This transcript features **Kathy Weier** (Councilmember) serving as the Acting Mayor in the absence of Mayor Jennifer Arsenault. [0:00] Kathy Weier: starting right now mhm we're going to start with the Pledge of [0:25] Kathy Weier: Allegiance okay um I am acting as mayor tonight in the absence of the mayor uh so first item on the agenda is approving the agenda anything people need to change did you want to you going to pull out the tree Stewart program yes uh we'd like to pull out C update on tree Stewart program under City business um to remove that from the meeting tonight um and it will be introduced at some point in time for later right yes right but they just aren't ready to support it yet okay and then I have a few items on the cons consent agenda I'd like to move up into City business to [1:10] Kathy Weier: get more info on before approving them personally um so I was hoping to discuss a d e and f which is treasury report empowering parks with Doc Authority City Credit Card implementation and additional office equipment needs that I would like to pull up into City business to discuss any other changes just could I just have one second I want to make sure you got all the ones I was worried about um I would like to pull out Jay taet rental agreement please absolutely okay you said that theres was planning on being here right Allan you are there she is you are you [1:57] Kathy Weier: can sit up front we we have a spot that's okay if you don't want to okay okay um I did have questions about one item but we'll discuss that when we get there any other changes to the agenda otherwise we'll proceed I'm moved to adopt the agenda as amended second all in favor I I all right next item is open public forum so do we have any people here ready to speak see Barton you want to come up to the mic oops Barton winter one Five Oaks [2:45] Barton Winter: Lane and um I did speak with Kathy about my um intent to purchase two new nets for the hockey rank down there and the reason being Nets are uh grading the net bags and the mayor and I did uh review that and she was down there and she uh indicated to me that that was something she thought should be done so um the issue is we have to purchase not only the net bags the uh the nylon webbing but also the uh frames so that is something that I I sent to all four council members and the total is approximately around [3:30] Barton Winter: $500 and I want to pay for half of that so that's what I was hoping would be a possibility for an agenda item uh tonight and uh I don't I don't know if it's possible or not but I did send emails to all four of you so anyway okay and then uh another thing is the um the opening on the parks and natural resources committee uh I I did send a letter to Kathy which is in her email and uh indicating why you know and I I talked to tce and she said I should send a letter so uh I did send that um and also I want to talk about you know just a little bit of uh [4:16] Barton Winter: communication issues that I've had throughout the winter time trying to communicate with council members about the rink and not getting very much feedback and delayed feedback uh so I'm not happy with that and uh also at the last Parks committee meeting I was asked to um commentate on the uh proposed rules for the rink including flooding one of the categories was flooding and um basically uh Allen had uh Rewritten the rules for the rink and uh when I started to present my information he did they did not allow me to um present the information that I have which according to the bylaws on [5:02] Barton Winter: the in the Parks committee that that is maintenance is also one of the categories that the parks committee considers so uh you know I'm very unhappy with that that in fact um Mary Su Simmons was was giving me some feedback that I was out of order when I felt like I wasn't allowed to present my information so um you know I I hope the communication improves and you know I am trying to uh work with the mayor on the rink and I know that's you know we're waiting for next year but uh you know hopefully you know the council is supposed to respond and that that's why we have council members and not just like the mayor but you know if I submit [5:48] Barton Winter: something and right can you wrap up Parton okay thank you thank you anyone else for the public forum no okay going to close the public forum there you go careful very Dr don't break it a little a little softer next time all right cool all right then we have announcements um teres are you making the announcements or you want me to read them um you may read them okay announcements we have Lake Links task force meeting is on Thursday March 14th at p.m. that's at City Hall correct okay um city council will be [6:35] Kathy Weier: holding a workshop on March 31st at 6:45 p.m. that would also be here at the city hall uh there is a seat available in our parks and natural resources committee we'd like people to submit um letters of uh intent I guess to potentially interest thank you to join that committee um so we can decide on that for next month any other other announcements that we have from the council teams all right that concludes all of the announcements going to city business variance reviews we have uh two up so first one is 131 Wildwood Avenue that starts on page four of your [7:24] Kathy Weier: packet do you do you want to tell us a little bit about that one I think it would be better to let Ben Ben introduce it any want to intr unless Len wants to but maybe just let Ben okay that good evening uh acting mayor council thank you this is a handful of variances for 131 Wildwood Avenue um some of them sort of fall under the same same umbrella as each because this was a small cabin type thing