Based on the context provided, here is the transcribed townhall meeting with speaker names added: **[0:02] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Pledge of Allegiance. Pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of—recording in progress—stands, indivisible, with liberty and justice for... **[0:24] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** ...all. All right, um, can I get a motion to approve the regular agenda? **[0:28] Ben Cornett (Council Member):** Motion to approve. **[0:30] John Rog (Council Member):** Second. **[0:32] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Council Member Cornett? **[0:33] Ben Cornett (Council Member):** Aye. **[0:34] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Council Member Rog? **[0:35] John Rog (Council Member):** Aye. **[0:36] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Council Member Cremona? **[0:37] Lindsay Cremona (Council Member):** Aye. **[0:38] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Mayor, aye. Next item: approval of consent agenda. Can I get a motion for that? **[0:43] Ben Cornett (Council Member):** I will move to approve the consent agenda. **[0:45] John Rog (Council Member):** I'll second. **[0:47] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Council Member Cornett? **[0:48] Ben Cornett (Council Member):** Aye. **[0:49] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Council Member Rog? **[0:50] John Rog (Council Member):** Aye. **[0:51] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Council Member Cremona? **[0:52] Lindsay Cremona (Council Member):** Aye. **[0:53] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Mayor Giefer, aye. Staff agenda items: City Engineer, Brad. Brad, are you with us? **[1:05] Kristina Handt (City Administrator):** Brad's with us. **[1:11] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Brad's here to talk about the approval of the 10-year Capital Improvement plan, CIP plan. Um, Brad, go for it. **[1:19] Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** All right, thank you, Mayor, members of the Council. Um, tonight I'm seeking a motion to adopt the 10-year Capital Improvement plan for the paved roadway maintenance for calendar years 2025 to 2035. Um, I'd like to give a little bit of background information and history on the past 10-year plan, if you don't mind. Um, the current plan has ended; it ended last year in 2024. Um, since 2015, the city's paved roads have increased by 2.7 miles, from 33.2 miles to 36.2 miles. Uh, this growth includes developments and the paving of aprons over existing gravel roads. Additionally, during this period, many existing paved roads have been reconstructed, either through special road projects directed by the Council or petitioned by residents. The total amount of roads reconstructed since 2015 is approximately 10 and a half miles. The current city road policy enables residents living on a paved street scheduled for maintenance in any given year to leverage allocated city plan roadway maintenance funds for a more extensive roadway reconstruction project. This process is typically started by sending letters to residents living on the streets planned for maintenance, inviting them to a virtual open house to discuss the city's road and special assessment policies. The current road policy requires 50% of the residents to sign a petition in order for the Council to order roadway improvements. If no petition is brought forward, the city will move forward with the roadway maintenance as planned. So to talk about a little bit about the proposed 10-year CIP... um, the proposed 10-year Capital Improvement plan is derived from the attached map that was part of the Council packet showing the maintenance recommendations for each paved segment in the city. Uh, the maintenance recommendations for each street segment outlined in the proposed 10-year CIP are categorized into three types. Uh, preventative: the preventative streets are the newly reconstructed or paved roads— **[3:36] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Brad, can I ask you to pause for a second? **[3:39] Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** Sure. **[3:40] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** I just got a couple notifications from some folks that are trying to join and they said there's no audio. Oh, okay. Um, Kim, is that— **[3:50] Kristina Handt (City Administrator):** I have audio. **[3:51] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** You have audio? Okay. Must have been during public comment. Okay. Um, all right. Everyone on can hear all right. Please resume, Brad. **[4:05] Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** All right, thank you, Mayor. So let's talk about the proposed 10-year CIP here. So the proposed 10-year improvement plan is, like I said earlier, derived from the attached map showing the maintenance recommendations for each paved segment in the city. Um, the maintenance recommendations for each street segment is outlined into or categorized into three types: Preventative, which are the newly reconstructed or paved roads which only require routine maintenance every two years; Monitor, these are paved roads where monitoring their condition is very important—each year Ken Johnson and myself will inspect these roads and make any new recommendations if needed; and then Reconstruct—these are paved roads where roadway maintenance is no longer an efficient method, but these roads will continue to receive pothole patching as required. Um, I'd like to say here too that it's crucial to maintain our newly constructed roads through activities like crack sealing and fog seals. The crack sealing and fog seals will extend the lifespan and optimize the maintenance efficiencies of these roads. Streets identified for preventative maintenance are typically scheduled for crack sealing every two years and a crack seal and a fog seal every six years. For streets categorized as preventative, the city's roadway maintenance funding will be utilized. Streets classified as monitor or reconstruct will initially receive funding for patching and pothole repairs until a petition for roadway reconstruction is received from residents. Once an overlay or street reconstruction is completed, the street segment will be reclassified as preventative and included in the regular scheduled maintenance as mentioned previously. So the proposed 10-year CIP that was provided includes a 4% inflation increase year-over-year for the project costs and the city roadway maintenance budget. The city's current budget for roadway maintenance is $147,000—that's for roadway patching and potholing and also the roadway maintenance budgets. The 2025 project cost for this year's project is estimated at $151,000, so just slightly over the budgeted amount. And typically what happens is I'll go out and get quotes from local contractors to do that type of work, and so we really don't know the final price until we receive those bids back from contractors. So, um, I guess with that said, I'll be happy to answer any questions for the Council or Mayor. **[7:08] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Yeah, so Brad, you and I spoke a little bit about this before. Um, can you please confirm my understanding that this is a 10-year CIP, but it's not locked in stone for the entire 10 years? It's rather more reflective of historical budgeting, so if the Council decides to put more funds in 2026 and beyond—future road budgets—that this CIP could be scaled up to meet the increased budget? **[7:34] Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** Yeah, Mayor, this is a plan, right? So it's something that we try to follow, but certainly we can make adjustments as we go. Um, again, typically each year I'll bring forward to Council, through a memo and a presentation, the current year's CIP just to get approval prior to going out for quotes. So before I do that, I'll certainly engage with Ken Johnson again and take a look at the streets that are in this current CIP, and to make sure that the proper maintenance is, you know, approved for the type of maintenance the street needs. And then again, if we need to adjust budgets with advancing some streets into a previous year or move streets around a little bit within this plan, it's certainly very doable. **[8:42] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Okay. Um, other comments or questions for Brad? No? Okay. No other questions for Brad. Um, can I get a motion to approve the CIP? **[8:54] Ben Cornett (Council Member):** Make motion to approve. **[8:56] John Rog (Council Member):** Second. **[8:58] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Council Member Cornett? **[8:59] Ben Cornett (Council Member):** Aye. **[9:00] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Council Member Rog? **[9:01] John Rog (Council Member):** Aye. **[9:02] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Council Member Cremona? **[9:03] Lindsay Cremona (Council Member):** Aye. **[9:04] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Mayor Giefer, aye. Uh, next we have Jennifer Swanson. Jennifer is on with us tonight, is she not? **[9:11] Kristina Handt (City Administrator):** She is. **[9:14] Jennifer Swanson (City Planner):** Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Um, the first item on our agenda this evening under our planning review is a minor subdivision request at 11154 60th Street North. This is actually in our General Business District. Um, the request is actually quite simple this evening, so I expect this one to be quite short. What we're looking at is essentially—for those of you that are familiar with Kazi’s—they have got a septic system that was placed on the adjacent property for purposes of running out of space, so they put it on that property. The fee title of the