[0:00] Mayor Huber: to our Pledge of Allegiance [0:07] Mayor Huber: please I PL Al to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liy and Justice all thank you we've all had a chance to take a look at the regular agenda do I have a motion to approve same [0:34] Lindsay Cremona: I'll make that motion [0:36] John Rog: thank you second [0:38] Kristina Handt: all those in favor or Kim sorry council member Carr hi council member rag hi council member Geer hi council member corette hi mayor Huber hi thank you Kim we've all had a chance for the last uh six days to look at the consent agenda and our bill list uh if there's no questions do I have a motion to approve said agenda [0:54] Mayor Huber: Mr Geer makes a motion do I have a second [1:15] John Rog: I'll second [1:18] Kristina Handt: member Carr hi council member rag hi council member Geer hi council member cornette hi mayor Huber hi [1:27] Mayor Huber: thank you very much I believe First up is our City attorney Nick Vivian if I'm not mistaken do we have him [1:33] Nick Vivian: I'm here Mr Mayor oh hi Nick recording in progress good evening go ahead nick uh thank you mayor and Council on your agenda tonight under my uh items and reports is a public hearing uh that relates to the property located at 9250 Delwood Road North uh this relates to an abatement a tax abatement um and dates all the way back uh to 2019 um prior to our firm becoming re-engaged by the uh by the city uh there was an assessment a project affecting Delwood Road uh for which the owner of 9250 Delwood Road North appealed uh his assessment and this wound its way through the district court up to the court of appeals back to the district court um and it was determined that based on that some of the characteristics of the land that the city was not authorized to assess uh this particular uh property uh for the the project the original assessment uh was in the amount of 22447 $44 uh of that amount approximately 44 um and furthermore to reimburse the property owner for uh the greater of [Music] 962245051 upon the resolution that is in your packet uh provided that the council approves a resolution uh the administrator clerk uh will then forward this uh executed resolution to the county and the abatement process will be completed um and funds will be remitted back to the the property owner uh so Mr Mayor I would ask that the council move forward with the public hearing at this point [3:55] Mayor Huber: all right thank you very much Nick I'll need a motion to open a public hearing please [3:59] Jeff Giefer: motion to open public hearing [4:01] John Rog: thank you do I have a second I'll second Tom [4:04] Kristina Handt: council member car hi council member Rock hi council member deer hi council member cornette hi mayor Huber I [4:14] Mayor Huber: uh to open up our public hearing anyone who would like to speak on the consideration of resolution 20246 please step up to the microphone sign in if you would please and let us know what's on your mind public hearing going once twice and three times do I have a motion to close the public hearing please [4:25] Jeff Giefer: motion to close public hearing [4:27] Ben Cornett: second [4:28] Kristina Handt: second council member car I council member rug hi council member Geer hi council member cornette hi mayor Huber I [4:43] Mayor Huber: Nick do we have an opportunity to discuss this for a moment or do you need an immediate motion and it's not to be discussed by the council at this point [4:51] Nick Vivian: no it's it's certainly available for discussion by the council if you'd like Mr Mayor [5:00] Mayor Huber: okay very good I want to make a couple of things real clear about the abatement on this this uh got batted back and forth in the courts as Nick has already explained as a result of an agreement that was made well before anyone sat at this Council table well before years and years and years the agreement that the former uh City at at that time most likely a Township uh made with this land owner was not something we would do at this point uh we have been assured by legal staff that no more of these types of agreements uh existing Grant and this will be the last time that we'll be considering an abatement of this type based on the lack of those agreements to be found in the city so uh there could be some some serious questions on this but I will say it had nothing to do with anyone sitting at this table we're simply honoring uh what the courts have ordered us to do in this case as a result of former Council people or former Township uh Township chairs so at uh that point looking for a resolution unless uh there are other comments to be made okay 20246 do I have a motion to approve this abatement please [6:04] Jeff Giefer: also move [6:06] Lindsay Cremona: thank you second [6:08] Kristina Handt: council member car hi council member rag I council member Geer hi council member cornette hi mayor Huber I [6:22] Mayor Huber: thank you Nick appreciate it thank you Mr Mayor and we have another public hearing for the consideration of resolution D 2024 pardon me-15 application for a variance at 11635 grf Avenue North and if I'm not mistaken our planner will be heading this one up is Jennifer with us yes she is hi Jennifer are you there [6:37] Jennifer (City Planner): hi good evening Mr Mayor members of the council uh so before you this evening we have a request for a variance uh from our Wetland setback standards the property is located at 11 1635 grandl Avenue uh the property is approximately five uh Acres just a little bit