non-conforming in a lot of ways uh and they are replacing with a typical larger single family home um so the Varian is that we did a wonderful [8:10] Ben Wikstrom: application and a lot of detail in there I'm sure you have it in your packet um there's an the variances that are officially being sought um we've listed and it's in my staff report kind of uh letters a through F at the top um number one it's an undersized lot uh the plan the the minimum is 15,000 square ft for riparian lots and this is just under 8,000 or 7590 I think um the garage in East Side East Side sidey yard setback of five feet rather than 10 ft and the setback from the road of uh 16 ft rather than 30 this was a legally non-conforming structure with zero feet of setback and [8:56] Ben Wikstrom: so they're improving the situation it's just that they don't meet the code so um in order to replace a non-conforming structure it has to be in the same spot well in this case they're replacing but they're moving it into a better spot it just doesn't meet the ordinance set packs um the house has a West Side setback proposed of 8 and 1 12 ft rather than 10 um this was a a little bit of a discussion at the Planning Commission level because they do have 20 ft of of total setback they have 11 and a half on one side and eight and a half on the other so it it could meet each of the 10 ft with the house size proposed um keep in mind there was an existing 8 and 1/2 foot setback on that side so they're not [9:42] Ben Wikstrom: increasing that it's just the house used to sit a little bit at an angle so that was just the closest point um this would utilize that setback of eight and a half for that whole stretch um the you know in applying for these variances there's that there's that test of practical difficulty is it reasonable uh alter you know is it alter the character of the neighborhood and then was it something that they are doing that is causing the need for this variance um the Planning Commission I believe there was there was only three members there and one of them motioned to deny the8 and 1 half fet and just have it 10 feet and 10 ft um that motion died for lack of a second and then it passed 2 to [10:29] Ben Wikstrom: one one to allow this 8 and 1/2t setback on that side um you know the reasoning for it from their perspective in moving that garage into a better spot and using the fact that this is a 50 foot lot um so that's sort of the is it a situation that wasn't created by them well an 80 foot lot width is typical or is required for New Lots now this is a 50 foot lot um but the reasoning being if you move that garage back and you're dealing with a 50ft lot 10 ft on each side that it really obscures their front entry uh in the house design so they just wanted to keep that garage a little bit further away and keep that house off of that [11:14] Ben Wikstrom: side of the property line an extra foot and a half or make it a foot and a half closer um there's also a walkway to the lake from there uh you know kind of between the front of the Luder the street and the garage so to walk on that side of the house and they have some egress windows on that side of the house so um they'd like the 8 and A2 and 11 a half on the other side there are certainly a number of non-conforming sidey guard setbacks all over that stretch of the lake and with a 50- foot lot um the two Commissioners who approved or voted to approve it um saw that it wouldn't alter the character and it was a reasonable request and considering it's a 50 foot lot um they [12:00] Ben Wikstrom: thought that was okay so certainly rather subjective interpretation but if you weigh all of the factors for findings for approval of a variance it can be argued that it meets all of those so that one passed by a two to1 vote I should have mentioned all the other ones passed by a three to nothing vote uh or passed a recommendation for approval the letter E the house height um of greater than what was there I guess we will say because it was a legally non-conforming structure a higher house than was allowed would be considered an expansion of that um there's still the variance is not necessary because they won't go above the ordinance maximum it's just the fact that it's an expansion of what was there the [12:46] Ben Wikstrom: replacement is higher than the cabin that was there um the cabin is gone now right cabin is gone yep um and then the f is the retaining walls requested within 50 F feet of the ordinary high water setback they have uh a few retaining walls kind of a tiered system uh nothing over four feet so they're smaller walls but it's um just the way to control that that Shoreline and that slope and they will they have applied or will be applying for a permit to have impervious between 25 and 30% they're they won't they won't exceed 30 so they won't need a variance that's not included here but uh if they stay between 25 and 30 there's a lot of calculations they need [13:32] Ben Wikstrom: to do and uh submit the site plan and everything for review of Marcus's review and mine somewhat um so they're pretty confident they'll be within that window but they do need a variance for the location of probably that some of those shorter walls they'll be within the 50 Foot ordinary high water setback so um like I said all those were recommended for approval and the the wests side setback of 8 and half rather than 10 was the one that had discussion everything else the Planning Commission was very much in favor of this and thinks it'll be uh a great addition to the neighborhood and uh like I said they turned in a great application and we've spent a lot of time we've met a couple times with them and I've talked to Len quite a bit um so [14:18] Ben Wikstrom: they've done