City Council - Regular Meeting

Okay, if everyone would stand uh for the pledge of allegiance. Get this going. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

All right. Um, first thing is to approve the agenda as presented. Does anyone have any questions? Any issues with anything on the agenda? If not, I'll look for a motion to approve the agenda. So move. Second. Motion by Sean Ryan, second by Bruce Wolf. If there's no other questions, all in favor say I. I. I.

Any opposition? Okay, passes 40. Consent agenda. Does anyone have any questions on the consent agenda? I have one uh I don't know um to the council there's a u liquor um license for the new Prague Oreos in there and uh Thank you. And um my only question would be they're being charged uh a full year license and really they only can sell for six months because of the season and the weather. Uh I don't I don't think we have to do anything this year but I think maybe it's something we should you know and it's also they're a 501c operation. It's not like they're in business to you know the money they make off that is used to pay for their their bills. Um, so I guess what I would like to do is maybe, you know, I've talked to Nick, he's fine with it this year, but, you know, if there's something that we could look in the future of of these short-term type of liquor license, you know, like, you know, that's going to be a six-month really liquor license versus a full year. And yet they're paying the same price as someone who is doing it for a full year. I don't have the number in front of me, but do we do non tax exempt like when they do the St. W or something one day permit is that at a lower price?

We don't deferiate for taxes exempt, do we? You know, I I don't know off the top of my head. Um it just something I would like to look into in the future. I don't think we have to do anything, you know, this year because obviously they got the state tournament. They're going to have probably a lot of sales this year.

Yeah, it seems like there was like some state regulations that prevented that a number of years ago when they were going through the refurbish of the stadium and whatnot. We also had looked at that and I thought there was only a specific set of licenses that and then they actually changed state statute just a [clears throat] few years ago if I'm not mistaken to kind of lump in some of the the town ball leagues and whatnot because there was really nothing that fit them. Either it was a full year license or not. So I don't know if that's changed any or what what the city has. Um I'm not sure the ability to change I heard the mic being passed like Tim knows what's going on. [clears throat]

Well I think to to your question Bruce the the St. Lance and those festivals are a temporary one day. So it's a different than a full license. So it's just a one day that are allowed by the state whereas the Orioles is a different it's a full it's a 32 actual liquor license. Right. But we don't differentiate between taxexempt applicant and non- tax. Right. Right. And I don't I don't know. I would have to review the state statute on whether or not you can you can do what you're asking. I don't know if that's a possibility with the state. I would have to ask some questions on I don't know that off the top of my head. So, we can certainly check into that.

Yeah, if you could just check in. Again, it's it's not an issue this year. You know, it won't affect what we approve tonight. I'm just thinking being it's, you know, a 501c organization, they they usually only sell, you know, what is maybe April 1st through end of September. Yeah. You know, and probably not even that long because once the state they're out of the state tournament, that field doesn't get used much.

And when they do do the concession stand for the high school or the Legion and that stuff, they're not selling alcohol per se. They're just selling, you know, the hot dogs and and other the pop and things like that. So, but if it's something you could look in, I'd appreciate it. We will do that. Yep. Absolutely. Okay. Any uh any other questions or anything on the consent agenda? If not, I guess I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda. I'll second. Second by Maggie Pass. If there's no other questions, all in favor say I.

I. Okay. Any opposition? Okay. Passes 40. It doesn't look like we have any government uh agencies to up give us updates today. Uh next we have the public forum. This is opportunity for the public to address the council. Uh there is no one on the list. So uh unless someone would like to to say something. If not, okay. Six, we have no public hearings. Uh, seven, city engineering update. Is there nothing? Okay, we have nothing on that. Eight, I guess this is the big item, the uh UDC. Kim or Ken, I think you're going to take that along with uh

Yeah, actually. So tonight we have Jeff Matzky with Bolton Bank here uh who's been helping us for over 15 months on the uh UDC development which is a rewrite of the subdivision and zoning ordinances and then also incorporating flood plane uh building code regulations and a few other sections. We have a cohesive uh part of the city code where the everything kind of ties together. So with that um Matt if you could pop up this computer hopefully it'll work. Huh? New IT guy maybe.

No pressure, Matt. Come on, Mitch. Let's go.

Sorry. [laughter] All right. Well, thank you. Um, don't worry if it didn't work. I brought paper copies, too. I always do. [laughter] Um, I, as Ken said, I am Jeff Matsky with Bolton and Mink. Uh, some of you might have remembered me from November. We had a work session uh to kind of talk through the UDC code draft that uh was in front of you, but as Ken said, we've been working with you pleasantly for the last 15 months on this project uh to kind of modernize and update uh your code uh from your zoning and subdivision perspective. If you want to go to the next [snorts] slide there is that uh your UD code is uh or unified development code. It supports the city in not only today's current objectives, that's kind of what zoning and subdivision does, but all of your future developments and future activities within the city and in incorporating all of your standards for commercial, industrial, residential growth, your development patterns, the market and development changes that you have today and will continue on as you grow here in New Prague in the future, decades ahead. Um, and you wanted to have some more clarity in some of your ordinances, some more graphs, some more tables, uh, a little bit more user friendly, some keep that code a little bit more understandable for the public, for yourselves, for your staff to be able to utilize it and obviously update with um, ensuring legal compliance with uh, more today's legal standards as it's been some years since you kind of went through a massive code update here in New. So, the schedule that we went over for the last 15 months, we did start last uh November of a year ago in 2024 and having our kickoff meeting. Ken and I went on a tour of the city in December. And then we utilize the planning commission as the steering committee on this. Uh had multiple meetings with the planning commission. Uh Ken and Evan also had multiple conversations um in getting some feedback and ordinance clarifications, specific housekeeping items if you would that uh would like to see updated along

that. And so we kept in constant communication not only with your staff but as well as your planning commission as we went through the various drafts and phases kind of in phase two and phase three of there. We did an online community survey um that uh was part of your packet um and garnered uh some feedback. You actually had some pretty good feedback uh and participation from your community that was really wellreceived. Put it on Facebook uh had it at city hall accessible. even took it to the checkout new Prague event and got some feedback as well um as part of the uh kind of business event there that check out new Prague is back in August. Um very hot day by the way it was but uh a lot hotter than it is today. Um but uh then after that uh went and did a couple drafts. In fact, we actually kind of did three full drafts of urified development code and uh prepared them [snorts] not only for you at a work session but as well as your planning commission two or three times meeting with them. Um and then ultimately had a public hearing in the month of November at the planning commission received some public feedback [clears throat] uh which in turn uh brought upon some additional commentary from the planning commission. So then in December um or in January, February here, we had some additional um meetings that uh the planning commission kind of made some final tweaks and recommendations to the code. And so that uh that's why we didn't necessarily bring this right to the council at the end of the year as we early anticipated. That's perfectly fine, but uh wanted to make sure that we made some of those final adjustments and uh especially in hearing some of the public hearing comments that we had in November and I'll go through that as well. So, that's the community survey that we had. Uh, just included it in here. Again, just garnering some information um about some of the hot topics, parking standards, sheds and permits around fencing and sheds, accessory dwelling units or ADUs, what the public might want it to look like.