more uh and it is zoned A2 we did notice a public hearing for this evening since we are taking a look at a variance request uh and I am going to go ahead and share my screen I have just a short presentation uh we have looked at very similar requests in the past uh so this should be fairly short uh and sweet hopefully so the application this evening is to encroach within a setback uh for a wetland area uh due to an existing sewage treatment system that is failing and it must be replaced uh they are proposing to install that replacement septic system um within uh the the setback area which we'll talk about in just a moment uh at about 35 ft from a delineated type 2 Wetland Edge uh so as a result of that it does necessitate uh the variants request this evening uh per the applicant's narrative uh and then also the site plan or the concept plan that was submitted uh there are not other adequate areas on uh the subject property that can adequately support the replacement system uh that graphic we'll look at in just a moment uh and just a reminder that when we take a look at these systems or these requests that uh when we're looking for what is adequate uh that is defined typically as undisturbed soils so things that are in their native Native uh State uh meaning that they haven't you know been driven over there's no driveways uh you know hard surfaces no structures Etc so essentially we're looking for uh native land or land that has not been Disturbed for those suitable areas uh when we take a look at our variances we have a couple different criteria that are applicable city code sections 3259 and 3260 establish the criteria uh just a a minor change that when we look at variances now we really are looking at them for the Practical difficulty that's a little bit of a change from the hardship language that originally existed uh in in the ordinance but essentially we're looking for situations that uh the the Practical difficulty is in complying with the intent of the ordinance or the true standards of the ordinance uh that would make it uh very difficult to comply so if there something that is physically about the land that creates the situation uh or uh if there are conditions uh that make it uh impractical for following the the ordinance to the strict interpretation of that ordinance uh that you may Grant a variance from that standard uh so obviously in this case we are looking at the septic systems and so section 12- 260 is actually where you find some of the language with respect to the setbacks uh for a sewer sanitary system from those Wetland areas so the existing conditions obviously the site was developed quite some time ago uh you can see that there is a fair extensive amount of uh both drainage and utility easement that exists on the property as well as uh Wetland areas uh that are contained within those drainage and utility easements uh it was platted back uh in early 1980 the early 1980s 1981 uh It generally slopes down from east to west the low areas are obviously where those Wetland areas are where the drainage naturally wants to go uh and those drainage and utility easements were established as part of the plating process back in 1981 here's an aerial uh it gives you a sense of what we're talking about the pink area on this graphic is the area uh where the delineated Wetland boundary was identified uh they did just do that edge because that is the closest Edge to which the septic system the replacement system would be located I just want to note that uh if you look at the prior graphic that Wetland Edge per the national Wetland inventory is actually uh thought was thought to be not quite as far to the east I I I would note the fact that we have had an extremely wet year uh and as a result uh anyone who has had to do a wetland delineation knows that some of those Wetland areas have gotten significantly larger than what was identified on the on the NWI uh part of that delineation determine this uh was a type two Wetland that typically means that there's no standing water uh as it stands actually our ordinance is silent on type one and two Wetlands uh and we defer actually to uh the Watershed District in which uh the property is located for any setback or buffer standards and then the Watershed District if they don't have those standards then it defaults to to Washington County and their standards uh so essentially the buildable area on the property uh or or the area that could be suitable would be those areas that have not been Disturbed so uh areas that are not uh improved with the existing home the driveway the failing septic system Etc so anywhere that those Disturbed soils exist so when those areas are identified then you see uh this graphic which is the site plan but I would also call this sort of the constraint analysis if you will in terms of where the suitable areas might exist you can tell from the concept planed graphic here that essentially uh a large percentage of the area is either developed meaning it has the home the driveway uh and hard surfaces uh there are two large Wetland areas that do exist on the property uh and then obviously there's uh some outdoor Landscaping the pool and then the existing drain field which is on the south end of the site uh and the existing septic system so uh when you take all of those areas out of the analysis there are very few options left uh which is why they have proposed the area that they have which is essentially an area that the soils are undisturbed uh meaning virin soils uh the most capable of supporting the septic