their done their due diligence and prepared a nice plan and uh it was received favorably by the Planning Commission and they recommended approval of all of these in uh if you have any questions I'll I'll take them otherwise Len and and Joe the applicant are here but I'll be right here for anything else thank you thank you you want to address the council at all regarding your [14:51] Kathy Weier: application acting mayor and members of the council it's great to be here my name is len Pratt I live at 301 Wildwood Avenue I primarily want to introduce uh Joe and this is his home and he's thoughtfully done this plan he's um I've worked with a lot of people over the 50 years and I can tell you this that Joe is as thorough um an applicant as as I've ever worked with and um and that submission I think reflects that um with that Joe come on up here he's going to be a great addition to Birchwood and uh I mean that and his [15:39] Len Pratt: and his wife theres will be great as well good evening everybody Joe gadt proud owner of 131 Wildwood great to be here welcome um thank you um sorry my wife can't be here she's we have our one of our grandkids um for the week expectedly but all good um yeah we we are really excited about this opportunity to build this home here um this is going to be kind of our you know downsize retirement home um for us and you know we're just really looking forward to being on the lake uh I grew up on a lake up in the Brainard Lakes area uh when I was a kid uh it's a great opportunity to kind of get back to uh to [16:25] Joe Gadt: Lake living so anyway uh do you have any specific questions about the application um you know Ben did a wonderful job I think of summarizing you know a lot of the details I was thinking we'd go through each one of the variances individually if you agree would would suggest that's a good idea okay so as we get to them we'll we'll ask questions as we go here so mention we met with the neighbors oh yes we did um meet with the neighbors on both sides and reviewed the site plan and the details of what we wanted to build and they were both uh sides very and I can say Chris and Renee who live on the west side there stopped me in the street and said they liked what you were doing there so okay that's the one with the shorter variance correct West [17:11] Joe Gadt: correct correct all right uh variance request number one is construction on an undersized lot is there any discussion for that one I would like to I would like to propose a condition um that and the condition I would like to propose would be that there are two lots here that compose this property and I also have some concerns that it's you know among the smaller properties in Birchwood as a condition I would like to propose that the Lots be merged together and that's a kind of a no cost thing that you can do it's not going to change the the density of Birchwood but I think that's appropriate required by the state [17:57] Ryan Eisele: so I would I would propose that condition on this variance so and we do have the application to complete that and are sort of in process any additional comments from Bridget or Ryan no okay do I have a motion I will move to approve the variance uh for construction on an undersized lot which with the condition that um the Lots be merged together prior to the issuance of permits um is that is that good enough I think so do we have a second second alen did you have a [18:43] Kathy Weier: comment um yes well we're motioned and seconded and so since we've got a whole series of these I think a good caveat to go with them assuming that they're all passed at some point would be to have the letter communicating the variances are successful to also put in there the so we've got some findings Allan I've got a whole bunch of findings I was going to throw those in at the end for approval is that okay someone's thinking about other than me I'm thinking about it I just thought since we have so many here I don't want to go through findings on each one unless either front end or back end but as long as we get those on the record that'd be that'd be make my my day anyway excellent all right so we have a second all in favor all I opposed [19:30] Kathy Weier: pass could probably go harder than that uh number two is uh see variance two is garage East Side setback of 5 feet code calls for 10 feet um this one is the garage only correct okay any questions comment concerns I would add a condition to this one that the setback reduction be limited to the distance the garage spans along the east property line for the uh variance right right [20:16] Ryan Eisele: it's just the garage just the garage just the garage the the setback is reduced only for the garage structure adjacent to the property line or along the property line rather than uh Ryan do you have a better wording well typically would be worded as accessory structure setback but that could open up for further uh you know for a a shed or something Elsewhere on the property so you just want it ju specifically for this proposed location specifically for this proposed location yeah and for that proposed structure and that yes I can figure out and Allan if you want me to draft a letter and say send it to you with all this stuff I can do that if if you'd rather any hands make [21:05] Allan (Attorney): light work I'll try I'll try to capture all this but if we both take notes we'll between the collective we'll be fine okay excellent you do however need someone to move it yes I do did you want to make the motion for that I will move to approve variance number two the reduction in setback for the garage to 5 ft with the condition that the variants for the reduction and setback apply only to the garage structure um along the