Um, those types of information. We had over 207 respondents um from your community. And it did garner some good feedback, especially in light of whether the public felt that they were ready for some more um electronic vehicle type of information or uh those kind of things in your community that uh varies community by community and your public knows what their users want more than anybody. So, it was good information to get uh the sections of the code. We reorganized your sections of code because when combining your zoning code and your subdivision code together, they were two separate documents and putting them together. Uh wanted to define those sections. They still have the zoning districts and their sections and land uses in certain sections, but combining some of your administrative processes that you do for your platting in subdivisions as well as your conditional use permits, variances, reszonings. Those are all zoning applications. And those kind of all all got put in one place for your administrative procedures in section three. So going through definitions, all your admin procedures, your various zoning districts and map, the land uses and all the performance standards and the like that are associated with each and individual ones of those. And then section six is kind of the the catch all of the various dimensional standards and and other subdivision standards that you have. But again, it's broken up much more in detail section by section and modernize that code. That's the cover page currently for [clears throat] your new uh unified development code right there. So uh we took some tables and graphs and put them into your code. Tried to simplify your land uses and put them in a chart so it's a little bit quicker reference a cheat sheet if you would both for your public as well for your staff to [clears throat] look at and see what uses are permitted conditional uses, what are accessory uses, and the various zoning districts that you had. Uh we actually looked at relabeling some of your low density zoning districts into an R123 kind of had a 90 84 and and

other categories that um um from staff's perspective we we heard that sometimes that can be confusing for the public. So we tried to make a little more formality with the rest of your zoning districts on that. Did the same with your dimensional standards and charts uh there as well. Uh all your setbacks and other things put them into a chart based on zoning district. So, it's a quick reference guide again for uh for the public, for developers, builders, and the like to kind of look through. It's still in text in the code, but put it in there as well. Some of the other major changes that we looked at, uh I mentioned already the R L 90, 84, and 70 changing those zoning districts and um some of the standards on them. We also did some lot signs adjustments to make it a little more uniform to what uh the conforming or legal non-conforming lots that you have in town uh so that you could make those applicable within your ordinance. One of the things in the second bullet point there I wanted to highlight was on your tree preservation ordinance and that was highlighted um at the public hearing as to um you didn't formally have a lot of um true replacement in your in your code. basically a new subdivision come in comes in has tree removals. How do you want to handle that? Is on based on what tree replacements are, what trees can go. And so [clears throat] we created a list of trees that are more [snorts] of the um significant trees if you would. the ones that are more uh important to have in town from a specy list. Ones that aren't significant such as an asht tree these days, obviously having um ashbor disease and other non-significant trees that are not your hardwoods or your hearty um you know your maples, your oaks, those are more the ones that you want to keep uh within your community and and uh show that growth on there. So if those trees are removed, what's the replacement on it? Well, we received some feedback at the public hearing uh regarding that and that saying um tree inventories or some other

woodland and preservation codes could get to be very detailed uh could be cumbersome. They are costly to do uh for development. And so what kind of things could the planning commission consider to allow for some replacement of trees more along the lines of a landscaping perspective too? when you're removing trees as part of a demo de development, the main goal is to make sure that trees get put back in place and there it's just not uh new lots whether it be residential or commercial uh without a lot of trees putting back into your community and re reforestation if you would. So, um what the planning commission fell on ultimately was a recommendation of three total trees planting on all residential lots. uh doing at least one in the front yard, two elsewhere on the property, leaving it up to the decision of the property owners to do that, to put them in the back, the sideyard, the front yard if they would because sometimes with driveways and utility corridors, you can't say I I've experienced it myself uh as a city planner in years past. Sometimes it's hard to get two front trees, front yard trees because of that location of utilities. And so allowing them to do it in other areas of the yards helps out uh that flexibility but maintains the the goal of getting trees planted back on the property. For commercial highdensity industrial, one per 40 on the perimeter. That doesn't mean they have to put them all on the perimeter, but that's helping them design a ratio of tree plantings back on the lot. Um that was that was the goal and we widened that goal. there were some sections of your code that already had that parameter on there and we widened that out to make it consistent across those zoning districts and those developments. We included some architectural design standards for your industrial buildings as well as some other buildings in your zoning districts as well. Um, these design standards I think we talked about a little bit at the work session, but it allows for more flexibility in your code to um, allow for developments to pick and choose from a list of design

standards. Not necessarily you have to have x amount of brick or x amount of stonework or x amount of um, class one materials if you would on a property, but allows them to pick more design features such as the entrance has to be defined. there has to be uh windows or breakups in the wall or breakups in the height of the wall or things like that. And if they there's about a list of about seven different nine different criteria they got to pick about five of them or something or four of them and have to incorporate into that um to allow some flexibility in the code but still get ultimate some architectural design into the building so you don't have just a straight building. uh revisions to your plan, unit development regulations. Uh didn't have a lot of um teeth, if you would in criteria and asking for planning to development. So, uh we put some more um abilities in there to and references on what what classifies as an as a planning to development benefit or community benefit to the city. Um, and that if you're going to allow a plan of new development that has some modified setbacks, that has some modified lot sizes, what are the things is the city expecting in return for some increased public benefits and design standards in a development um that is over and above, if you would, the the standard requirements in your code. Uh, code language we put in there that identify when a certificate of survey is required. Um, basically under what permits, under what applications? Uh, does the city require certificates of survey for verification of again those lot standards, those setbacks that that uh um hard surface criteria that um easement definitions and the like to make it a little bit easier for your staff um from a building uh planning, zoning [clears throat] engineering perspective to uh um to regulate and uh enforce your code uh adequately. Provisions for the public hearings for variances and conditional use permit.

this was not necessarily applicable across the board for all your applications. It is something that the city does in some cases and such and so we just made it as a requirement for those types of exceptions to be to be granted along to have a public hearing. It's pretty common practice uh in standard zoning to have public hearings for those types of uses and requests to to the planning commission. And then before Ken goes those those are a few of the graphics that we incorporated into the code. A lot of them get put into the definition sections of your code to help the public identify, understand what you mean by what is lot width, what is a building height, and how do we measure it? Um, rather than just being in the text, it's still there in the text, but you include a graphic or diagram that helps visualize that as well.

So to clarify on the tree thing, is this just trees? It's not like evergreens. It is evergreens as well. So it's coniferous as well as deciduous trees. So deciduous, leloos are leaves, evergreens as well. And it has the kind of criteria in there is what is a significant tree. In other words, how tall does it have to be? It's usually at least a um a six foot or 12 foot tall tree or it's something that modifies of at least three inches in or I'm sorry, 6 inches in size. And then the replacement of those um obviously much smaller, but at least having at least an inch and a half of a replacement tree that goes back in. And that's basically your standard nursery tree that you're going to find. Okay, thank you.

And to clarify that too, the other question that came up is if we have a development proposal and roads have to go where roads have to go or utilities, we wouldn't require replacement in those situations as well. So, we do understand, you know, roadway corridors and utilities, then we're not going to penalize you for continuing a road uh where logically it should go. So, if trees got to come down in those areas, that is an exception for that as well. So in essence, if it's a public improvement rationale for a development, that's that's yep exempted from those requirements.

Uh administrative permits for fences and accessory structures. This was talked about with staff a lot because they get a lot of requests for fences or a shed that goes up in the backyard. Should they require a permit? Should they charge a fee for the permit? Uh should they have no permit? I've seen it handled multiple ways by multiple cities. Um, I've even been with communities in in my past career that have changed it from time to time based on uh how much activity and regulation they want to do from a code enforcement perspective on it. Uh, ultimately uh requiring these types of permits but doing it on a minimal or no fee basis tries to encourage people to come in and just verify that if they're going to put up a fence or a shed in the back corner of their property or something, they know where the property lines are. You know, they're not putting on their neighbor's property. they're not putting in an easement situation that's over a pipe and it's going to be a problematic that's going to have to get removed another time. So, it's almost giving your staff and your administration the ability to just kind of check through records to help them so that they don't create a problem before something is created. So, again, not charging necessarily a fee or a large fee for that. Uh but usually you're still requiring a zoning permit if you would or a very very small permit that just checks through survey records or GIS records or utility records that the city may have so that they make sure that that is and a lot of fencing companies that do this professionally or somebody's got a shed that they're actually a professional is putting up for somebody. They tend to know to ask or to call those questions before they do that permitting. Um, so not not that you're going to catch them all, but it helps to uh helps to monitor that regulation.