land is actually owned by the adjacent property owner. So essentially what we're looking at here is taking that portion of property, detaching it, and adjoining it to the property so the septic system is actually owned by the Kazi’s restaurant operations. So, the property is in the General Business District, um, and it will remain as such after the subdivision as well. I'm going to go ahead and share my screen. I've got just a short presentation that I think will very clearly depict what we're taking a look at. So you can see there we go... um, so you can see from the graphic here that essentially the area that we're talking about is Parcel A, which is this blue area. The septic system right now serving the property is actually located there. And so what we're doing essentially is taking that portion of land from the road remnant parcel just to the north, what we call the "sending parcel." So it's going to send this portion of property, if you will, and attach it to Parcel B denoted here in the green. So essentially, we are taking that small area of land, we're adjoining it, so that the septic system is actually on property that is owned by that contiguous property owner. In 2016, the Kazi’s operation was granted a conditional use permit. It allows for the operation of the restaurant, the bar, tavern. It's been operational obviously since that time. This septic system will now, as a result of this minor subdivision, be on land owned by that restaurant operation. The criteria that we take a look at when we are doing minor lot line adjustments or minor subdivisions are Sections 30-9 and 30-10 in the subdivision ordinance. And then we also have to take a look at the dimensional standards and other zoning pieces to make sure that we're not creating something that's non-compliant. As I stated, property is in the General Business; that will remain the case after this as well. We are not creating any new lots or any additional density as a result. This one is pretty straightforward and obviously is consistent with our comprehensive plan. From a zoning perspective, we're not creating a new lot, and so from that perspective, we are actually improving the situation because the septic system will now be owned by the same operator that is utilizing that septic and drain fields. So from that perspective, it complies with our zoning code. And again, we're not creating any new lots; the sending parcel or the remnant parcel is also unaffected and remains compliant with the ordinance. Quick table: you can see that the parcel is actually legally nonconforming—that was deemed through that process in 2016. This actually increases the size of it, so in some ways reduces that legal non-conformity. So from that perspective, we generally like that, and once again it will help the property function into the future for the use that we have permitted through that conditional use permit. From an engineering perspective, there's really no comments because the septic system already exists. This is simply, basically, an exercise to make the fee title of that property where that septic system is owned by and contiguous to the actual operator. So, there are no other agencies that really need to take a look at this because it's simply a small transfer of land to kind of bring that fee title piece into compliance and owned by the same property owner. So with that, staff is recommending approval of the minor subdivision to allow for this small area to be attached and detached. There is a draft resolution in your packets this evening for your review. This one hopefully is quite straightforward. So with that, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I will pass it back to you for any questions you might have. **[14:26] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Yeah, let's hold a public hearing and then we can go into questions on the Council. So, um, could someone give me a motion to open the public hearing for Resolution 2024-03? **[14:48] Ben Cornett (Council Member):** I'll move to open the public hearing. **[14:50] John Rog (Council Member):** Second. **[14:52] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Council Member Cornett? **[14:53] Ben Cornett (Council Member):** Aye. **[14:54] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Council Member Rog? **[14:55] John Rog (Council Member):** Aye. **[14:56] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Council Member Cremona? **[14:57] Lindsay Cremona (Council Member):** Aye. **[14:58] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Mayor Giefer, aye. **[14:59] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Is there any comment on the public hearing on this matter? [Pause] And looks like we can entertain a motion to close the public hearing. **[15:10] Ben Cornett (Council Member):** I'll move to close public hearing. **[15:12] John Rog (Council Member):** I'll second it. **[15:14] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Council Member Cornett? **[15:15] Ben Cornett (Council Member):** Aye. **[15:16] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Council Member Rog? **[15:17] John Rog (Council Member):** Aye. **[15:18] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Council Member Cremona? **[15:19] Lindsay Cremona (Council Member):** Aye. **[15:20] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Mayor Giefer, aye. Um, I think I agree with Jennifer. It's pretty straightforward. This just allows the new owners to have the land and their septic system to be combined on their property so they can do away with the private easement agreement. Is there any other questions or comments from the rest of the Council? **[15:43] John Rog (Council Member):** Pretty straightforward, makes sense. **[15:46] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Okay. I can entertain a motion. **[15:48] John Rog (Council Member):** Move to approve Resolution Number 2024-03. **[15:52] Ben Cornett (Council Member):** Second. **[15:54] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Council Member Cornett? **[15:55] Ben Cornett (Council Member):** Aye. **[15:56] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Council Member Rog? **[15:57] John Rog (Council Member):** Aye. **[15:58] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Council Member Cremona? **[15:59] Lindsay Cremona (Council Member):** Aye. **[16:00] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Mayor Giefer, aye. Next one for you, Jennifer, is the application for the second amended CUP requested by Two Silos Farmhouse Resort. Could you walk us through that, please? **[16:15] Jennifer Swanson (City Planner):** Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. So I'm going to go ahead and share my screen right away. This one is a little bit more complicated, so hopefully I can give you a brief overview, and for those that are in the audience this evening as well who might be interested. So the request this evening is to amend the conditional use permit at 7040 117th Street North. The property owner and the operations are the Two Silos Farmhouse Resort LLC. It is where that winery is located, which is the subject primarily of the application this evening. The site is approximately 21 acres. It is currently zoned A1 and it is in our rural residential agricultural land use designation for the comprehensive plan. We have noticed a public hearing for this evening to consider the proposed amendment. By way of background, the operation was granted a conditional use permit in 2020 to put the winery and the farmhouse sort of resort or bed and breakfast in place. That conditional use permit in 2020 was approved with 38 conditions, most of them applying to the operations of the winery and how activities would occur on site. In 2021, the applicant applied to amend the conditional use permit. The purpose of that amendment was actually to tear down one of the outbuildings or one of the accessory buildings and actually construct a new building that was used as part of the winery operations. That new building is actually also part or subject to the application this evening with respect to the signed portion of the request. The conditions that are stated within the conditional use permit were pretty specific in terms of when amendments were required to the conditional use permit. The first was condition number 34, which stated that any future expansion or intensification of the operations would require an amendment to the permit. We identified what that intensification would include: things such as additional facilities or accessory buildings, expansion of the parking lot, substantial increase in the number of guests, etc. Essentially, if they're going to increase the intensity of the proposed operation, they would be required to come back and seek an amendment. Condition number 36 related to the sign and stated specifically that no signage was approved as part of the original permit application. That was because during both the 2020 and 2021 application process, no signage was identified. So there was no sign that was approved and none was proposed. So as a result, it stated that if you're going to do signage in the future, they would likely need to come back and amend the conditional use permit to ensure that whatever was being put up would comply with the city's ordinances. Because of those two conditions, we are in front of you this evening. The applicant is here to apply for this amendment to address some of the issues with respect to the sign and then also their request for intensification on the site. What sort of brought this about, or the impetus, was that there is actually a sign that was installed already on the Eastern facade of the building. So in effect, what we have is an "after-the-fact" request or application, which always makes things more complicated because, of course, we're