system uh while uh maximizing the setback to the extent possible but obviously the location that's been identified uh necessitates uh the variance because of uh the encroachment into that setback area so the variant specifically that's being requested tonight uh is uh from the Wetland setback as I noted our city code is actually silent on type one and type two Wetlands uh we actually make a reference to the fact that then the Watershed District uh becomes the next standard that we take a look at race group Watershed District also uh does not provide a specific sepac standard from type two uh and they default to the county the county does not uh differentiate between the type of wetland and therefore the overall uh setback is set as 75 ft so we're as it's proposed it's 35 ft uh that constitutes approximately a 40 foot variance uh and so as a result of that encroachment from the county standard a variance is required so uh as shown on the site plan and as I've described the current septic system is failing it does need to be replaced uh the location of the wetlands the drainage and utility easements and the existing drain field are limiting uh the viable placement options for a new system uh the soils uh drainage Pathways uh also are inhibiting or or constraining that area where a new system could be set or developed um and the you the the use of the existing uh drain field would be the absolute Last Resort from the sampo of the soils are clearly Disturbed uh and may also have some contamination as a result of the failing septic system so uh if an alternative is available that would be the most desirable so when you look at all the natural physical constraints uh that exist they're not created by the applicant in this case uh and that that concept plan or that site constraint analysis demonstrates that the available space to site the replacement system uh is very limited on the site uh so in terms of the reasonableness factor which is part of the zoning analysis uh it's obviously reasonable that this site would be served by a septic system for Rural residential uses uh to continue exactly what uh the property has been used for since it was developed in 1981 uh the city engineer did not have any additional comments uh in terms of other agencies obviously uh they need to contact Rice Creek Watershed District to ensure there are no other permits that would be necessary as a result of the installation of the new septic system uh and they also obviously need to get uh their septic permit from Washington County uh which also uh was part of how this review came before you because uh they flaged the fact that a variance would also be required at the city level prior to them issuing a permit for that replacement so in your staff reports this evening there is a draft of the findings uh that are provided obviously as as we've noted in Prior uh reviews that were very similar this is clearly a health safety and Welfare issue in terms of ensuring that we've got a properly functioning septic system uh and to make sure that it complies with the new standards uh in terms of our conditions uh once again they do need to get the proper permits from Washington County uh they need to contact the Watershed District to make sure there's no other uh permitting that needs to occur from their perspective uh they need to limit any disturbance to the existing Wetland to the extent possible uh so that does mean uh staying at the line that they've established in terms of uh disturbance and with that uh staff does recommend approval of the requested variance this evening with the conditions that are noted uh and we have provided a draft resolution for you this evening so with that Mr Mayor I will toss it back over to you and happy to answer any questions that you might have [17:35] Mayor Huber: fantastic let's do that first before we do the uh the public hearing here gentlemen John go ahead [17:38] John Rog: um Jennifer what is the distance to the wetlands for the existing uh septic that's failing that was the question I asked uh Kim to ask you [17:50] Jennifer (City Planner): so just a ballpark estimate because I don't I'm looking at it on my screen uh which you can probably tell uh but if I were to Ballpark it from that edge it's probably about uh probably 600 6 to 700 feet away would be my ballpark [18:18] John Rog: okay and when the property was first developed they always have a a primary and then a secondary area for septic what happened to the secondary [18:27] Jennifer (City Planner): so that's not always the case uh it depends on the time in which it was developed uh and what the rules were at that time so um in 1981 I would have to double check uh but the primary and the secondary drain field actually was not always a requirement uh you had to have a primary that's part of the issue with some of those older lots that were developed like for example in the' 60s and the 70s and actually it may have encroached into the 80s that there was not a secondary drain field um and there was only a primary uh and that did cause the problems because there was not a protected secondary area so uh in this case it does appear that there was not a secondary drain field area just based on that area um and that likely complied with the permitting standards at that time [19:26] John Rog: okay and and this house was built in '87 7 I believe [19:30] Jennifer (City Planner): uh again I would have to go back and look 81 so typically the way we've dealt with uh septic which I think would have been similar is that when