I just want to add something real briefly to that. So I would say 75% of all fences and and sheds we do get a call from a homeowner or a contractor. This is basically so we can actually have something documented that we have it in the file. We did they did verify. I would say number one concern from a staff perspective was regarding um electrical boxes and the new utility commission uh running into issues with that. Uh probably less so for you know underground um storm or um sanitary sewer pipes, but we have run into that as well. So it's just a good check all and make sure we've uh made sure that everybody's aware of what we have um out there on on their property. So I think it's helpful to to just have it documented. So,

and one of the graphics there, electrical box clearance, you actually had that graphite in code, but we tried to update it, make it a little more color, a little more modern graphic that you have there as well. Um, parking lot requirements the same. You actually had that one in code as well. Sight line triangle is one we added in, and that does come up more than you think, especially when you get a fence on a corner lot. Um, we made some edits to required parking minimum spaces. Uh this is one thing that's changed especially in the last decade in our country just because of uh the lack of parking needs because people don't necessarily with shopping or some of even restaurant needs they don't necessarily have the parking requirements they once did. We used to design parking lots really large and such and so updating those to some standards that are more modernized. Um I wouldn't say that we reduced them in all cases but tried to make them more consistent with industry standards and such the like. Not that you had a lot of parking issues prior to it, but again, just trying to modernize it and keep it consistent with today's standards. Additional accessory dwelling units. We did talk about that your work work session a little bit. Uh that was basically just allowing this as an option um for an accessory dwelling unit. Um, I do want to make sure clarify uh the the conditions of approval that went into it really revolved around still keeping these from not being short-term rental situations, but more along the lines of owner occupied owner the owner of the property either has to live in the ADU or live in the per primary residence. And then the ADU is a secondary unit that they can in turn rent out, but they it's more along the lines of somebody where they're right there as well. It doesn't become a corporation that is out of state or something like that that owns a bunch of properties and is renting both ADUs and primary residences. So, it it becomes something that you're going to see more taken advantage of in your community of either a family member that has another family member living in in the same

property, whether in an attached or a detached ADU in the backyard or uh a friend or somebody that they obviously know because they're going to live in close proximity to that person and um they're the ownership on the property. It helps also to keep these properties a little more compliant and um organized and clean if you would because there's a little more um a little more organization in that because the owner of the property lives still within the property area and such. There's also some standards in there regarding utility connections and keeping those connections on one service that not splitting the services up. that makes it so that the properties don't necessarily get split up in the future or requested to be subdivided in the future even to smaller ones because if you have one sewer and water service coming into it that turns into basically a Y for the unit. It's just an it's another um another ability to not have separation of not only services but ownerships and other things in the future. So it's kind of dipping your toe into the water if you would for an accessory dwelling unit to see if it's something in your community. If it's not long-term something that works, it's something you can always take back out of your code. There many communities are starting to do that kind of thing with accessory dwelling unit codes. Uh where they where they dip their toe in and just try it out. So uh we did some general updates for as I mentioned before with state statutes, industry standards, just compliance uh modernizing, making sure that you didn't have anything in your code that was not uh in in non non-conformance with state standards of today. And uh we talked a little bit about uh the west downtown overlay district. The next slide's going to have it. I'll go into it a little more detail. Uh but we talked about that at your November work session as well before we switch the slide. The last one that was talked a little bit about at the public hearing by the planning commissions was sidewalks. Uh you might have had some

discussions in the past about sidewalk requirements. This is for new construction, not street reconstructions, but new construction prop uh developments in commercial, industrial, and residential areas. When and how do you require sidewalks on as far as your subdivision ordinance goes? Uh planning commission came on to the after discussion with a recommendation of both sides of the street for commercial areas unless there's a trail that's obviously in its place. and uh all areas um within two blocks of the downtown to the B1 zoning districts and of course along collector and arterial streets uh for industrial areas one side of the street unless you have a trail in place of the sidewalk and in residential areas to have one side minimum um including culde-sacs and doing both sides when you've got a collector arterial road the more major roads you have in town and that the caveat with that additional sidewalks could be considered. If you've got an area of a park, if you've got a school area, if you've got a situation where you know you've got um routine school activity and buses and coming to a certain corner um that the school district kind of references as part of a new development possibility, then you could you have the ability as city council to have that discretion to require additional sidewalks. But this was one thing that I it was brought up at by the planning commission staff highlighted as well that uh you wanted to get some clarity in the code. So um that's the draft that we came up with talking with planning commission. So the next slide, last one talks [clears throat] a little bit about the west downtown overlay district. And I as like I said, we talked about this in November. Uh but in trying to bring the western portion of downtown here into a an overlay that would distinguish um the B1 central business district or the downtown zoning as permitted uses. And you're going to need to reszone some

properties as you can kind of see in there in the coloration of that yellow area uh to reszone them more to that the pink color. But to allow existing work um allowed it to continue in the operations doing some minor remodeling and other things but red encouraging redevelopment of these sites uh and expansion of these sites to comply with more of the downtown zoning. And so if you have an industrial or if you have a um more highway commercial or even a residential type of use, you're encouraging it to try to convert gradually transition if you would to a downtown type of use uh as you expand that that area going west of downtown. And so you can do that through intermuse permits, through variance proision provisions if you're not fully ready to allow or that that business owner is not ready to make the whole transition. Uh but basically you're kind of putting a cap or a limit upon redevelopment of those sites unless they redevelop more as a downtown specific business and that the uh parking would be similar to to that with your allowances through conditional use or in interim use permits. You've done this with some of those land uses in that area already through interim use permits. Uh, so you'd be allowed to be able to continue that, but it would give the city that um that power to require it when they see a development that needs to convert or through an exception case, you can allow it to continue until it's it's ready to convert. So on that, so that's why that's the whole purpose of an overlay district is to help encourage future development. So with that, that's all I had for you tonight. Um, I can go back to some slides. We can review specific criteria that might have. But, uh, this is the this is your new UDC code and if you've got any questions, we can make some tweaks to it as well. But otherwise, it's uh it's pretty much

ready in its final form that if you have any uh anything else, uh, we can we can consider it though.

Thank you so much. just have a general question more not necessarily about changing anything but just understanding how the PUDs are looked at. Um, and it's really coming because I'm hearing about more communities that are finding that there's more requests for PUDS in certain communities and it's way to avoid uh zoning ordinance or getting the winds of political politics involved in getting things done that don't normally get done. Um, so I was wondering, uh, in our PUD, do we have the ability or do we have the ability to actually, um, uh, define what the, is there a requirement for community benefit for PUD to be done in the wording here? And can we define what that community benefit is before one is approved? Yes, there there is in the peed section there is a um there's a bullet list if you would and I I could have u them pull the code up if you really want to look at it in detail but there's a bullet list of criteria of what what

what the city believes is a PUB benefit and it's it's an open-ended subjective list intentionally so that you as the city council can kind of make that case for it but what it all comes down to is some type of public benefit uh has to be identified for for you to approve it as a PUD, you have to through your resolution of approval and your findings of fact identify some type of increased public benefit that's over and above the standard requirements of the rest of the ordinance code. Um so they can't just say, well, I'm making I'm making lots more marketable in town and they'll sell better than otherwise. [snorts] That's not really it. I mean, that's a good thing in your community. You want to have marketable lots, but you want something that is a community benefit rather than just having more lots available in town. You want to have something that says, um, okay, the park the park requirement that we require in this area is 5 acres, but they're dedicating double that. they're dedicated to 10acre park because you need more of a community park in this area or you um you want to make [snorts] sure that you have a specific type of park feature whether that be a playground or additional other ball fields or something and the cost involved with that is additional cost that the city rather than having to go through their park funding and referendum things to do the developer or somebody can pick up those costs could install those costs as part of that. That's I've seen those as PUB benefits. Um, still it's a public park, but they're coming in and they're partnering with you on how those amenities can be placed. Additional trails, parks and trails are very easily uh tool to use and and identify public benefit over and above for not even just the development, but maybe the region of that area. Um, I've seen it actually go into public works and some of your utility costs,