not evaluating what could be or what might be; instead, we are actually evaluating something that has already been installed. And it was brought to our attention actually through a complaint process because the sign itself is actually backlit or internally lit and is illuminated. And so that portion of it, obviously, was quite visible from multiple surrounding properties and also the roadway. And so from that perspective, once the complaint was investigated by our zoning administrator/building official, it was determined that the sign is out of compliance with both the conditional use permit and the city's ordinance. Because of those violations, the city did attempt to contact the property owner, asked the sign to be removed and the lighting to obviously be removed as well, numerous times over the past year or so. And eventually, the applicant did apply for this conditional use permit amendment, which was part of the direction in that compliance letter or effort made by the building official and zoning enforcement. So from that perspective, it was determined that that sign is in violation of both the CUP and the ordinance. After that whole process, the sign does remain. You can see this is an image taken from January of this year; we did confirm that it was out there, and we also did confirm that the illumination portion of it was turned off in the evening after hours. So they turn the lights off; you can see there is a barn light that is there above the door, but the actual illumination of that sign was turned off. However, the sign does remain. The request this evening is an amendment for, essentially, as I said, an after-the-fact permit. That does complicate it, I realize, because whereas we might apply some reasonable conditions such as, you know, to size, visibility, location, etc., we really are evaluating a situation that already exists. Um, I will do my best to answer what questions you might have, and I know Nick is here as well, our City Attorney, who may have some feedback with respect to how to address that since we do have an after-the-fact permit request associated with this. So because that was the impetus to the application, that is the central focus of both the staff review and then also this report this evening. We will address some of the other requests to intensify the use; however, the impetus for this is really the sign. They did include within their application both the sign request, then they also asked for permission to increase the on-site occupancy from 75 to 140 guests. Because of that increase in number of guests, they also request to increase the parking capacity from 22 to 56 stalls. They asked to use the crush pad on the east side of the building for greater intensity of use. They asked for permission to amend to allow for an ambient surround system or amplified sound system to be permitted outdoors on the site. And then they also included some information about future operations. The staff report has a pretty thorough review in terms of each of these requests. I will briefly touch on staff's recommendation at the end of my summary, but essentially, no future operations were considered as part of the evaluation because no plans were submitted—we don't know what they're proposing. So essentially, they would need to once again come back and make an amendment potentially if whatever they are proposing is not permitted just by right. To address the signage itself, the first piece is actually to take a look at exactly what is out there and what they are proposing. Essentially, we've got a wall-mounted winery sign that was placed on the Eastern facade of the tasting and production building. It does face East; it does not face South. So we'll take a look at that in a minute in terms of why that matters with respect to what the "front" of the property is. The sign as it's installed is approximately 56 square feet. It is mounted approximately 15 to 16 feet from the ground plane. It's an approximation because we didn't actually get the exact dimension; we superimposed it on the architecturals, which we'll take a look at in just a moment. And the applicant is proposing to put the sign on a timer that would turn off the LED illumination between 10 p.m. and daylight. In terms of what we take a look at for conditional use permit amendments, essentially we kick off or review it based on our conditional use permit criteria. And so from that, basically, we do a dimensional review of that signage package and then we also take a look at the criteria for the conditional use permits. As I said, the primary focus of this report is the illuminated wall-mounted sign—the sign that has already been installed out there. The other pieces are secondary because the impetus really was the sign package. Starting with the dimensional analysis, essentially there's a whole section on signs within the agricultural or A1 District. In this case, the way that the code is set up, it essentially says that we do allow certain businesses with conditional use permits, therefore those conditionally permitted businesses would likely be allowed to have signage, but that signage should be consistent with the spirit, the intent, the purpose of what is actually in the underlying zoning district. And in that case, we're looking at the A1 District. The A1 District does allow identification signs; it also identifies wall signs. So the winery sign—it is a wall sign, it would be considered a permitted sign type. The purpose of this regulation does imply that it is for the front or for identification purposes of how to access or get into a property. Obviously, in this case, the sign is actually on the East elevation which points away from the front of the property, or at least from the front access part of the property. The number of surfaces that are allowed is two; in this case, we've got a one-sided surface. It does meet that criteria. They are allowed basically one sign per frontage; in this case, once again, the sign isn't really at the frontage—it's actually on the Eastern elevation. The sign is visible across the rear yard of the adjacent property, which we'll take a look at in just a moment. It is not facing the front of the lot. So if you are looking for the access driveway, for example, to get into this property, that is not where the sign is located. It's located and I think intended to be visible actually across the rear of the adjacent residential lot as if it's a corner, even though the property is not a corner lot. So from that perspective, staff doesn't believe that this criteria is met in terms of the intent of the ordinance. For graphics and visuals, you can see here, this is the view actually coming around the curve sort of in the side yard. This is the neighbor property—I'm not 100% sure if you can see my cursor, but you can see the house is the adjacent property, and so it's actually across their rear yard. And as an aerial, you can see from the blue triangles or viewshed areas that the sign is on that East elevation of the building, and it is visible then as you come around the curve on 117th Street. And then you can also see it at an angle when you're on the south end of the curve. You can see that the main access into the lot is actually from 117th Street, which is actually from the central portion of the lot. And so obviously, from a sign perspective—identification to access perspective—it certainly is more likely to be intended to be visible from those curves as opposed to from the front. There are size restrictions that are established within the A1. They are to have no sign greater than 32 square feet, 8 feet maximum in any dimension, except as otherwise noted. The total square feet on any individual lot cannot exceed 100 square feet. In this case, the sign is greater than 32 square feet—it's about 55 square feet. The maximum length of it is approximately 18 feet 7 inches based on the submitted plans, and the ordinance identifies an 8-foot maximum length. It does meet the 100 square feet total for the lot. There are no other signs that are on the property at this time. And I would note that because of how the language is written, there is some flexibility in terms of what signage would be permitted—whether or not you might allow some additional area or maybe two signs, whatever the case may be for businesses—but it does state that the intent is to be consistent with or similar to what those standards are with respect to size. The height is further defined and says that the top of the display shall not exceed 10 feet above grade. As it stands, it appears that from the ground plane to the bottom of the sign is approximately 15 to 16 feet above the ground plane. So this standard is also not met. The setbacks: they have to be at least 10 feet from any property line. In this case, they are approximately 120 feet from the side yard, so this condition is met. As I said, we didn't have an architectural plan, so what we did is we took the elevation from the 2021 plan, superimposed the winery sign on it approximately where it's at to get a sense of where it was in terms of the height. You can see by the pink lines how the height measurement was calculated, and then the width or the length of the sign was determined based on the applicant's submission. In addition to the criteria that was just identified, all signs... there is a section with respect to electrical and illumination of signs, and it clearly states that no electrically illuminated signs shall be permitted in a residential or agricultural district. So in this case, this is an A1 property, and no illuminated signs would be permitted. I will state that there's been some discussion about this over the years, at least in the time that I've been here. Previous councils have documented the fact that the purpose of prohibiting illuminated signs is to minimize the