the plat came through confirmation of adequate septic area would have actually occurred with the plat uh and then they would have come in for their permit when they constructed [19:49] John Rog: and and if they did have a secondary and the pool wind up being in the secondary um how come we are so close to the wetlands now when the pool was put in probably well after that's my question I mean you you only have so much room for septic and the pool was probably where the septic probably should have gone when the first one failed so it seems as though there's a compounding of things here and now they're going to go closer to the wetlands than they should be and you know normally I would not say that this is um something that you know they they did it to themselves and so I'm a little concerned with getting it to a point where we have a 40 foot variance to the wetlands because as we all know you know when they that close to the wetlands it's never good and I understand what you're saying you know it's it's a class two but Washington County and us we don't we don't differentiate 75 ft so what do we do just say sure go close to the wetlands because you have nothing else but do they is the question do they [21:11] Jennifer (City Planner): so Mr Mayor members of the council um I don't have any evidence to suggest that the pool uh was the secondary drainfield area if that was a secondary drainfield it would have had to have been protected um so without evidence that that is in fact the case um I think making an assumption so I'm not sure exactly how to how to answer that one um I also don't know when the pool was put in uh so to confirm that that soil would have been acceptable uh I don't have anything that demonstrates that that was a secondary drainfield location because I'm not sure a secondary would have been required at that time okay so that's my first thing to address the second would be that based on this constraint analysis that was provided based on the current improvements and the existing conditions of the lot uh there are no other areas uh based on the septic designer's analysis uh that are suitable in terms of uh the setback from the Wetland itself uh typically type one and type two Wetland areas uh are not as high of a quality it's not it's not a given because this isn't a Min Ram which would be a quality assessment uh but many times uh other cities jurisdictions Etc uh they're type one and type two because there's no standing water Etc do have reduced setbacks uh that are not 75 fet is typically a preserve a very high level high quality uh Wetland so we don't have a full Wetland assessment in terms of the quality assessment in our ordinance uh we would have to have that in order to make that distinction but just by way of reference other communities uh when we're dealing with a type two depending on what the classification or quality of that Wetland is uh could have setbacks that are approximately 20 feet 20 to 25 feet so uh in terms of protecting that Wetland Edge um obviously that's part of why they need to stay as far away from it as possible uh but that that encroachment still provides uh 35 ft and if no other area is available uh that it could still function properly the Wetland could function properly based on where it's designed [23:37] John Rog: is there any other designs that you know of that would uh change the distance to the Wetland uh you know the old style is the I'm not a septic designer butan I mean I mean you know we've talked about this before when you have tank systems where you have a tank and another tank and another tank and they kind of spill into each other uh and they're half above ground and then um you know it takes up less room than a typical one tank or two tanks in a leech field I we've talked about this before in the past you don't recall that [24:14] Jennifer (City Planner): Mr Mayor members of the council I'm not a Subic designer so I do not want to get into the specific design characteristics that would have to be a question that we'd have to ask uh because there are so many different factors that go into a septic design in terms of uh you know the drain field location how large it has to be what type of system it is uh what does the f liit look like is it a mound is it under all those things so I I certainly wouldn't say that I have the technical expertise to say how we can shrink or or move that drain field location [24:59] John Rog: so would the person that is designing it do we have to have a question for that person do we have enough information to make a decision today that's my question [25:05] Jennifer (City Planner): Mr Mayor members of the council I think that's up to you to determine whether you believe you have enough information or if you need more okay thanks Jennifer [25:11] Mayor Huber: anyone else Ben [25:12] Ben Cornett: uh Jennifer uh I was wondering so even regardless of our decision today Washington county is still going to have to make their own assessment is that what I'm understanding just to make sure I'm not so even if we agree to this still going to have to go through the county who really controls and protects the wetlands well Rice Creek Rice Creek yes is that correct [25:50] Jennifer (City Planner): so so Rice Creek Watershed District is uh the entity that essentially looks at the the wetlands we oftentimes defer to their rules um they are the lgu or the rgu in this particular area so Rice Creek uh would potentially have something to say about it although again they don't have setback standards from a