uh, the the, uh, sewer and water lines that you have running through your community and it runs through this development area. Uh, but the pipe needs to be upsized because it's a larger pipe. Um, generally sometimes there are oversizing costs and the city can some sometimes contributes through those, but you could see it as a PUB benefit if the developer or the applicant puts in those at their cost rather than ask the city to contribute for other public dollars um to increase um sizing of those things. A lift station that needs to go in town, a water booster station that needs to go in town. I've seen even PUB benefits of land that's dedicated for the future for a future public school or a public building um that need that uh is part of an the area of that development and that can be seen as okay that's a public benefit if you're dedicating you're you're basically donating that land for those future improvements. So those are all things you can have as a public benefit. You also can even see it as if it's something of life cycle housing or natural preservation over and above your standard requirements of a wooded area or something like that that otherwise the code could allow removal of some areas but they're preserving it instead. Um it it's again it's open-ended intentionally so that the city can um subjectively look at that and you have the ability through a planning development to say yes or no to it. you're making a zoning change when you're actually putting a PUD in. And so the city has the discretion. Um don't feel like you're forced into just accepting any PUB that that you don't necessarily feel that meets the needs of of of those requirements.

So Bruce, page um 95 on to 96 of the packet is where you're Yeah, I've been looking at that as we he's been talking. I'm trying to listen and read at the same time. No, that's why the only reason I bring it up is because I've heard it from other communities and and it's an issue and I think some of the examples you give are pretty straightforward. The ones that I think might have some hair on it is, [snorts] you know, when you're talking about increasing economic vitality. Well, the old zoning or or the current zoning does that too. So, I mean, one isn't necessarily providing a benefit that the other one doesn't. So there's some things that's are we really just trying to get a deal done or is it really doing what we wanted to do? But

I mean it's somewhat of a negotiation process. You're right. But it's a negotiation for the public benefit of the community is what you're looking at it for and such. Um and PUDs uh allow for a little more creativity in those development plans. That's why uh developers like them um because they can uh they don't feel tied down to a specific this is the lot. It's got to be this shaped. It's got to be that setback. It's got to be whatever. Sometimes they're asking for some even very minor modifications that they have just the way the streets are aligned, they just can't quite meet all the setback standards that they have. And it's not really a major change, but it's a minor thing, but you can still ask for a minor increased public benefit from a community standpoint.

Yeah, I support all that. I the I think it has a a good use. Um, I'm just trying to think of consistency over time that just because we have one planner working this deal that the one five years from now is going to look at it the same way. Is it just, you know? Yeah. Yeah. There's it

flexibility is good, but it also correct doesn't provide consistency sometimes. and you try to you try to look back and and point to the consistent pasts that have been approved in a community to kind of give uh future developments um an example of what you're looking for from a council perspective, what staff kind of looks at when they're doing their reviews. Um but I agree that consistency can be a little bit harder when you're doing more customization of zoning regulations. That's for sure.

And ultimately, it is a city council to make that final determination. And I think I would hope a lot of that could be weeded out at the concept review stage for a PUD to basically not have staff go too far off one direction and have that early discussion to make sure especially early on because we we've had PUDS before, but we've basically had no public benefit of as a tradeoff. So I think uh this is a little bit of a new territory. I think it will be a good tradeoff and we will get some good benefits out of it subject to council approval and review. So affordable housing isn't necessarily qualify as a benefit underneath this.

Not necessarily. You could make it that such. I mean, I think there is a criteria in there again when you're talking about housing styles, life cycle housing or other there there's some subjective things in there that you could uh identify affordable housing as such. Uh if it was a a criteria that they were offering for that and specifically you felt that it was um satisfying a comp plan or some one of your goals and policies that you needed in your community, you can identify that as a public value. Thank you,

John. Yeah, Jeeoff, I got a quick question. Um, uh, on the accessory dwelling units, is there a minimum or maximum size based on the size of a lot, let's say, because I could see problems on either side of that where do we do we need to put that

and Ken might look it up for me while he's got it in front of him and stuff, but I there is there is um there's a it's at least there definitely is a maximum side council Ryan about um the especially when it comes to detached um similar to you would have for any other accessory structures that you have for, you know, shed size or other things like that. So that um it there was there was a maximum size that we identified and we tried to keep it consistent with the overall accessory structures so that if you had a and again I'm talking detached as far as an attached unit if it was like in the basement or a wing of the house or something along those lines um then it more or less is part of the um the overall unit of the primary structure you know and the setbacks the primary structure has to

So real quick Sean um the limit on detach as Jeff noted is 1,64 square ft uh or the area of the principal structure, whichever is smaller. So, it can never exceed the size of the principal home on that lot. Okay. Is there ever a scenario or do we need to address um if somebody wanted to attach to the house and eat up 80% of their available lot space? I mean, so it would just be a huge So, there'd be very little green space. I mean, do you ever foresee something that we need to have?

I'll address that real quickly, Sean. So, as we become an MS4 um storm water city, we will have a storm water management plan update and a bunch of impervious surface requirements that we don't have now. So, that will probably be the overriding. Jeeoff, I know you've dealt with this in other community uh that you worked in specifically um and probably could talk about that at length, how that does affect that. Um, so I think that would be more limiting. I guess I've never experienced it here because we haven't had that. But

yeah, between setback building setbacks from property lines and impervious surfaces, Ken just mentioned, those usually provide enough limiting factors that you don't have somebody that can they couldn't take up 80% of the lot if they could if they wanted to because you would have other parameters. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? If not, Ken, I guess are we looking for the first reading?

We are looking for a first reading and introduction, which is called for by our code. Um, if you were to consider this a first reading, we do have to uh post in the hallway and on our website the uh full ordinance and a notice that we had the first reading and obviously we can have uh more possible discussion and input at uh the next meeting if you want to have the second reading done at that uh March 16th [snorts] meeting or if you want to schedule it for a different date. But yes, this would be what we're hoping to get the first reading uh taken care of tonight here. Okay. Any other questions?

I guess I'll make a motion to uh approve the first reading of ordinance number 359, the UDC. I'll second. Okay. I got a motion by Chuck Nikolai, second by Maggie Bass. Any other questions? If not, all in favor say I. I. I. Any opposition? Okay. Passes 40. Now, do we want to have the second reading at the next meeting?

Seems like we spent a lot of time on it. I can't think of any why we wouldn't I can't foresee any changes unless we get some feedback from once we post the first reading if we hear something from the community or Okay. So Josh, I guess put that on the Yeah, generally we will usually it's the next meeting. The only reason why we may not is because if we have some changes as Sean said or for some reason um some ordinances if they have a public hearing required with them, which this one doesn't as far as I understand because we had it with planning commission, but that may then come on second reading and may bump it just due to timing. But I think our plan was to have it at the next meeting. Correct. The second reading.

Yes. If if uh that's the constant desire, we are ready for that. I I just have one quick question though before we do that. So if for some reason we six months down the road find that there was something that maybe the council doesn't agree with. We can theoretically change that rate then we don't have anytime you could be one month in. You could be a weekend and go we didn't like that. Yeah. We can amend it right away. Yeah. This I mean this is just the new zoning code. So anytime I would expect zoning changes to happen yearly as they did with our last code as new stuff comes up or there's different desires in the community. We can change anything whenever we just have to go through the reading process with the two readings like we're doing now. Okay. So I was just worried maybe and a hearing at the planning commission too.