potential to adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood and residential structures. So in this case, as I stated, that sign is visible from adjacent rear yards and front yards and also the roadway, and so from that perspective, it does not meet this criteria. After we go through the dimensional standards, we walk through the conditional use permit criteria and review. You can see that because we've got an "after-the-fact" situation, it's actually a little bit easier to assess whether or not there would be some impact on the subject property based on what they're proposing. The first is that actually it's a conditionally approved use. In this case, the business has a valid CUP. That conditional use permit was granted in 2020 and 2021; it was amended. The sign has been shown to be in violation of the conditional use permit. It was required to be applied for, so after the fact, now they are. However, we've been attempting to gain compliance for several months at this point. I will state that obviously we do have provisions within the code that say when we allow these conditionally permitted businesses that they may also be permitted signage. So from that perspective, this is not to say that a wall sign would not be permitted; it's simply an assessment of the sign that is already installed and is out there after the fact. The second criteria is that the proposed use conforms to the city's comprehensive plan. As many of you know, within our comp plan, we do expressly state goals surrounding protection of rural residential properties and also protection of the night sky or dark sky. And so from that perspective, the illuminated sign would certainly not meet that part of our ordinance. The proposed use will not be detrimental or endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare of the city, its residents, or the existing neighborhood. As I stated before, we did receive a complaint about the sign, especially its illumination, because obviously it was bright and adversely impacting some of the properties in the immediate area. The light when it is lit is clearly visible from adjacent structures and roadways. And given that illumination, it also may be confusing to a driver who might think that that is the entrance or access into the winery because you can see it from the curve, when in fact you actually have to continue to travel on 117th Street to get to the front or where the access is. And there is actually no sign at the front of the property to demonstrate or signify that that is where the winery is. The proposed use is compatible with the existing neighborhood. In this case, we took a look at comparable businesses that operate with conditional use permits within the A1 and A2 zoning districts. In this case, you can see some examples of signage for very similar types of sort of agra-businesses that are in our community. In no case could we find an example of a wall sign actually that was used for the operation. All of the signs that we were able to find are actually somewhat similar to this, which are very sort of small monument signs at the entrance drives to indicate that that is the location of that business. You can see on at least one of them that there is actually some lighting, but the lighting is a spotlight or directional landscape light directly at that sign, and there is no internal illumination on any of the signs. So from that perspective, this sign is quite different than anything else that is in the community and would say that that is not necessarily compatible with what we have seen for similar types of businesses within these districts. The proposed use meets conditions or standards adopted by the city through resolution or ordinances. As we just discussed in terms of the ordinance or dimensional standards, the sign as it's proposed and installed meets three of the six standards that are established; therefore, it does not meet three of six. So from that perspective, it does not meet our ordinances as they are written. The proposed use will not create additional requirements for facilities or services; this criteria is met. The proposed use will not involve activities or processed materials, equipment, or conditions that will be detrimental to the people, property, or the general welfare. Once again, this is inconsistent with what we have seen from other types of businesses that we have conditionally permitted within the A1 and A2 zoning districts. In terms of the use not destroying or damaging natural, scenic, or historic features... once again, we did talk a little bit about this goal or objective of dark sky and night sky, which I know we've talked about quite a bit. So it will certainly be out of place from that perspective and out of character with what the city has identified as important. The proposed use will not increase flood potential or create additional water runoff; this condition is met, obviously, it's a wall sign and will not impact the site from that perspective. So based on the information that was provided, the after-the-fact signage, and then the conditional use criteria analysis, staff finds that the winery meets three of the six conditions; it does not meet three of the six standards that are established within the dimensional review. And it does not meet the standard for the electrical or illuminated signs. For those reasons, staff is recommending denial of the request to the CUP to allow for the installation of the sign. Since the sign has already been installed, staff is further recommending removal of the sign and all electrical components associated with the sign. Because the sign has been shown to be in violation of both the ordinance and the conditional use permit, in the past, the City Council has not allowed for the amendment of conditional use permits that would further intensify a business until that business is brought into full compliance with both the conditional use permit and the ordinances. So all of the other requests that were in the packet this evening with respect to intensification, staff is recommending denial of those requests because the property is simply not in compliance with the conditional use permit today and has not been in compliance for several months. To allow for further intensification or changes to the business when the business itself today is not in compliance, staff does not feel comfortable making a recommendation for you to do so. So from that perspective, your staff report has a bit more information, but the overall statement is staff is recommending denial of all of those requests to further intensify the site operations as well. The City Engineer—if you were to make a different finding and would allow for the intensification of the use, for example—there may be some additional review needed by both the City Engineer and the Watershed District, especially if the occupancy were to increase so that the parking lot would be appropriately designed and meet all the requirements for stormwater, etc. However, since staff is recommending denial, if you do agree with staff, no further review is really necessary because we're recommending that they cannot amend the permit, therefore they cannot increase the parking lot or the occupancy. This evening, you have three options: You can approve the request to amend the conditional use permit with certain conditions; you can deny the request with findings; or you can table the request if there's additional information from the applicant that would be helpful. As I stated, staff is recommending denial of the request to amend the conditional use permit for all of the requests: for the winery sign, for illumination of the winery sign, to increase the business occupancy, increase the parking lot, and to utilize the crush pad and a sound system. Staff is recommending denial of all proposed amendments. We are looking for direction and discussion from the City Council with respect to which option you would choose. If you are considering denial, staff would ask for direction to prepare a resolution of denial with findings, which would be placed on your agenda at the next meeting. So there are some draft findings that were provided in the staff report for your consideration, obviously once we've had the opportunity to have public testimony from the public hearing. So with that, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I'm happy to answer questions or obviously can wait until after the public hearing, depending on your wishes. **[42:12] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Thank you, Jennifer. Are you guys okay waiting on the questions till after the public hearing? Yeah. Um, I think we had Nick on too. Um, perhaps he wanted to weigh in on any comments on this, or no? He's good? **[42:25] Nick (City Attorney):** I sure can, Mr. Mayor. Obviously, as you've heard from Jennifer and read her report, she's done a very thorough and comprehensive evaluation of this particular application. Council will take note that this matter is in litigation—we haven't filed it with the court, but we had served out the applicants for this sign issue, which ultimately is the reason that this is before the Council, because we had taken the action relative to the sign that's in violation. And the applicants were directed to come to the Council. Obviously, they filed an application for the approval of the sign, but then they included some other requests. I think the planner is spot-on in terms of how she evaluates the request for the sign, its compliance with the various requirements under the code, and whether there should be any further approvals of the intensification of the use of this property while the sign remains out of compliance. It's our hope, certainly, that if the Council agrees with staff recommendation and denies the application, that with respect to the sign we will gain some