated with this tiff. Um there is a requirement that the tiff be classified as affordable housing. We did receive the pre-classification letter from the state that uh stating that it would be. Um there is also the requirement that the developer wave the discretionary formula. As with past tiffs, these are structured as grant pass through. So we pass the increment onto the developer as it's generated was not debt to the city. Um some additional points, uh there's some

reporting requirements in there for the developer to certify cost to the city. Uh we did also add language um unique to this tiff and and tiffs moving forward. Um there was discussion this year of potentially um adding at the state level uh some reimbursement to the county for administering these tiffs. So we added language should that be included in the future by the state that we can pass those costs and have those paid out of the tiff increment as well. Um, next section discusses those um, administrative costs. Um, I already went through those, so I won't discuss them again. Moving down through the project plan to uh, the table on page 14, you can see the list of total costs for the project uh, with non-eligible project costs um, at 6,43923. You see the tiff el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el eligible costs listed below that for a total of that 7,834336 for this project.

Justin, can I ask a quick question? Sorry. Sure. Right there. Administrative costs uh are included in there. Who are those actually paid to? Those would be paid to the city. So we we would be reimbursing ourselves at that point. Um again, those are paid after at the end, right? They're at the end of the tiff after the developer receives the grant. Okay. All right.

And you know that we'll get to the increment projection in a second. It's possible that the the tiff may not generate enough to ever pay that out, but if it does, it would allow the city to recoup some of those costs. Um, again, the table that's up there shows the the breakout of those costs. Uh, we don't need to get into that kind of detail. the project um the increment breakdown. Then on page 18, uh you can see that it's projected to uh generate 1 million 157961 in uh increment over that 20ear span. Um, again, those are conservative estimates, which is why we feel comfortable adding those administrative costs on to potentially recoup um dollars. In addition to that, um, the next page would be the economic development study. We And then we get further down into the the maps again for the property, the proposed improvements, uh the existing zoning. Uh this site had already been reszoned as planned unit development, so there's no additional changes required at this time. And then the last page would be that pre-classification letter from the state. And I think with that we can open it up to questions or comments if there's anybody that has them. Thank you.

Move to approve. Motion by Mr. Goldhammer. Second by Mrs. Chs. Further discussion. Anyone the audience like to discuss this? All those in favor of the motion say I. Opposed same sign. Motion carries. Second to approve resolution R2026-28. With the address shown on the agenda. Mr. Genigus.

Mr. Mayor, council planning commission recommended approval of this unanimously. This is outside city's zoning jurisdiction but within the three mile of city limit. So therefore, city has to hear this as well. City C or excuse me, uh, county planning commission recommended approval of this, uh, as well as, uh, county commission. There were a couple variances that went with it as well, but it's all, uh, county zoning jurisdiction can answer any questions that you have. Thank you. Second, Mr. Mardle, second by Mr. Goldhammer. Further discussion, anyone in the audience like to discuss this? All those in favor of the motion say I.

I. Same sign. Motion carries. Hearing and second reading on ordinance 0226-07 amending Ridge View on Foster Planned Development District. Mr. Jennigus. Mr. Mayor Council. I've received no further comments or responses from any of the neighbors of this area. Again, um the reason for this is to clean up the name of it to make it uh lacage. It with codifier. They were going at the same time, got the wrong one on it. Um applicant also was going to apply for a variance for a shed. So, I asked them, let's just bump up the height of the accessory building so we don't keep coming in asking for that. And they agreed to do that. And then also taking away the verbiage of the two and a half stories. That way, we're just set to a certain footage. Um, I can answer any questions that you have for me as well.

Thank you. Second motion Mr. Bethy, second by Mr. Goldhammer. Further discussion? Anyone in the audience like to discuss this? All those in favor of the motion say I. Same sign. Motion carries. Motion to adopt ordinance 0226-07. Mr. Smith second by Mr. Bington. Further discussion. Anyone in the audience like to discuss this roll call. Bington. Hi. Beth Peak. Hi. Charts. Hi. Smith. Hi. Sabers. Hi. Goldhammer. Hi. Doer mardo. Hi. Motion carries.