type one or a type two either they default to the county uh the county is who's going to look at the septic design itself to determine uh whether or not it obviously complies with all the rules and as a result would not be able to impact or or drain into the Wetland area obviously so they're the experts that actually determine whether or not it's going to mess up the water what's going on around it correct this is simply the the setback standard from The Edge which um I would not just because it's been an extremely wet year and it has impacted a lot of folks uh in a lot of different communities that I've worked uh if you look at uh what the concept plan in your uh packet looks like the Wetland uh Edge per the DNR or the national Wetland inventory is significantly smaller or uh further to the West uh than where the delineated Edge is and that likely has a lot to do with the fact that we've had an extremely what year [26:53] Ben Cornett: thank you [26:54] Mayor Huber: hold done Tom [26:55] Council Member: yeah and to point out that we were a Township back in the 80s and uh didn't become a city so they were handling our engineering and our planning and um they should have if it was on the plat it should have been a secondary area marked on the plat back in the day and if they didn't do it they didn't do it and the only thing they they didn't give up is still septic so they're still doing it and we do the other stuff so um and as was stated between the Watershed and the and the county this is not really our issue um obviously if the Ryan how you doing Ryan if R if Ryan wanted to challenge this and he could have went through the county but that wouldn't been our fight either so I think it's kind of what it is so yeah [28:05] Jeff Giefer: Jeff no I just going to agree with Tom I we had these before we did our due diligence and made sure like the proposed um location is the only possible one um that's identified and since we're not experts in septics engineering or Watershed maintenance we pass it on to the county and have have we ever seen Jennifer where um the county has denied um a uh a septic system replacement I don't think we have have we [28:16] Jennifer (City Planner): no uh Mr Mayor members of the council to my knowledge know uh we have always been extremely careful about making sure that uh they minimize the variance to the extent possible meaning get it as far away from that Wetland Edge as possible and we also do make them delineate that that edge to make sure that we know exactly where it is on any given year so um to my knowledge I not that I'm aware of I think we've uh very much done our due diligence in the past uh and I think they've always been approved [28:54] Jeff Giefer: need a motion [28:55] Mayor Huber: no I have questions for Jennifer Jennifer let's dive in a little deeper here second uh page of your report a third paron me I'm looking at Wetland one type 2 pm 18 I guess it is or 1B fresh wet Meadow so no standing water is that area of the meadow correct here 02 Acres page three yep [29:21] Jennifer (City Planner): I need to pull up my staff report so hold on just one moment there's a legend in the top right hand corner of that photograph of that drawing in this case I guess that's a photograph picture that's a I'm almost there just one [30:05] Mayor Huber: no worries I got it in front of me I've been looking at it for a while [30:06] Jennifer (City Planner): so on page two the aerial yeah the aerial photo it's fre for me but yeah the areial where it shows the home and then it shows the uh Wetland type one type two or Wetland one type two and then it has fresh wet Meadow and then the acreage is 0.02 so that's the 02 is the area that's just within that pink boundary which is the area that was delineated the Wetland itself is much larger and goes and extends further to the West [30:46] Mayor Huber: okay um pink [30:47] Jennifer (City Planner): it's just that pink area because when we do uh the variants uh for the septic design or the drain field we have them to help them save costs they only have to delineate the edge in which they're encroaching as opposed to the whole [31:07] Mayor Huber: we gotcha makes sense so basically on this lot if this were to be built we would be possibly and with a mound system a double tank system possibly impacting 02 of an acre now let me let me just pivot here for a second back to hardship versus practical difficulties standards used to be a hardship you to have a hardship and now it says practical difficulties who changed that language and why do you think they changed it [31:34] Jennifer (City Planner): uh so Mr Mayor members of the council uh the state changed it so the state statutes are actually what identify uh the hardship versus practical difficulties uh it was changed because uh there were actually cities uh they were out on Lake minetonka uh that basically had used that standard to essentially stop all types of development uh and so at that time the there were a few court cases that sort of wound them through uh all the way from uh you know the very lowest levels of court to the highest levels of court in Minnesota to say uh you can't do that that's you know a regulatory taking Etc so they changed uh the language and the guidance to practical difficulty because there are certainly things that are a practical difficulty of a piece of property or land uh that make it difficult to comply with the strict interpretation of an order ments so that language was changed so it was at the state level and cities were required to