Okay. All right. Okay. Next. Do we had ordinances or adoption? We had none. So we're on item number 10. Thanks Jeff. Thank you. Thank you. resolutions. Uh, can I assume you're going to take the first one? I do. Matt, if you could pop up my screen again here.

We got All right. So from our planning commission meeting last week, we had variance V1 2026, which is regarding landscaping at the uh lots four and five in the New uh business park 11th edition, which are the final two lots that uh the city um has actually approved the lot sale for in the industrial park. The applicant is Aventus Investments LLC. Um again they're requesting a variance for the reduction in the landscaping requirements particularly along the frontage of Sixth Street Northwest as well as allowing some landscaping within um a couple of different easements uh on that lot. And we'll get into the details of where those are. Um so what they're proposing once again as the council recall uh is to build a 50,000 square foot multi-tenant building in the industrial park on those two lots. Council had previously approved the lot sale and um had also included uh the accommodation and vacation of a danger utility easement as part of that. Um what they are requesting a variance from specifically is to have a less than 40 foot spacing for the frontage along Sixth Street for those trees. That was actually one of the items that Jeff pointed out in our UDC code that is carrying over um that we had uh I think we made that a requirement about a year and a half ago. Um specifically they want to keep the frontage of that uh main part of the building more visible from the public street. They have uh noted specifically that they provided uh additional landscaping islands in front of the building, additional landscaping directly adjacent to the building. And then additionally um will have landscaping plantings roughly 60 feet apart versus 40t along that frontage and with some smaller shorter trees again to keep that visibility open for the multiple tenants

that they're anticipating within that area. uh which is in uh kind of a a differing type uh development than what you see in other buildings out there that are single tenant. So trying to keep that visibility open but recognizing the enhanced uh design uh that the EDA did require for the building as well. So again the planning commission did have a um meeting to review this uh last week at their meeting and recommended approval four to zero to recommend the approval of that. So again, the lots are highlighted in the yellow in the industrial park bricks boat works directly to the west and then to the east side which doesn't show up on the uh air photo is Bevcom is they recently went through a condition use permit and review uh for their building for some exterior storage as well. Uh moving along to the landscaping plan, you see they have extensive landscaping. and they are meeting the um spacing requirements everywhere on the lot except for that front of Jalong um Sixth Street what they're proposing it to be uh up to about 60 ft in the spacing and then with some little shorter varieties and uh we do have a 3D rendering that we will show you here in a minute to to show you how that will look um with the enhanced plantings and the enhanced building uh elevation exterior as well. Um, one thing to also point out, and I'll I'll point it out here. I'll go back actually. Uh, some of the trees along that uh, west property line along 8th Avenue Northwest are about 3 feet within the easement along that lot line. Um, New Utility Commission uh, general manager Bruce Rhymer noted that there still is about 7 feet between where those trees will be planted and the sidewalk along 8th Avenue. And considering that he said they uh typically now do underground boring uh for any of their utility lines, he did not see that being any issue at all. Um

and then additionally the uh north end of the site has um a city storm water pipe. They will be straddling and I say straddling loosely but uh basically having some trees on the south side and some trees on the north side of that drainage utility easement. And we did add a condition uh for approval that any damage that the roots would cause to any underground uh drain tile or any underground utility and the maintenance and removal thereof are the responsibility of the property owner and they accepted that as a uh viable set of conditions for approval of the variance. So again, city staff and um the city engineer and city staff reviewed and uh added those four conditions that I just mentioned uh as part of that recommendation. And this is a uh visual. This would be kind of from the southwest corner of the building looking to the northeast. Uh they added these um kind of these little patio uh landscaping islands uh that are over and above what the ordinance would require. Um kind of move along. Here's along Sixth Street Northwest. Uh you can see the shorter and more spaced apart landscaping along the perimeter there with a little more decorative variety of trees rather than your typical overstory trees. Uh again, um the building is an enhanced appearance with uh would actually meet our new uh I1 design guidelines uh with uh enhanced entrance uh canopies, uh windows, doors, and varying uh color of building materials. Uh just a look at the site overall right now today, it's just a cornfield. Uh nothing else to note out there, but this is kind of the the view with uh Bevcom on the right side of the picture and bricks on the left side of the picture there. And then finally, one other thing that the city engineer wanted to note was the city does still need to install

the future trail along Sixth Street Northwest and wanted to make sure we got a grading plan from them for the building and site that would accommodate that trail. And this does prove that that does fit that requirement and we can get that trail end with their grading. So again, um that staff uh and uh everybody recommended that with on the planning commission with a 4 to zero vote and uh we would look to have this be contingent uh to be filed uh upon the approval of the sale and the closing of the lot. So if that didn't move forward, we will not, you know, obviously ratify uh this at the county level getting it recorded. So um this would just be for this building and for this project. So with that, I just put up the site plan and building elevation from Sixth Street if you have any questions or comments. I don't think we have anybody from the applicant here tonight, but uh he did have an applicant uh representative at the planning commission meeting and uh they were able to answer some of the questions the planning commission had. So stand for questions.

Any questions? Um I just have a general question, Ken, about I I don't know that we normally have had uh actual uh language for reimbursement of um landscaping and easements. I think this is somewhat new. Yep. Um, so then I'm wondering is do we have enough teeth is there teeth in this to actually get money out of this 10 years from now if there's actually a a substantial tree and

yeah so typically in any easement it's kind of a grant to the public uh for that specific use or the utility companies in this case for drainage utility easement um talking to the city attorney we do have obviously have it added as a condition in the variance which is recorded at the county that puts every property property owner on notice of that. Yes, you can get into legal discussion on, you know, obviously collecting on a particular project, but yes, we do believe we could uh take that forward and and you know, claim that we uh so collecting it, I guess, is my main focus. So, is it a lean that

Yeah, like a service charge. So, as we kind of talked uh earlier tonight, it would be ultimately a service charge that we could uh put towards the property owner at that time. I mean they've obviously already been put on notice by the the variance resolution that would be recorded. So the l this particular language has been reviewed by legal or is this okay? Yes. That that it really makes it a collectible item. Correct. Yep. Just as a service charge as we have under city code um currently. Okay. Any other questions? Okay. I guess I'll look for a motion to approve the variance. So moved. Okay. Second.

Okay. I got a motion by Bruce Wolf, second by Sean Ryan to um approve the variance uh number CC-26-3-2-1. Number variance 1-2026. So if there's no other questions, comments, all in favor say I. I. I. Any opposition? Okay. Passes 40. Thank you. Robin, I assume you're taking all the other ones or is Josh? Go ahead, Robin. I think I think it sounds like fun. We'll go for it. Okay. Um, so let's see. Let me get my memo up here.

Um, last week we had our auditors on site and remotely um, [snorts] preparing year-end work for 2025. Um, so along with that came the proposal of some account closures um, which which wasn't foreign to us. um we had predicted them coming and um I believe had brought them up at um some budget meetings and such. So, we have five accounts tonight that we're proposing to be closed. Um fund 227, which was our rental account. Um we no longer have a a rental account. Um the previous funding stream was um for the building that was where the police station is um being erected now. So, um, we would propose that that remaining amount, the surplus, $47,21,752 be transferred to the general fund as of 12312025.

Do we still have a rental account for the land uh up on the hill? So, that goes just to the general fund. Okay. That's just like an annual lease agreement. Gotcha. Thank you.