east property line good enough okay I will second that any other discussion all in favor I I [21:53] Kathy Weier: opposed uh variance request two passes uh variance request number three garage right of way set back at 16 ft code calls for 30t my understanding for this one is the previous garage which is no longer there was originally directly on the property line so the garage will be moving back 16 feet right constructed really constructed 16 feet back any additional comments questions concerns I would just put the same condition on this one that it applies only to the garage y only to the driveway you mean uh only to the front of the garage oh to the front okay yep [22:38] Ryan Eisele: only to the the garage along the garage structure the garage yep y make that in form of a motion right okay I move to approve the garage RightWay setback at 16 ft which is variance request number three on the condition that the setback reduction apply only to the garage um from the property line along the street I'll second Kathy any additional all right all in favor I I [23:25] Kathy Weier: opposed variance three passes variance four uh house wests side yard setback at 8.5 ft code calls for 10 um I did have a question is uh in one of the documents for this one it did describe that it needed uh they wanted it to move that direction due to a right of way on the east side to make it easier to get to the lake for emergency mhm if we if they did move it to the 10t equal is there a reason that it's other than that it was already there I think does it work better with the lot somehow that way or well I think the walk the walkway or the access on that side plus the egress windows is [24:11] Ben Wikstrom: that sort of the yeah and then like we were talking about it's it's more of a desire and an aesthetic thing in the front if it's shed that way the front door front entry is behind the garage rather than an appearance of a front door so um it's a it's a lot of things that aren't necessarily gerine to applying for a variance as far as practical difficulty but that Lake access um and then the fact that it's not exceeding what was there before um they you know they could put a footprint the exact same as was there before and it would be worse so um I it's it's hard to it's like I say it's pretty [24:58] Ben Wikstrom: subjective but it's a better layout and I should mention that would be an eight and a half and I think we saw on this on the plan was there nine and a half on the neighboring property um so in total there's 18 feet rather than the 20 we would hope for um it's not a it's not a situation where there's a you know structure right on that property line so there is room over there but it's also not creating something where things are very tight and you talked to the neighbors and they were cool with that very fine we went through the site plan all the details what we in the pickets at your house at the [25:43] Joe Gadt: house are very brief [25:50] Ryan Eisele: so um so the the question and we're talking about the West Side yard set back here um how how far is the house back from the East side how far will it be set back from the East side so the the front of the house do you want to come up to the microphone just to make sure the that's a good [Music] idea so people that live on the lake you know the front side is the lake side right and the back side is the street side so I know this is going to be a bit hard to see [26:36] Joe Gadt: but thank you Len um so the very back side of the house which is the lake side is narrowest and I think the narrowest dimension is 24 feet or 23 feet and then it expands to 25 ft and then ultimately to 30 feet in the back the width of the okay steps it back towards the lake to get a so the front Eastern you know portion of the lot will actually much wider than 11 and a half fet you know I think the widest portion is 16 or more feet and what's the let me [27:22] Ryan Eisele: let me if you don't mind let me get to kind of the point of my question is I'd like to assign a condition on the east side of the house a minimum a setback that's more than 10 feet there and I'd like to know how what the minimum distance the house is back from the house would be at the 11 and A2 foot so if we assign a a condition that that that setback be permanently maintained at 11 1/2 ft very that's that's com you're comfortable with that okay said differently a total of 20 ft that's minimum I like that yep I like that better okay is if that's is that okay with you let go that was our intent as well to sort the total [28:08] Joe Gadt: menion okay and then it Narrows yeah you get his stairway off is porch down and yeah that makes actually I think that's a better way to put it Windows here here these two is this a porch no that's just simply open space there okay that's retaining wall so he's got his egress windows in his in his walkway and he steps it back opening this up so that there a courtesy to the neighbor and the house design also then has this so what's this right here that's a sidewalk no this is a sidewalk but what's right next to the sidewalk [28:53] Ryan Eisele: that's just a retaining wall that's a flattened area that'll be okay there's a lot of articulation on this building you know it moves [Laughter] around so let me ask one more question here um with respect to the 8 and 1/2t setback there this was the one that wasn't unanimous at the Planning Commission is there some topology on the east side my understanding was and maybe you can explain this a little better that there was topology on the sorry on the west side of the house there was a hill there can you talk a little bit about how that makes the the [29:40] Ryan Eisele: lot is topologically um such that it's preferred