uh adopt that revised language [33:04] Mayor Huber: I remember doing it and it makes perfect sense because the hardship ends up being a taking basically a taking of your property by the state whatever subsection of the state it is all the way down to the city so change to practical difficulty interesting one other example when we've done this if you leave here go out and you take a ride all the way down that road to the T intersection you'll not notice a small house to your left and a rather large pond in fact they're connected underneath 75th we did variants for that home and had to intrude into the uh Wetland delineation boundary as well there because they had no practical way to treat sewage because they had some difficulties with their uh field there those are large ponds this is a type two Wetland tell me again what a type two Wetland is [33:53] Jennifer (City Planner): uh so type two indicates that there's no standing water uh so often times actually if you're standing out there you may not even know it's a wetland especially in a dry year or or even in a not you know an average year if you will uh so it essentially means that there's saturation in the upper levels of the um the soil and so you will see that there will be indicators Wetland uh plant indicators that are in those particular areas and it's basically a saturation of that top soil the top layers if you will uh but there's typically not standing water that is visible [34:33] Mayor Huber: perfect now one other question uh we don't have any type two standards so no setbacks no anything The Watershed who is responsible for the waters within their lgu area has no standards for type two why [34:44] Jennifer (City Planner): so different Watershed districts do it different different ways uh and so some some Watershed districts have actually undertaken ex uh basically a full study of all the wetlands which would which would include type one and type two uh where they would do what's called A Min Ram or they basically classify it by quality and then also by type uh Rice Creek Watershed District just hasn't completed that or done that um and so as a result uh they have uh regulations that are specified for you know type three uh standing water bodies uh unclassified water bodies those types of things that have standing water in them uh but to my understanding do not have uh a standard with respect to the septic setback um from a type one or a type two they they are simply defaulting to the county standard essentially [35:31] Mayor Huber: and the county standard being 75 ft seems to be pretty high hanging fruit if you will it looks to me like a default position on the county so they don't get in trouble or in legal action with the rcwd or other Watershed districts is that a fair description [35:50] Jennifer (City Planner): um I don't know if it's to not get in trouble but I would say it's a default they're uniformly it's a very conservative position to say 75 ft uh it also takes away the onus of having to establish the quality of the Wetland um which is sometimes an onerous process and can cost more money uh for land owners Etc so because if you have to do the quality and the type uh it's just just a more involved Wetland delineation process so it's sort of a catchall I would call it um and is the most conservative um classification 75 fet in a lot of watershed districts is like a preserve status where it's you know for example Browns Creek Watershed District uh has identified like the fen which we've looked at numerous times as sort of a preserve if you will quality as in like high quality Bears uh a lot of importance within the wed District high level of protection Etc so often times there you'll see a 75 foot setback um and so the 75 feet I would say is a very conservative approach in terms of assigning the highest quality to everything [36:58] Mayor Huber: okay so we're talking about that case protecting the only trout population in Washington Wisconsin with a 75 foot setback right correct that's very typical all right not too many charlon type twos because they can't swim all right so this has to go back through the county uh Rice Creek Watershed has to look at it the contractor will have to do everything they can to stay back from that we've done these before this is nothing difficult whether or not a swimming pool went where perhaps there was a second delineated area for a drain field let me just ask one additional question on that I come in for a permit to get a pool I want to put it on my yard is there any type of process to determine whether or not people are building on a protected area when I get a permit for that [37:50] Jennifer (City Planner): um typically yes uh so on uh a lot of plats for example you'll see the in most of the plats we do today uh the primary and the secondary drain field are identified very clearly uh and you wouldn't be able to put a pool on those areas um because uh when you get a permit application in especially when we're looking at a new lot we will look at how it was platted and look at the preliminary plat that has the primary and the secondary identified on it [38:23] Mayor Huber: thank you Jennifer I appreciate all those answers sorry to keep you there so long any other questions from the council otherwise I'd like to open a public hearing on the matter Jeff you have a question gentlemen no do I have a motion to open the public hearing on this variance request please [38:32] Lindsay Cremona: also move [38:34] John Rog: thank you do I have a second second thank you [38:35] Kristina Handt: council member hi council member hi counc hi council member hi mayor Hubert hi [38:40] Mayor Huber: thank you Kim uh ladies and gentlemen if anyone would like to come up and speak on this variance request either for or against I'll have you approach the podium write down your name and address if you would and give us your thoughts sir come on up please if I could just have you write your name and address down please y [39:10] Scott Sinclair: um my name is Scott Sinclair um I don't know if I have any issues could I just see where the putting it I happen to be the property owner just across Washington County 7 okay to this and the water flows across my property and we had problems with uh Culvert under seven [39:35] Mayor Huber: I'm going to stop you for a second you're across Highway 7 what city are you in sir [39:39] Scott Sinclair: I'm in Grant [39:41] Mayor Huber: you are okay go ahead sir sometimes you're not as you well know across seven so right there I am thank you sir go ahead please [39:50] Scott Sinclair: um so I just would like to know where they're putting it because the water comes across comes through the Culvert goes across our um property to the north flows into the creek and then into Fish Lake and then into bald eagle okay so is it the orange area there is that what I'm trying to [39:55] Jennifer (City Planner): Jennifer are you still with us yep Mr Mayor members of the council I don't know if you can see my little cursor or not yep it's so if you see the purple Wetland per this purple Wetland strip yes we see we see your cursor there yep oh perfect so here this black is the proposed location of the drain field so it is uh to the rear of the lot or the rear as it's you know to the east of the property um and you can you can see that the uh designer the septic designer has noted some of the drainage areas uh to keep it specifically off the drainage uh areas that are happening from adjacent properties [40:41] Mayor Huber: okay Jennifer just just one one more question our our commenter seems to be very satisfied with your description there just one more uh question for you this is a full mound system right [41:00] Jennifer (City Planner): that's my understanding yes [41:02] Mayor Huber: that's your understanding that was my understanding as well sir [41:15] Scott Sinclair: that's understand are we good all right Mr Sinclair thank you very much [41:20] Mayor Huber: anyone else please public comment going going up there we go if you could sign in for us sir thank you [41:26] Ryan Doan: hey uh thanks for having me tonight I'm Ryan Doan I'm the home homeowner at the property in question um I'd just like to address a couple of things um I actually purchased the home June of 2014 so I've been there touch over 10 years now um and at the time of purchase the pool was there already um and so again I think it's a maybe a bit of an assumption but I also made an assumption when I purchased the home that we followed the proper processes to um assure that everything was up to code and such at that point right um the other comment that I I guess I'd like to make um is that we have worked with a septic design company that does this for their living um and they explored every square inch of the property and this was the only option that they were able to come up with um I I can reassure you that I don't want to not that I don't enjoy your presence but I don't want to be spending time here tonight we had hope to get this you know completed months ago um and it's been a process to be here so unfortunately the location that's been identified is the only best option as it's been explained to us to this point um and I do believe that they have already started to consult with the with Washington County as well designer was talking to Washington County already and so aware of kind of situation [42:50] Mayor Huber: so talk about design Styles and different types of designs this is where we're at and those will go through the county continue Mr do [42:57] Ryan Doan: yeah that's really the only comments I wanted to offer if there's any questions though I'm also happy to help address that at this point [43:03] Mayor Huber: I want to thank you for coming up hopefully we'll get you out of here pretty soon all right if there's no one else I'm going to close the down public comment make a motion [43:10] John Rog: yeah need a motion make a motion to close public thank you [43:12] Council Member: second thank you [43:13] Kristina Handt: council member car hi council member Rob hi council member cornet sorry Geer hi council member cornette hi mayor Heber hi [43:28] Mayor Huber: thank you Kim any more discussion on this gentlemen it looks like we've got our sort of an information overload here it sounds as though our governing authorities where we do not have standards have provided us standards and they've also provided us oversight of the construction as well as the sighting on the site so I think we're being about as safe as we can in my opinion I would entertain a motion to uh Grant this variance under resolution 2024 D15 please [43:40] Ben Cornett: I'll make the motion [43:42] Jeff Giefer: thank you Ben a second thank you [43:44] Kristina Handt: council member Carr hi council member rag hi council member Geer hi council member cornette all right mayor all right thank you very much [44:10] Mayor Huber: good luck with that thanks care right nice to have a septic getting older Kim do you want to take on the uh the new business here on the city council meeting minutes or do you