voluntary compliance, which is ultimately what we're seeking in the litigation. The city never wants to be punitive or wants to act in a manner other than that which simply secures compliance with the rules as established by the city code, and that's the reason for the initiation of the litigation. And again, as you can see from the report, it's pretty clear that there are a number of issues with both the sign and the illumination of the sign that create concern for violation of the code but also for impacts on the surrounding property owners and impacts on those that are using the roadways nearby as they're navigating this area. So um, I'm certainly happy to take any questions at the appropriate time as well, but I support the planner's report, I support the planner's recommendation. It is fully aligned with the basis and the rationale for the litigation that we're pursuing, and ultimately, I concur with her findings and recommendations. **[44:54] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Thanks, Nick. Um, at this time I'd like to take a motion to open a public hearing for the amended conditional use permit for the Two Silos Farmhouse Resort. **[45:10] Ben Cornett (Council Member):** I will make the motion to open the public hearing. **[45:12] John Rog (Council Member):** Second. **[45:14] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Aye. **[45:15] Ben Cornett (Council Member):** Aye. **[45:16] Lindsay Cremona (Council Member):** Aye. **[45:17] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Mayor, aye. So we could probably start... do we have anyone online, Kim? **[45:25] Kristina Handt (City Administrator):** We do have people online so they can certainly raise their hand if they'd like to speak, but I would start with anyone here and then I do have emails from some people as well. **[45:41] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Okay, so we'll start with anyone that... Jeff, you... **[46:04] Jeff Schaefer (Resident):** First of all, I'd like to thank City Planner Jennifer Swanson and her staff for a well-thought-out and thorough report on this proposed CUP amendment. Um, and I agree 100% with her total denial of everything. One thing I want to point out for future: if there's any future expansion with this property, it is a 21-acre property, but it's a very narrow 21-acre property. And um, the activity in this business is all taking place in the bottom 25% of that piece of property, and it's directly adjacent to homeowners on the west and on the East. And those two homeowners are really, really taking the brunt of any CUP violations. So um, I think that's something to keep in mind for future. I'd also like to speak up on behalf of the homeowners to the east, Steve and Jean Brown. Um, they've... they're out of town, they couldn't be here tonight, but they have really taken the brunt of many of the violations of the CUP, and um, they would like to... you know, they appreciate Jennifer's work and they agree with the complete denial. **[47:39] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** We have comments from, um, Kim to be read into the public records from Steve and Jean. **[47:45] Jeff Schaefer (Resident):** Oh, okay. She'll read those in there. But yeah, I... okay. **[47:53] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Um, anyone else? Please. **[47:57] Ken Kramer (Resident):** All right, my name is Ken Kramer, and I am adjacent to the Two Silos Winery. I share a property line with them, and I support the full denial of the proposed amendment. Um, especially since they erected a sign without, you know, seeking the variance. Um, and that does seem to be a behavior that we're seeing with this property owner too is, um, kind of "do it first and ask for forgiveness later." Um, and that's one of the behaviors we'd like to see stopped. And we're definitely not at all in support of any increases in noise and operating hours, or well, especially the noise. So you know, the amplification of music... um, you know, they already have amplified music at the venue now, which I don't know if that's necessarily in compliance with the CUP, and um, further amplification would be definitely unacceptable to the neighbors. And the sign that they currently have really doesn't make any sense. It just points the wrong way. It's extremely disruptive to the traffic. It's an S-curve. We have a lot of accidents, we have a lot of people that go off the road, and the last thing we want is additional distractions or confusion in that area. So, I have to replace my mailbox at least twice a year. So, all right. **[49:31] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Thank you, Mr. Kramer. Um, anyone else in the audience? Yes, go ahead, sir. **[50:00] Chris Lamara (Resident):** Um, Chris Lamara. Um, I live on Upper Heather, which I share a property line with the winery and with Ken. Signed my name... okay. So I'm one of the neighbors that's taking the brunt of the sign. Um, it was upsetting to us to see that when it first came on. Our house is in full view of the sign and of the total winery property. Um, we're actually up—we're elevated quite a bit above the area—so we're very aware of the night sky, the street, the road, everything that goes on there. And so when that thing comes on, I... you know, I can see it when I'm making dinner, we can see it when we're watching television, we can see it when we go to bed. It's just big, it's bright—brighter than the moon, more than any car driving by. And when you're in a situation like ours, it just kind of takes over because it's... you know, the broad side of my house is facing this area and every room has a window. And so it's just... it doesn't matter where you go in the house, it's just present. And uh, it's just... I would characterize it as a large commercial sign in a residential area. You know, we appreciate the open space and the dimly lit area and the quietness of it. It's interesting Ken mentioned this because we do hear amplified music coming from there. And so, you know, when that place first went in I was concerned. I said, "Okay, this looks like a business coming into our neighborhood, what is this?" But I've actually since kind of accepted it because there's a certain kind of a beauty to vines and a winery, and it's agriculture. And I think, you know, I think we've kind of made peace with the fact that it actually looks nicer than it did before in most ways. But the sign's crazy. I think I would just say "caution" on the expansion, because I think the bigger this gets, the more commercial it becomes. I think it starts to exceed its beauty and it becomes more of a business activity among our houses. So, thank you. **[51:56] Resident Speaker:** I had a small thing to add, plus I didn't put my address on. Um, when you guys send out the notice, is there any way you guys can add any more details? All it says is... it had details about the sign but didn't say anything about the other requests on the public hearing notice. Yeah, I would like to, like... you know, I assume that in the future we'll see more of these come in for the Two Silos Farm where they want to expand their operations, so I want to know what their intention is in the notice that goes out. **[52:35] Kristina Handt (City Administrator):** Council members, the public hearing notice is meant as a public hearing notice only. Um, that is state law, it is a requirement. But what you do get is what the application is for—that's in the packet that's put on the city's website. So it shows actually a copy of the application and what they're asking for. **[53:05] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Oh, yeah. There's only so much that can be communicated in a public notice, but as Kim said, um, the packet has all the details there, which is posted about a week prior to the meeting. Yep. Okay. So maybe some instructions on how to get that. It's on the website, but yeah, if you... you can call myself or any of the Council members or staff and we can walk through how to navigate there. Um, anyone else in the audience here? And we'll go to... okay, um, Kim, we have some people online. Jennifer, do we have anyone in the audience that has raised their hand? **[54:08] Jennifer Swanson (City Planner):** Excuse me, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. So for those of you that are online in the Zoom session, if you are interested in providing testimony, please raise your hand. There should be a button at the bottom of your screen, and we will admit you into the session so you can provide your testimony. Okay, if there's anyone... one last chance just to make sure that everybody had time to find the button at the bottom of the screen. I am not seeing anybody raise their hand. **[54:49] Kristina Handt (City Administrator):** Interesting. Okay, nobody's raised their hand. But Mr. Mayor and Council people, I will go through the emails that I received which residents absolutely are encouraged—if they can't make a meeting, they absolutely have every opportunity to email me and we make it part of the public record. We're not going to make the three pages part of the public record, but the city got an email from Steve and Jean Brown at 7080 117th Street North. They are adamant against this amended CUP, making the statement: "Why are they even allowed to amend the CUP when they haven't met the requirements of the original CUP?" They should have been made to follow the rules, especially when the business involves alcohol, loud music, and loud patrons. And then they specifically go into their complaints regarding the sign and it needs to be taken down; every stipulation of the CUP should be enforced. Um, the area on the East End of the white building is for crop preparation staging—it's not a parking lot and it should not be allowed to have people gather there. Amplified