to do to reduce the setback on that side could you talk about that briefly um so the and maybe at the mic please we going to get get your exercise here with us but that's good um so on the western edge topographically sorry I always mess those up that's right yeah so on the western edge between our lot and the neighboring lot the elevation there is higher than on the Eastern side so it's so it's little bit like this and it's fair bit it's four feet maybe 5et of elevation change so what that [30:27] Joe Gadt: ultimately means is you is it's impractical to to be able to you know walk along the western edge and get down to the water you kind of have to use the east side as the main walkway to get from the lake back to the garage and then back um or to the back to the front of the house or to the street and so with the ESS Windows as well all of a sudden it gets to be very tight on that east side of the garage and pushing to the West is is is kind of just building the house into the hill a little bit more which you know is intended to sort of it's kind of Dead Space if you will on that West Side um it's not really useful space but at the same time you know we want to make sure [31:13] Joe Gadt: that we maintain you know that access on that side and so that was kind of the trade-off we were looking for if we could get that foot and a half then that would give us a little bit more Elbow Room on the east side and it wasn't really taking anything away on the west side does that make yeah I guess I want to understand because I think it would be probably be on a flat lot it would probably be preferable to go 10 and 10 and but I also think that you know my experience having a house on a lake lot that where those setbacks are reduced I almost have to I'm forced to fortunately have nice neighbors but sometimes almost have to walk on their Lots yeah and so you know [32:02] Ryan Eisele: this it I think I can understand it in that context so any other comments from reg right NOP do you want to make a motion since you wanted to put a so condition on that I will move to approve variance request for House West Side yard setback at 8.5 ft with the condition that other than the garage as proposed no structure be constructed or expanded within 11 and 1/2 [32:50] Ryan Eisele: ft of the east side of the lot no the condition is on the east side is that but double check what I said does that sound right to you guys the East Side would be the 11 yes the 11 and a half is on the east side of the lot yeah and I thought that the uh pardon me for interrupting but no plans show 11.3 to the edge I thought it was 115 is it just looking through at the uh some of the drawings like one of the first uh one with the blue and the purple oh oh no no no you're right because the they included the [33:43] Joe Gadt: lot okay so I withdraw my motion and I will make the motion again I move to approve variance request for the house side house wests side yard set back at 8.5 ft with a condition that no structure other than the garage as proposed be constructed or expanded within 11.2 ft of the East property line you have a tenth of a foot of go room leeway leeway yeah do I have a second second all appro no all in favor in [34:30] Kathy Weier: favor thank you long hi all opposed variance request number four passes mayor can I can I clarify something Ryan in that motion you did not have maintain a 20 foot total setback or something right I said 11.2 I mean you just were concerned that that that's all I really I guess I didn't say it I think the way Joe did it was better but it's it has the same meaning right that's good I just I wasn't listening yeah thank you thanks so all right variance request number five house height of greater than 30 feet method a 35 ft Max code calls for no higher than [35:16] Kathy Weier: the previous home Max height of approximately 25 ft have any discussion for that one how is that calculated that's a whiteboard discussion but the the he well we haven't submitted a plan the the building permit will have that calculation on be required to have the calculation based on method a b or c in our ordinance and it's it's a lot it's pretty convoluted but they aren't asking for a variance to go above the ordinance this is just because it's an expansion of the non-conformity that was there it's higher than that but they know they know if they went above [36:02] Ben Wikstrom: the 35 Max or 30 average or whatever it is in that ordinance section that they would have to come back for a different variance so we can show you the calculations when we get them if you want I guess always curious about that yeah I guess my concern here is I'm not quite sure what what I'd be approving if I vote for a variance with on for the house height with no conditions at this point I think the request is to just be able to go this was a flat top right yeah or very close to it the existing structure no it had a it had a little pitch people call it a Gable I like to call it pointy but that's my technical term previous [36:48] Ryan Eisele: pointy was only a certain height and to get anything above that they need just at least this variance but the height code allows them to build see I think the high code allows them to build a conforming structure with I think because it's already non-conforming they're asking for the variant because it's started out as non-conform and it's still within code I believe it's I don't think it's needed but it may not be but here's the It's a combination of that first variance undersized lot right they're entitled to replace what was there but if they're expanding if it's a non-conformity yeah if it's not the same non-conformity and that would include [37:35] Ben Wikstrom: the height is considered an