Yep. Um and then we have fund 395 which was a 2009 street reconstruction project. That fund has a surplus of 17,362 and86. Um we had the last debt service payments in 2025. So that's the remaining balance um upon that debt fund closure and we'd propose that that be transferred to the general projects fund fund 499. then fund 418 2020 main street capital improvement project. Um so that's the actual project fund whereas like that 300 series that I just spoke about previously is our debt service fund. So this was just for um project funds while the project was going on. Um so that account has a negative balance of 236,8780. Um so that's made up of change orders. um and expenses related to quantity changes when that project was going on. Um so there was over 30 change orders for that project. So um that fund would also be proposed to close to the general projects fund $4.99. Um and I guess I will state we do still have debt on that project, but because it's a negative balance, we can't force this balance to that debt project. Fund 421 um was total reconstruction of Main Street and that has a surplus balance of 347,000 [clears throat] 210 and 9 cents. Um so since there's still principal and interest payments remaining and it's a positive balance that can go to the corresponding debt service fund. So we're proposing that that would go to fund 321 to offset uh

future debt for that project. And then finally, fund 472 is the 11th Avenue project. That account had its final debt service payment in 2022 and there's a surplus balance of 164,35.89 and we would propose that that be transferred to the general projects fund $4.99. So, we have um five following uh resolutions for each fund. Um basically restating what I just did with the amount and the proposed fund that it would be going to.

So then the fund $499 is going to get hit with a $55,000 credit, right? Correct. Yep. Okay. A credit Well, a negative balance because of the 236. It had a It had a negative 236 but also a positive 164, right? And another small amount I think.

But Bruce, I saw your face. So I know um about 418 and why we're transferring it to the general projects fund. We we'd asked the auditors at that point and it was basically because the debt service fund is set up on a certain amount by moving a negative amount to it. The debt service fund may not have been set up to be able to appropriately handle a $236,000 loss. And so that's why we can't transfer that one directly to the debt service fund like you could a positive amount that you would then offset future levies for that debt service. So what created the the the 347 the 347,000 what created that a main the main street account?

Yeah. So I I would have to break down exactly what that main street account paid out to. I guess why didn't they offset each other? I I guess it's confusing to me why there were two separate funds um based on the years that the debt was issued um and that the construction projects were going on and I don't know I I guess maybe Matt wants to speak to the different years of what was happening with those projects or they're different projects. They're different projects.

I'm sorry. Yeah. Okay. Well, that makes sense then. But then I guess I a little confusion. Why they aren't reconciled? I'm I'm just surprised we have a negative 236,000 that wasn't anticipated through anticipated. Yes. As when the project was done, it was a state project. It I think that one was anyway.

Yeah. So, if I like looking because we we dug back into it ultimately for that Main Street project, we had over $700,000 worth of change orders if I remember right. um to which there was likeund 190 or 180 actually like like the city portion. Yeah. So the city the state took care of the rest of that bump and change orders. We had about 190,000 just in our section of that. Correct. And then the remaining 40 on that was just quantity changes. So if we thought that there were four if we thought there were 50 manholes but there needed to be 55 manholes, we do have to pay for those five extra manholes. No, I totally get that. I just, you know, in the process before the bond was issued, we didn't catch that. Yeah. Yeah.

It wasn't included in the bond and it got hung out. Correct. Yeah. That's kind of surprising to me. And yeah, like I said, I think that comes from a lot of change orders. Like as we were digging up Main Street, we were finding stuff 100 years old that we didn't even know was down there. And that's Yeah. just I think a lot of those change orders came through as we were especially coming through the old part of downtown here um of and talking to Matt became a professional on change orders that summer basically presenting to every single meeting at that point but and that was done in 2020 21 um 2021 20 and 21 I think that was a two-year project

I guess I don't remember the council addressing that we had overage that wasn't covered. I don't remember that being discussed, but yeah, that would have been my time. We did look back um just at the different change orders being approved. So, there's council minutes, you know, along the way of the change orders being acknowledged um so we could get that listing. But at the time, everything was running through council. I'm not sure how it was presented for a running balance or a running total, right? account running in deficit. But I could understand certainly if the council were was presented that and they approved it and totally made sense and it certainly acknowledged that way. But

somewhere along the line it's it's there. Everybody knows about it. So it should be dealt with in a more timely manner I guess would be my critique of it. Right. Shouldn't it you think? [snorts] I would anticipate that along the way. Yes. like current projects that we have going on or future projects that we would know, you know, as pay apps were coming in or change orders that we would be [clears throat] over budget or not have enough bond proceeds. That's all I got. Is there any funds right now that you can think of that have a negative balance?

I don't believe so. And even talking with Matt, I think the last few years we've actually had excess funds. So they've we've over because usually you'll build a little cushion into your bond just in case. And yeah, usually we end up having a little bit over and I mean you saw that in uh what was it the uh 70 was it 72 right there? Yeah. Yeah. Where we then just we have that excess we move it to the debt service fund. That way we don't have to levy quite as much to pay the debt service off. So that's usually the case. I think the main street one was just kind of an outlier on us here. But yeah, as of right now we don't have any others that we know of and last few years have all been positive. Okay. Any other questions? Okay. I guess we're going to have to do these individually. Um, so I guess I'll make a motion to approve uh number CC-26-3-2-2, which is the uh transfer of the CIP 2000 fund 395 going into 499.

I'll second. Yes. Second by Maggie Bass. Any questions? All in favor say I. I. Any opposition? Okay. [clears throat] I guess I'll also make a motion to approve number CC-26-30-2-3 transferring the fund 421 to fund 321. Second. We got a second by Bruce Wolf. There's no other questions. All in favor say I. I. I. I.

I'm on a roll right now. So I'll do the next one. Number CC-26-03-2-04. Um taking it out of um the fund uh 472 into fund 499. I'll second. Got a second by Maggie Bass. There's no other questions. All in favor say I. I. I. Any opposition? Okay. I'll make a motion to approve number CC-26-3-2-05. Taking fund 418, the negative balance into fund 499. Second.

Second by Bruce Wolf. There's no other questions. All in favor say I. I. I. Any opposition? Okay. Passes 40. And finally, I'll make a motion for number CC-26-3-2-06, taking it out of uh fund 227 into the general fund of 101. I'll second. Second by Maggie Bass. If there's no other questions, all in favor say I. I. Any opposition? Okay. Passes for zero. Thank you, Robin. Next, general business. the first amendment developers agreement for Turk Estates. Ken, I assume.

Yep. So, we're going to go back in the time machine again to 2008 here, the second time tonight. Um, we had a developer agreement for Turk Estates. Um, give a little background on why we have a development agreement for land outside of city limits. Um, city does have extr territorial subdivision review authority. Um, at the time in 2008, it was a full two miles. Now it's uh split between us and H Highleberg as they have done the same. Uh but we do review subdivisions within uh that uh area within our future growth area of the city. So long story short, um there were five lots created in that uh rural subdivision. the city uh Lansburg Township and the developer Janet Turk at the time uh entered into a development agreement and the township had uh basically given an exception to requiring a township road uh to be installed as long as four of the lots which are adjacent to Miss Turk uh on her uh existing home site as long as those remained in the family they said okay uh we won't need that road to meet uh full township standard being paved and everything. Um, and I think it was within the first year um, one of the uh, children of uh, Miss Turk and in meeting with the development agreement criteria that it stay within the family um, wanted to share the driveway that Miss Turk already had on her home. So, they went to the county, got approval for a uh shared driveway that was granted, and they built a home. And since that time in 2009, Miss Turk's home and one home has been within this development. Fast forward to about a month and a half ago. Um, this uh child of Miss Turk indicated that they wanted to sell and it would go to a