loud music most every weekend; the music is too loud. And let's see, they have had many events that have exceeded the maximum patron limit; loud, intoxicated people; and the lighting is terrible and way too bright in the parking lot. So again, they are adamantly against any amendment to the CUP. And I received another email from a law firm who is the attorney for the neighbors, Charles and Tammy Lucius, that live on 117th Street. Um, he actually thanked us for the city's thoughtful preparation of the report and efforts to provide the thorough analysis. After reviewing the staff report, they fully support all the findings that were in the staff report to deny all proposed amendments. They are concerned about the unauthorized installation of a 55-square-foot illuminated winery sign. Again, they would like all amendments applied for to be denied and they want to reiterate their full support of denial of the request to amend the CUP. That's it. **[57:14] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Okay. Sounds like we're ready to close public hearing. Do I have a motion? **[57:19] Ben Cornett (Council Member):** I'll move to close the public hearing. **[57:21] John Rog (Council Member):** Second. **[57:23] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Council Member Cornett? **[57:24] Ben Cornett (Council Member):** Aye. **[57:25] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Council Member Rog? **[57:26] John Rog (Council Member):** Aye. **[57:27] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Council Member Cremona? **[57:28] Lindsay Cremona (Council Member):** Aye. **[57:29] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Mayor Giefer, aye. All right, so let's discuss it among the Council. Lindsay, you want to start? Share your thoughts. **[57:36] Lindsay Cremona (Council Member):** Yeah, I mean, I think it's really important that we get a lot of feedback from our constituents and we've gotten a lot, and I think that's really important to listen to the people who came today who took the time to testify at the public hearing. Also, you know, like Kim mentioned, we've gotten emails from many people expressing their concerns about this amendment to the CUP. We haven't heard anybody speak on behalf of the approval of the CUP, which I think is really telling on its own. Um, you know, I think many of us can enjoy having a winery nearby, like was mentioned that it, you know, looks beautiful, but let's keep it towards agricultural. That's really the purpose of what Grant is—to really encourage the agricultural and the rural aspect of our town. And while this winery can have aspects of that, I think it's important that we keep it within the bounds of what our town is and what we want to see our town remain like. And you know, to me, really hearing about the lights being bright... that to me, of the winery sign, I think more of city like Minneapolis life versus Grant life. When I go out my door, I think it should be pitch blackout when it's dark out. And so, you know, having an illuminated sign does push against what I think of living in Grant is like—outside of, you know, we want people to comply with their CUP, encouraging businesses that are within our ordinances, of course, without trying to squash them. **[59:22] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Yeah, thank you, Lindsay. I have seen that sign when it was lit and it was visible from quite a distance. Um, yeah, and it was very distracting, and I could see how it would be a safety hazard. Um, let's go to you, John, and see. **[59:33] John Rog (Council Member):** Um, you know, I'm amazed that somebody would put up a sign without... and reading in the original CUP that that wasn't allowed, and still did it. And so I'm amazed that they had the chutzpah, I guess, to say to do that. And uh, you know, so that's not right. That's not what most residents in the city of Grant would do. Um, so I'm just amazed that they did that and and and other things that they're doing. Um, about the sound... you know, we go back to some other businesses that we've had with sound, and we had to put in a second door so that if the sound is inside, we have a second door that kind of closes so you have that buffer. Um, maybe that's something that we can do, because if they have the sound on the inside and somebody opens the door, the sound comes right out. So I'm thinking of the wedding bar because it was too loud and they had to have a second door. So maybe we can think of something like that that would keep the sound in, not outside. No sound systems outside for sure, but if that sound is coming out when they open a door, maybe we have to have a buffer door as well. Um, just a thought. Um, Jennifer, question for you: Are there any other violations to the original CUP, such as planting trees or things to screen? Have they done anything else that was required that they haven't done? **[1:01:06] Jennifer Swanson (City Planner):** So Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I can't answer that 100% tonight. I don't believe that we've done a CUP review—it hasn't been subject to one of our annual CUP reviews at this point, which is typically when Jack, our building official/zoning administrator, goes out and sees the site to check compliance. And so, um, I can't state that 100%. What I do know is just what complaints we've received have been investigated, which is consistent with what our policy is, and that is how this came to fruition. Um, but other than that, I can't speak to that. So in terms of whether or not there needs to be a compliance check, we do our annual review process, otherwise we are complaint-led. So for instance, um, I was not aware—I don't know if Kim was—but I was not aware of, you know, amplification outdoors, for example. I think there may have been some discussion in conjunction with the signage piece of it, but I was not overly involved in that. But other than that, in terms of checking the 100% compliance of all of the conditions, typically that gets caught in that first year or two when we do the update. Every staff gets together every year and then Jack goes out and checks the site. And I don't believe that has been done yet, and Kim can correct me if I'm wrong or Nick, one of them remember. **[1:03:00] Kristina Handt (City Administrator):** But the city does investigate every complaint. Complaints did come in about the gathering in certain spaces; complaints came in of course about the light or the sign. In terms of... so that's what Jack looked at, right? In terms of have they done all their plantings, I don't know, because that complaint didn't come in. **[1:03:22] John Rog (Council Member):** Yeah, right. I don't know if, you know, people look at that specifically, but you know, it'd be nice to know if they were adhering to all the conditions that we put on the original CUP. **[1:03:33] Kristina Handt (City Administrator):** And and the city does have an annual CUP process, but it's a four-year cycle when all of them are reviewed. Yeah. Um, again, everyone has the right, and the complaint form is right on the city website to submit a complaint, which is confidential, and uh, all complaints are investigated. **[1:03:52] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Okay, well, yeah, I mean, to partially answer your question, John, um, I did not notice when I looked a couple days ago at the property—and I believe the requirement was 10-foot-high spruce trees to be planted along that eastern border for screening—and I didn't see any. But then again, I'm not, you know, Jack Kramer, so we'll leave him to do the official inspection. But that's what I've noticed, at least you know, now. Thank you. All right, thank you, Jennifer. Um, Ben? **[1:04:41] Ben Cornett (Council Member):** Nothing further. **[1:04:42] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Nothing further? Yeah. Um, I guess to wrap it up from my perspective, given that these recent violations have adversely affected the surrounding areas, it just would seem unreasonable at this time to expand permitted occupancy, the signs, you know, anything else. And so it seems like it would be the best... what I'm hearing from the Council is just to deny this amended CUP application. And if that's indeed what the Council thinks, can we hear a motion on that? Is this the time to make a motion to deny? **[1:05:14] Ben Cornett (Council Member):** I'll make that motion. **[1:05:16] John Rog (Council Member):** I'll second. **[1:05:18] Nick (City Attorney):** And just to be clear, I think what I heard Jennifer report was that the motion would be to deny subject to Jennifer drafting a resolution with findings of fact and conclusions based upon your discussion tonight, to come back for approval at next month's meeting. **[1:05:37] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Yep, that's correct. Council Member Cornett? **[1:05:41] Ben Cornett (Council Member):** Aye. **[1:05:42] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Council Member Rog? **[1:05:43] John Rog (Council Member):** Aye. **[1:05:44] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Council Member Cremona? **[1:05:45] Lindsay Cremona (Council Member):** Aye. **[1:05:46] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Mayor Giefer, aye. All right. City Attorney Nick, you don't have any items; you spoke before on the other matters, so I don't think we need to hear from Nick. New business: consideration of Resolution Number 225-05, appointment of council vacancy. Regarding this appointment process, um, we don't have a clearly defined process on how to actually fill a council vacancy. So my goal, and I believe the rest of the Council's, was that we do it in as fair a manner as possible, kind of making up a process as we go. And so I just want to share a couple things that I've done and the