want me to do that [44:17] Kristina Handt: no I'm much quicker oh good uh council member a missed the last meeting so we just could not put that the minutes under the consent agenda he needs to abstain obstain so we need a motion [44:33] Mayor Huber: sure motion to approve city council me minutes who was the second I thought you were going to save us time do we have a second [44:38] John Rog: second second [44:42] Kristina Handt: council member car hi council member member R stain council member Geer hi council member cornette hi mayor Hubert I [45:00] Mayor Huber: preliminary budget the city had uh several budget meetings regarding the budget that we are proposing for the upcoming year um and I will tell you what we have settled on at this point is very different from what we settled on the last time we did this the last time we did this the average impact to the average home average average home value in the city was 20 $4 per year the average impact this year on our proposed budget moving forward into 25 will be $17 cents so it's very much diminished as the result of a number of different factors and I won't even get into them because it's really complicated and her treasure knows all those factors so you can talk to her so we're down to 1107 now here comes the fun part we were at 3% when that $24 was charged per average homeowner we're now at 5% in order to do the 1107 from my perspective obviously everyone here has their own perspectives you're feel free to explore those perspectives it is important for us at this 5% to maintain our reserves to the extent possible but even at 5% the city is still spending down reserves we are not holding on to your money and not spending down reserves we're still spending those reserves to provide City servic right so and the overall impact is going to be less now this would be decided in its finality in December uh when we can actually reduce this we will not be able to raise it but we can actually reduce it if the feedback as such or the political situation has changed nationally who knows I don't know I can't read the future but at this point uh we are at 5% for that impact of 1107 gentlemen other com ments on this [47:20] Council Member: I think it's a good number yeah I it's a responsible number we're still spending down the reserves but not at a horrific rate where we're worried about having State mandated reserves we not even close to that so we still have pretty high reserves we feel feel pretty comfortable with it and we've we've put a lot of effort toward this so I think we're doing the right thing here um but again things change and who knows what could happen moving forward [47:35] Mayor Huber: exactly now if someone would like to make a motion on this let's go ahead and do the preliminary budget motion first with the number we decided please [47:37] Jeff Giefer: I'll make the motion the levy resolution of 17910 that's Levy we're going to do the budget first and oh the budget of budget first uh 2, 58,4 66 yeah and resolution 20247 [48:00] Mayor Huber: Jeff has made the motion to have a second on his motion [48:02] John Rog: second thank you John [48:05] Kristina Handt: council member Carr hi council member Rock hi counc member Geer hi council member corette hi mayor Huber I [48:11] Mayor Huber: second on this portion of our budget as we've already discussed is the preliminary Levy preliminary because I already discussed what could happen in December so if someone would like to make a motion of 20248 with the levy number included I will [48:22] John Rog: oh go ahead John uh I make a motion to approve resolution number 202 24-18 resolution establishing the preliminary Levy certification for the city's general fund at 1,507 910 910 thank you John do I have a second on that [48:40] Ben Cornett: no second thank you Ben [48:42] Kristina Handt: council member car excuse me I council member R uh I counc member Geer I council member cornette I mayor Huber I [48:50] Mayor Huber: thank you Kim thank you gentlemen uh moving forward into unfinished business we have none discussion items Kim any staff updates [49:03] Kristina Handt: not at this time thank you very much [49:04] Mayor Huber: city council reports J anything you'd like to talk about in the future have on a future agenda anything on your mind nothing I also have nothing um John Rock can you read our community calendar for us please [49:08] John Rog: yeah let me get back to that uh where is that ah there it is um community calendar mod media Public Schools board meeting Thursday September 12th and September 26 maab District education center at 7 p.m. Stillwater Public Schools board board meeting Thursday September 12th Stillwater City Hall 700 p.m. and Washington County Commissioners meeting Tuesdays at the government center in at 9:00 a.m. [49:40] Mayor Huber: thank you very much John for those of you who have not read the Washington County update periodical that they put out they put out a very interesting article on the second page actually third page upper right in conjunction with the state government Washington County will be providing shall we say grants to people to buy their first home that will be up to $35,000 so it's something you might want to keep in mind as you pay your taxes every year with that I'd ask for an adjournment please [50:00] John Rog: motion toour thank you second got John on it [50:05] Kristina Handt: counc member car HIC M hi counc member G HIC member corette hi hu [50:15] Mayor Huber: thank you and I thank you all we'll see you in October for