non uh immediate family member as outlined in the development agreement. And uh talking with um Lansburg Township and the county uh we all agreed that we would need to amend the development agreement uh with concurrence obviously uh for the township specifically because it was be their road. um if they would be willing to provide an exception uh for this existing home to remain along with u Miss Turk's home, the developer to remain on that shared driveway as long as there wasn't any other homes built. So kind of keep the status quo just would allow ownership outside of the family. It's a very convoluted um thing. I don't know why the family uh membership was such a critical component to the township and kind of providing that exception, but it was um I did attend along with planner Gary the uh Lansburg Township meeting on February 9th, explained the desire for this new property owner to basically continue to use that shared driveway and explain that we would need to amend the joint developer agreement between the city and the township. and uh they agreed that as long as no new homes were getting built that existing driveway could be continued to be used as long as there was a maintenance agreement in place or uh this new owner would take care of the driveway. So, um, what we have in front of you tonight is a first amendment to the developers agreement for Turk states that would, uh, delete that street section requirement. Uh, basically with new language that says until any new homes are built, um, they can continue to use that shared driveway between the two property owners with that uh, maintenance agreement in place. So, um, ultimately ended up being a simple solution to that. um if any other new homes are built, the township is not

okay with that driveway being shared and they would have to put in a township um spec road um to any uh of those new homes in that area. So that is what we have in front of you tonight. We would expect if you approve tonight to be back at the township um at their meeting next Monday and uh get the amendment wrapped up and uh of record. So in the future they would require a frontage road.

Basically there was platted right ofway. Um if you look at that first map on the pack uh uh excuse me on the memo there is a uh platted rideway. You can just see the dark lines on there and there's no improved road in there. That is where the township wanted the road and it actually fits with um the city's future uh roadway extension of uh alignment with 11th Avenue as it comes down from Raven Stream Village. So, um, yes, it would have to be in that location at that time. I don't think anybody, even if one home was, it' be very expensive for that, uh, road to go in, but that is what the township uh, is is saying they would want to have happen. And since it's their road, um I don't think uh we have any uh issue with that particularly because any road that they would require to be built would be to a standard that would uh still need to be upgraded uh when it becomes a city road some future date down the road anyway. So it's really a township road issue. Okay, any other questions? So they can't sell three and four until a road is done.

They could sell them. They just can't build a new home. They can't get access to it. Yeah. Because they wouldn't have access basically if

I mean they can they can if they build the road. So like the argument they tried to make was well then why did we plat these roads? It's like well the development agreement allows you to use them. You just have to put the township road in. They chose not to back in 2008 uh 2009 to put that in and obviously things have gotten a lot more expensive. So interesting. [sighs] Any other questions? If not, I guess I'll look for a motion to approve the first amendment to the developers agreement for Turk Estates. Uh so moved.

Okay. And a motion by Maggie Bass. I will second by Sean Ryan. There's no other questions. All in favor say I. I. I. Any opposition? Okay. Passes 40. Future of city hall. Josh, I assume you're taking this one. Yeah. Unless you want to.

No. So, as part of the facility study done in 23, one of the recommendations was just to begin planning for the future of city hall. And so while obviously nothing's probably in the very near term or even like midterm, I do think it's a conversation that should start to be had um mostly because of kind of where we are currently at. So kind of the options that I see as city hall are I mean the first option is we could do nothing but even that certainly comes with a cost within the facility stud or within the facility study old architect estimated there may be as much as um 1.8 86 million or higher of just maintenance costs that we may need to do on city hall just to keep the the building operating as is. Um things from HVAC, replacing windows, refreshing carpets, um doing a tuck point on the exterior bricks of the building. Um and replacing the aging roof. Um, and so ju just kind of keeping that in the back of your mind that there are certainly issues that we have with our current city hall building regardless of what what may happen in the future. I know coming out of it too, there have been kind of comments made over the last year of we should certainly just start having the conversation even if nothing's planned to be happening in the next 5 to 10 years so that we know especially with um the police portion of the building being vacated like how much money do we potentially want to put in are we planning on staying here long term? Are we plan on going else long term? because that would certainly dictate I think as to how much money we put in to the short term of this building as to be worth it. And so kind of within the memo I guess I also kind of laid out various options from renovating city hall in in very small amounts um to keeping city hall in this location but doing what I would consider to be a full renovation job. Um, WS went so far as to um kind of

imagine regutting or gutting this building, moving city council chambers down to the first floor. Um, opening this space up for more of a large community type room and then building new staff area kind of where the police station now stands, knocking all that down and building staff area to the west. um if you wanted to go the full-on uh renovation um while keeping the historic portion of city hall here and uh starting over with the less historic portion um all the way to the options of of a brand new city hall and I um like I'd mentioned in there in the memo I mean there's been conversations of I know in the past there was a brief look at well what happens if we team up with say to the CDA and put apartments over city hall I mentioned in here at one point When uh uh former mayor Jerk and I were talking about the golf course, I just spitballled the idea, well, what if you do a city hall golf course? We knocked both of those out in one stone and um there's still parts of me that are surprised that no one gets hit in that parking lot as people drive through. So fixing that problem as well. But I think at this point with there being no immediate plans like there's really all the cards on the table and just start kind of having that conversation of um in the future where do we see this potentially going so that way we can start making moves in the existing city hall um andor planning for that future um now. So that way we've got some time to roll this ball a little bit before anything actually um gets moving on the ground if that makes sense. And so I'm not looking obviously for any decisions tonight since we're not doing anything. It's more open to the conversations and just to get your brains ticking a little bit as to um what could be like I said there are certainly maintenance issues around

here. I know that um Matt did go out and try to get a few quotes for potential things to bring back to you guys and he was running into kind of some brick walls because for the size of the tuck pointing job, are we tuck pointing all of it? Are we just tuck pointing the historic portion and we're kind of crossing our fingers with the older portion because maybe we see us getting rid of that. Same conversation goes with windows or um and yeah, some of that just even estimating for say the amount of windows that we'd potentially be replacing and the quantity. Um I I think he was running into a little bit of roadblocks a little bit just for like is this something serious that the city's wanting to do or is this just you guys are fishing for dollar amounts at this point because that's two very different estimates. So, I guess like I said, I'm just trying to get the get the conversation starting to be had. So, that way maybe if we do decide we're going to be here in this building long term, we can start thinking about, okay, well, maybe new city hall wouldn't come for 10, 15 years, but we know we're going to replace windows. So, we can just get on that now um and not have to worry about that at that point. And we can we can peacemeal stuff like tuck pointing or windows or roof, that sort of thing. Um, so

is there a problem with the windows? I mean, are they leaking? Is there frost on them? Is there I I would have to go back. I did include the presentation in there and I admittedly I kind of skimmed through it [clears throat] again to see exactly what the problem was with the windows. I do know such as you go down to the community development office, we've had to do some work around some of those windows because I think we rotted rotting and leaking out. Um, and so yeah, I mean I think as as you go around, some of the windows are in much rougher shape than others. Um, so they're single pane, right? I thought the report said they were single pane in the city hall. Might be. Yeah, I think they are. Historic. Yeah, I think is the word you're looking for. Vintage.

Yeah. So, when the police station is done and and Tim's people all go, what is going to be over there? I mean, besides where the police station is, is the garage is still being utilized for stuff, storage or something? I I I I believe at this point, I mean, the police are fully moving over there. The plan is not to have anything over here. Right. But I'm do we have other like parks equipment or or is there stuff other in the other towards the, you know, the west end of that big garage area?