Council have done to that regard. So I started off by taking an online training class at the League of Minnesota Cities entitled "Filling the Council Vacancy," but lo and behold, there was nothing specific to actually describe the process of it. And so I reached out to another staff attorney at the League of Minnesota Cities, and I shared what we have done so far: that we posted it on the website, we encouraged people to contact all the Council members and make their case and explain their qualifications and interest. And um, additionally, we encouraged the people that were interested to come and speak in public comment. We can't have actual back-and-forth because that's, you know, not proper process, and we couldn't have it inside the meeting, otherwise we'd be having an unduly posted public hearing. And so that's why we decided to let the candidates speak in the public comment. The uh... a couple other things we did is um, we got a document from the League of Minnesota Cities called "Competencies for Effective Elected Leaders" that we shared to the Council to kind of use as a guide, because this is kind of new to all of us. And so we look for a resource, and I think that that helped me—I don't know if it helped the rest of the Council members—but then also shared a couple resources on how to limit bias from the decision-making process, which is always important because sometimes when you're considering candidates, you might tend to favor someone that you're more familiar with and things like that. And so any bias is something to be mindful of and attempt to remove that from the decision-making process. So that being said, the feedback I got from the League of Minnesota Cities after I shared this with her, like... to quote part of her response: "You're already going the extra mile versus what many cities do in this situation. It certainly seems like you're proceeding in a way that will maximize the number of candidates and allow the Council and public to learn about them before an appointment is made." So I hope we've done that. We've got a lot of good candidates; it's a good problem to have. And so um, that being said, um, we're going to talk amongst... each person in the Council is going to talk about their preferred candidate and explain why, and then after we've had everyone share their views, then we can call for a motion rather than just have someone put out a motion, which procedurally we would have to honor that, but does that sound... **[1:09:31] Ben Cornett (Council Member):** Yeah, okay for me. **[1:09:33] John Rog (Council Member):** Okay. **[1:09:34] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Okay. So Lindsay, would you like to start? **[1:09:37] Lindsay Cremona (Council Member):** I mean, I... I mean, I've talked with this a little bit. I'm so happy that we have so many people who are interested, and I think we have a lot of really great candidates. And we're lucky—Grant is a wonderful town to live in and we have a bunch of people who are enthusiastic to be involved, and I think that exactly what we need in this town. So I was very happy to see the amount of people that reached out. Back and forth, we had some really great conversations with everyone, and I think all the people on the Council, we really are really grateful to that. The one thing I feel like is missing—and I had a little bit of it—is just it wasn't until tonight that like our entire city knew who was interested. And to me, that's a little hard because we're appointing someone who's going to be representing the city. And so I did hear from certain people who, you know, heard from word of mouth "this person's running" or "this person is interested," and so I got some feedback on that and I really liked that. But it's the one thing I feel like is a little bit of a missing piece: having now that the city knows these are the five people that are interested—right? Five? Yes—that there's not that opportunity for now the city to come back and the residents and say, "Hey, I saw that these five people are interested; I really like this person or I'm a little hesitant about this person." And so for me, that part is missing, which is a little difficult. And I definitely don't want to postpone appointing someone, but at the same time, I really like that transparency of encouraging our residents to be involved. This is more than just, you know, approving or not approving like a CUP amendment; it's somebody who's going to now be voting on the future of the things for our city. So um, that piece is a little missing for me. So interested to see what the other Council members think. **[1:11:18] Lindsay Cremona (Council Member):** I know I said a lot, but... nothing moving forward with an individual specifically. But I mean, from my perspective—and I can understand if people are not gung-ho on this—but I would personally like to table who we appoint, allowing the opportunity for our residents to now say: "These are the five people who are interested in being appointed. Please give us your feedback. We'll be voting at the March meeting on somebody." And so then that way we can come forward and say, "All right, this is who we've heard from." That said, I have heard from some residents, which is great, um, but through word of mouth of, you know, who they support or who they'd be really interested in serving on this role. And I think we're lucky no matter what. I think we're going to get a great person because we have five really great people who are interested. **[1:12:12] John Rog (Council Member):** You know, it was... I was really happy about the quality of the candidates that came forward to be appointed. I'm... I don't recall this many people being interested in serving on the City Council, and it's fantastic. And it's hard. It's hard because everybody has something to offer, you know, and everybody is different, and so it's very, very, very... I'm in awe of everybody wanting to serve. So if if if what Lindsay had mentioned is acceptable and maybe we do let the residents make something heard, it's up to you guys, but... **[1:13:00] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Let's hear from Ben and I'll share my thoughts. **[1:13:03] Ben Cornett (Council Member):** Okay. Uh, again to reiterate, you know, we have a lot of good candidates. I don't think there's a bad one here that we've seen. Everybody brings more experience than I definitely had when I first came to the job. So you know, it's always just good to see everybody, what they bring, what their experience and background is. And then the thing about hiring is: hiring is hard. And... but you do need to do it. We do need to push forward in what we're doing. And I've been back and forth and back and forth; I had nothing to do last week but lay around be sick and read these things and try to figure out, you know, who I wanted to choose. Uh, I'm going to buck the system a little bit here and, you know, didn't come to this decision lightly. I don't know anybody personally, so it was all just kind of what I felt. And for me, I thought Greg [Anderson] was a was a great option. Um, he wasn't the only one, but he just kind of landed at the top of my list with experience, with uh, you know, his outlook on it. Um, I could be wrong, but uh, you know, that's just how I felt. Again, I think there are a lot of great candidates—I don't think there was a bad one in the group—but that's what I decided. **[1:14:40] Kristina Handt (City Administrator):** Mr. Mayor, Council members, is is that a motion? **[1:14:43] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Well, I wanted to let... let me speak. Yeah, clear. Um, so no, thank you everyone for sharing your your thoughts. And and my thought is that um, I do... I did have people reach out to me from the community and and shared their support for the various candidates. I think we did a good job of posting it, and the people that um, maybe weren't interested in applying themselves, they also had a month's worth of time to share their feedback. But um, as nice as it is to get a thumbs up from someone regarding a candidate, ultimately it's our job to to meet with these people and and vet them and ask them the questions. Um, I spent a minimum of 45 minutes with the candidates, and some even more, and so um, I feel like I'm comfortable in the information that I got from the candidates to make a a decision tonight. And so um, that being said, um, if if we if there's a a motion to table we can do that, but I would like—myself personally—I would like to go forward with this decision tonight. And we have um, Ben expressed Greg as his preferred candidate. Um, that being said then, John, do you have a candidate that you would would like to... **[1:16:04] John Rog (Council Member):** Um, I went through a lot of conversations and I think I, you know, read a lot of resumes and force-ranked, and Greg came up also for the top of my list. It's not that anybody was that much worse—everybody was great. **[1:16:21] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Okay. Um, Lindsay, would you... I mean, you're certainly welcome to make a motion if you want to postpone until... **[1:16:31] Lindsay Cremona (Council Member):** I'm not... no, and I don't feel like you're trying to, like, sandbag me, so don't feel like that's at all. I don't think you're doing that at all. I just more um, I think I already expressed just the desire, since I really like getting, you know, having our city open to our residents, knowing that their feedback is important. That said, I mean, as everyone said, all—everyone who's applied is a great choice, and that includes Greg as being a great choice. **[1:17:01] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Okay. Um... **[1:17:05] Ben Cornett (Council Member):** Make a motion to approve. **[1:17:06] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Uh, well, yeah, so... um, I just want to throw my sense in here too. Sorry. Um, yes, it was a tough choice. Any one of these people that spoke up tonight would be a great fit for the Council. I think that's a good problem to have, and I hope it's an indication that people feel comfortable in getting engaged in the city and making themselves available. And I don't think that there's always been that that comfort level. And so I feel really encouraged that people feel comfortable, and I hope that regardless of the outcome here—because we only could pick one, right?—and so I think the the people that didn't get picked are going to continue their interest in the city, continue contacting myself and other Council members and providing their input, because everyone has a valuable perspective. And us sitting up here on the Council table, we benefit from hearing from you guys, and we we uh, we need as much input as as we can get from the city, and you guys are are um, key players in giving that that input. Um, so there only can be one person, and I think... I had, you know, three or four people on my short list, and Greg was one of them. I think Greg is a good candidate. He's got three years of experience on the Planning Commission before it was disbanded. His education experience in civil engineering, I think, would make him a great fit. And um, he's been attending City Council meetings for, I think, three decades, he said, when I talked to him. And um, during during our conversations, he's demonstrated a breadth of knowledge on the the issues that Grant has faced in the past, and I think he's got a pretty keen insight on some of the future challenges we may face. And so um, and as he said, he's supportive of retaining our current zoning that will serve to protect our rural heritage. So um, and and the last thing I think really with Greg—and I think all the candidates, too—those are independent thinkers. I think that's really important that we have people that um, can think independently and bring their own thoughts, also have the ability to collaborate um, but without falling into the group thinking. So I think Greg would be a good candidate. So... **[1:19:15] John Rog (Council Member):** I'll make the motion to approve the appointment of Greg Anderson. **[1:19:20] Ben Cornett (Council Member):** Have a second. **[1:19:22] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Council Member Cornett? **[1:19:23] Ben Cornett (Council Member):** Aye. **[1:19:24] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Council Member Rog? **[1:19:25] John Rog (Council Member):** Aye. **[1:19:26] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Council Member Cremona? **[1:19:27] Lindsay Cremona (Council Member):** Aye. **[1:19:28] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Mayor Giefer, aye. And thank you again to everyone that um, expressed interest. I think it was a um, a good process for for for um, the Council to hear your thoughts, and it was a it was a difficult decision. So I I really appreciate everyone's interest, and I encourage you to keep engaged with the city going forward. So um, unfinished business... no unfinished business. Discussion items... no. Staff updates? City Council reports? Feature agenda items... I just... I'd like to go ahead, sorry. **[1:20:25] John Rog (Council Member):** Are you? I'll start... **[1:20:26] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Go ahead, John. **[1:20:28] John Rog (Council Member):** I was just going to say a future agenda item. Um, I was going to suggest that in the next meeting, perhaps we can put on the agenda to discuss putting the Planning Commission back together. **[1:20:39] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Yep, and that's something that we had mentioned last meeting. So um, there is definitely a lot of um, interest in that, and I I want to make sure like the discussion that we have in the um, reforming the Planning Commission is is fact-based and thoughtful. And so um, one of the things I was thinking—I want to know what you guys think—is um, for the first meeting maybe we could um, focus on um, decision criteria that we'd want to use in a discussion. Um, for example, the number of land uses, land use applications last two years, and the the the cost of staff to hold meetings, different things like this. And and then when we... and then we'll give the staff some time to pull that information together, then we can have a a discussion with um, with all the facts. So Kim, does that sound um, okay to you? Like you could schedule um, something in the next um, meeting about um, soliciting soliciting um, the decision criteria that the Council wants to consider in the discussion of the Planning Commission, and then um, following that then we we could take whatever information that's requested and bring that back to discussion in the next meeting after that? **[1:22:15] Kristina Handt (City Administrator):** Uh, Mayor and Council members, I think that if it is the consensus to have this discussion on the agenda, I would say a future agenda. There is a possibility there may not be a March meeting, so either March or April. **[1:22:28] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Okay. So the next... the next meeting that we have. Okay. **[1:22:31] Kristina Handt (City Administrator):** Next regular council meeting. **[1:22:33] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Is that the consensus? It seems to be the consensus. Okay, thank you. Got it. And then um, I got one. I'll go... In the January meeting, there was a um, a call to anyone interested in the Fire Marshall position to share their interest. And I think there's a um, uh, some difficulty hearing in the back. I know um, I talked to Jeff Schaefer, and after that meeting he he shared his interest. And so um, just want to know if the Council would be interested in adding the agenda item to the next meeting to modify the 2025 appointment list um, to add Jeff Schaefer as a Fire Marshall. And we don't have to remove, you know, Joyce, and we could just add add him as a Fire Marshall if the Council is interested in having that as an agenda item. **[1:23:25] Lindsay Cremona (Council Member):** Yeah, at a future meeting. **[1:23:27] John Rog (Council Member):** At a future meeting. **[1:23:29] Ben Cornett (Council Member):** Future meeting. **[1:23:31] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Future meeting. And Jeff, you're still interested? **[1:23:35] Jeff Schaefer (Resident):** [Off-mic] Yes. **[1:23:37] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Okay. Any other? **[1:23:38] Lindsay Cremona (Council Member):** I don't know if this is the right for future... identify at some point, but I know we talked about it um, in the past that our public comment is not recorded. And so at a future meeting we'd like to maybe discuss on whether we'd want to have public comment recorded in the future. I think just example of today, we had some really great people commenting on why they were interested in the open vacant position and that wasn't recorded, and so it'd be nice to have that um, in the record for the future. Um, so just not sure if that's the way we address it is through a future agenda item or if there's a more logistical different way that we handle it, but... **[1:24:29] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** So yeah, I think there's um, a lot of um, history and reasons, you know, why the decision was made—I don't know how many years ago—to not record um, the the um, the citizen input. And um, the the other thing too would be um, if we're not getting accurate capturing of the of the minutes... that is captured, right? I mean... **[1:24:59] Kristina Handt (City Administrator):** Yeah, it's written. **[1:25:01] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** So um, that's something we could definitely um, discuss. I mean, there would be pros and cons to that. So um, is there consensus in the Council to add that as an agenda item? Discussion of um, public comment? **[1:25:15] Lindsay Cremona (Council Member):** Yeah, I mean if it's... it seems to be worth discussing. **[1:25:18] John Rog (Council Member):** Yeah, I would I would put it down on the agenda; we can discuss it. **[1:25:21] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Okay. **[1:25:22] Kristina Handt (City Administrator):** Okay. Uh, community calendar. Who would like to read the community calendar, unless there's any other... is there any other... **[1:25:31] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** I've exhausted mine for this month. **[1:25:34] Ben Cornett (Council Member):** Well, okay, if not. Made a sick guy do it. Okay, sure. Mahtomedi Public School board meetings: Thursday, February 13th and February 27th, Mahtomedi District Education Center, 7:00 p.m. Stillwater Public Schools board meeting: Thursday, February 13th, Stillwater City Hall, 7 p.m. Washington County Commissioners meeting: Tuesday, Government Center, 9:00 a.m. President's Day: Monday, February 17th. **[1:26:01] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** This year... with that, motion to adjourn? **[1:26:05] Ben Cornett (Council Member):** Move to adjourn. **[1:26:07] John Rog (Council Member):** Second. **[1:26:09] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Council Member Cornett? **[1:26:10] Ben Cornett (Council Member):** Aye. **[1:26:11] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Council Member Rog? **[1:26:12] John Rog (Council Member):** Aye. **[1:26:13] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Council Member Cremona? **[1:26:14] Lindsay Cremona (Council Member):** Aye. **[1:26:15] Jeff Giefer (Mayor):** Mayor Giefer, aye. Meeting adjourned. Congratulations. **[1:26:22] Kristina Handt (City Administrator):** Congratulations! Thanks.