So, I think that big garage area houses overflow police cars at the moment. also houses some of the city hall cars, the inspector cars, that sort of thing. And I think that's kind of what is housed down there. Now, obviously all those could get moved up into this garage because I know even in the shorter term, um, there was discussion about was the parks portion of that garage even needed because there I think there are certain maintenance issues with there that have been going on for years that we've just been patching basically. Um, so that would um, yeah, I think I mean that's a whole another conversation that we have not fully fleshed out as to how we would utilize the police space in the short term. Uh I know at this point even without moving any walls we are certainly in need of at least one more conference room because we have the one and like when voting isn't happening then we are down to no conference room and so even some sort of table situation in that large police open area I think would in the short term would bandate us there but um in a little bit longer term do we Matt has been very good about finding employees who have skills outside of their day jobs here. Um, and so we have utilized them in a lot of interior renovations like when we officed off the conference room and kind of redid the break room a little bit. And so that may even be year or two down the road, can we move some walls around in there to make that space work more for us?

And I thought there was some discussion about that whole garage, the parks garage of just demolishing it, right? I guess from from my point of view and my memory and why I supported the purchase of the park building and that was that that was discussed with old that the cost of redoing that uh roof on [clears throat] that particular building and trying to get that up to speed is not worth it and that would be once we bought the first two uh priorities was police and park once we have those things then the next step would be demolish that building. Yes, that that is No, unless there was some misinformation that that was not a situation that the condition

I I don't think there was any misinformation. I think the question is is that something we're actually going to do? Because even internally, the question's been asked. You know, we haven't got an exact quote on what it would be to knock that down. If it's $50,000, is it something that needs to happen now or can the building just kind of sit there unused for a couple years and not spend that 50 grand immediately type of situation. So yeah, I I remember it being as soon as we feel the roof is in such bad shape, okay, that we're not going to spend the extra B. I mean, that's the point where it's not worth putting any money into it. That's my memory of it unless something is I I hope that you're still going along those lines because and yeah,

a lot of decisions based on that. No, sticking the money into it. So, no, I mean that's fair, but like I said, like when you when it comes to windows or tuck pointing or roof, like are we including this older police station as part of that or is like I said, or is that become a a future of you know what, maybe we see in 10 years that even that portion of the building gets demolished? Is it worth then tuck pointing or roofing right that portion? So, I think the building that we're in right now, I think uh historical society would probably fight us in the sense of that it's to demolish this building, but I don't know. I mean, that's but but but I know along those

certainly has some historic significance, but I know along those lines that have been demolished. Yeah. And along those lines, Chuck, like I said, even W kind of recommended that if we do something on this site that at least this old twotory portion remain, right? That there's there's value here just in the building itself and the age of the building. The they did not feel that same value existed on the other side of that wall right there. And I agree with that. Okay. You mean the police section? Yeah. So, yeah, starting with this wall right here, there's the level the one is one of the issues is the levels. Yeah, basically every 30 ft you got to go down five more steps. And

um yeah, for some reason some a renovation happened over there. We would basically renovate in a way that we'd eliminate that amount of steps, I think, all the way going all the way down. But right,

so yeah, like I said, and I'll continue working with Matt. I know coming out of this though, um we are we certainly want to look at, you know, if we have these HVAC issues, um I know we just replaced one of them here not long ago. Correct, Matt. Um, we have these roof issues. We have windows in areas of the building that are kind of rotting out or leaking. Um, certainly when we wanted to start the conversation so that you guys were aware that we were kind of working here in the background trying to figure out how to both short-term, medium-term, long-term figuring out what we're doing with this building so that we're not throwing money at nothing, but at the same time making the building still usable for staff while we're here. I mean from my point of view it would be interesting for you to make another assessment not so much about the storage area because to me that that's already been decided a long time ago but the police part of it is there any value to that or is the cost of making it an office type space without the leveling issues prohibitive and we should not consider the future use of that in some way or is there value that we should include that and then start getting estimates on windows and other things.

Okay. But that's how my interest would be in it. Just look at that again. Okay. It was in the original W study. Some of the things to me kind of got put together with city hall police because we did have a lot of integrated things. Mhm. So now that it's not, it'd be nice to make sure that the needs that we identified back then, are they still the same needs for city hall, you know?

Okay. Yeah. I mean, I know a lot of those numbers um Yeah. I mean, we looked that they provided a lot of their work in some of those older studies, iterations, and presentations. Wol did. I mean, we can look back through those, right? Because some of the alternatives included a police city building together. Correct. Okay. Any other any other thoughts, I guess, at this point? Let's just move slow this time because last time we had had something brought up, it was we broke ground like eight months later or seven months later. So, when I saw this on the uh agenda right away, I was worried the blood pressure went up. Yeah.

So, no. I mean, and like I said that Sean, I'd like to just play for the $11 million police station first for a while. No, that's start building another one. No, that's where honestly my professional recommendation. I don't see us making major major renovations for seven to 10 years. Like it's going to be out there a little ways. I think I'm going to hold you to that then. [laughter]

Again, I'm not a voting member. I just have a professional opinion. That being said, that's why I kind of want to start the conversation because there are those smaller things. when when are we gonna be ready to knock down the park garage? Um, knowing that that's coming, starting to kind of maybe put a couple dollars towards that so that way it's just taken care of when the time comes. The windows that are potentially rotting out or down here, we've got this continual issue in the police garage that either Tim hits that building every single time he comes in every morning or something is falling apart down there because it feels like we're constantly fixing um between one of the garage doors. Well, at least we'll solve that problem when he's not driving in there anymore.

There's certainly things that we can look at deferred maintenance, but when you describe it as wood rotting out, that's not a that's something that needs I'm not sure if you're being kind of inflammatory about your description there, but No, I'm not. If we have wood being currently rotting, we need to fix it. Is this just additional be stick your hand down the window that I used to sit by and we've just patched it and yeah there's water intrusion from tuckpointing needing to be done. So well to me I think that's I mean are we are we making it worse for the residents by having to pay more later than maintaining it?

No one's saying that we're going to leave this facility in two years. So, not sure what our break even point is here, but tuck pointing if it's that serious should be looked at sooner. We've we've brought that up in the past a few times. I guess I haven't seen any recent bids or anything on that, but No, I mean, I think certainly we haven't it hasn't been brought back like that um since the facility study was done. And I know a quote was gotten what five, six years ago you guys got one.

Um I guess I that was before my time. I can't speak. Maybe it maybe it never left staff at that point of what what the actual quote was. Um but yeah, we can certainly try to dig into some of those certainly like I said the needs that we have going on um and start having those conversations as to trying to get some of that maintained to keep the building functional.

Okay. Because I know at one time we talked, okay, when the police station people are gone and that stuff and you know like some of those county or townships like Helena and that are using the fire station right now, you know, is that the best use of it? you know, can we give them codes and have them say, "Okay, you can utilize this uh conference room in the police station to for their meetings rather than um the fire station." Even though Steve Rendo says uh it's not really a burden, but I'm sure it's not, you know, what's wrong with council chambers? This is a nice room. We put tables together,

right? But they wanted to kind of have their keep their stuff there and things like that. So, but yeah, like yeah, to to Chuck's point, like there will be rooms down there that will likely go almost unused. I know we've we've got a parks room that we use down there, but the police kind of have a conference room. It's kind of tucked about three sets of stairs down when you get down there that Yeah. something like that that we would as staff would probably have hardly ever touch that we could Yeah. open up to other government agencies that may be utilizing other city facilities at this point. Okay, sounds good. Now we're at miscellaneous. Um Bruce, anything you'd like to bring up? No. Maggie? No. John?

No. I don't have anything. Um Josh, you have anything? No, sir. Robin, Ken? No. Kim, Matt, Brian, Patrick, are you still with us? All right. Okay. If not, I guess I'll make a motion to adjurnn. Second. Second by Sean Ryan. All in favor of adjournment, say I. I. I. Any opposition? Okay, we're out of here. Thank you everyone for the long evening.