expansion when you look up the definitions in the statutes it's vertical or horizontal expansion so uh because it's a non-conforming lot and they're utilizing the fact that it was a non-conforming in some doesn't make any sense we can change well I mean like here I can read you the code here y but it's core it's an expansion of a non-conforming a non-conformity on the lot that's why they're asking for it so if they want to build anything over 25 ft they need the variance based on what was there because it's non-conforming changing but they're still within current code correct sounds good to me so you're saying they well so [38:21] Ryan Eisele: here's my concern with this variance is when I when I vote on this what am I voting on what what variance is proposed here it looks like it's just a blanket variance to the height code I was thinking this would be a variance that would be house height cannot exceed 35 ft Max but can exceed previous 25 ft of that's that's yeah that's the way structure yeah the way it's written sort of yeah I'm I'm willing to make a motion for that where it cannot exceed 35 ft Max um but average well no that would be Max 35t Max but you're making a motion for a variance that's equivalent to the code but the reason I'm doing it is because the previous structure was 25 ft [39:07] Ryan Eisele: and they basing theirs on an existing structure which technically is not there anymore no they're not not in this case show me where so that that doesn't make any sense you can build a new structure on a lot that conforms and you don't have to pay any attention to the old structure as long as it doesn't exceed I think what was there before in terms of non-conforming no you can build a you could tear down an old house and build a brand new conforming house and that's just fine you could do it on an undersized LW if you get a variance to the undersized laot but if you're if you're going to say that we have to Grant a variance for every single code because a variance because something [39:53] Ryan Eisele: doesn't conform to one single code we're going to have to basically Grant Varian to all of our code but isn't it I think this was just an abundance of caution by these folks recognizing that what they're building is going to be greater than what was there so yeah I mean I am fine with that what I'm not fine with and I'm fine with saying to the extent that it exceeds the height of the previous structure within a setback is that what it's saying is because the setbacks have been reduced now the structure can go higher the height so so how how is but because I mean Brian what would make you comfortable my what would make me comfortable would be basically I think we should have somebody tell us precisely [40:41] Ryan Eisele: what is being varied as part of this like could they build a one-story house are you saying Ben that as soon as this house is above the old house in any way that they need a variance essentially yes because they are using the fact that it's IL legally non-conforming previous like their deck will be utilizing the old established setb because it was legally non-conforming but I mean if I grant this variance what prevents them from building a house that's and I don't mean like listen Len I think you're I don't mean to say this in any sort of a derogatory way um I don't [41:27] Ryan Eisele: think you're trying to push the limits here but there are people who come in and say okay here's the one thing I'm going to do and then they get a variance and then all of a sudden what you get is something very different here Ryan this has this has limits on it so so if I'm by no means my home builder or anything like that but basically if it was a one for one replacement of the property then you wouldn't need a variant since they're building a new structure that's going to be above the old structure that's where you need the variant it's just like and I want want to say like if you're doing a home repair and you're doing a one forone replacement you don't need to get a permit but if you're doing something that you're adding on our building you need to get a permit so you're saying the new height of the house is non-conforming no no it's exceeding the [42:14] Kathy Weier: previous not a better example I think would be the garage that you guys have now varied right yeah so the previous garage was literally at the edge of the property right at the RightWay so now the new one is pushed back was it 16 ft 15 ft why would I they still needed a variance because that's still not in compliance with the existing code that's right because they need a variance to build within the setback they would and because the garage protrudes into the setback mhm with the but I don't understand why a height variance is needed when the height of the new house is fully conforming that also extends into this back if you grant the 8 and 1/2 foot sidey yard but sure and part of that is [43:02] Ryan Eisele: the fact that the old structure was I mean if you're granting if you're starting from scratch and saying just this is a lot of record so it's buildable everything that meets code we don't need a variance for yeah that kind of changes that the height thing and whatever but is already removed from this should we be looking at this as a new build something of a new build build now it's just a hole in the ground right well they have a they have a year to I mean Ben does does what they're proposing conform to the height code or doesn't it well he doesn't know he hasn't seen the plan well then how can you how can you tell us a variance is needed without having seen the plants no we don't have to tell you that if they come with a building permit that doesn't meet it then we're telling them you got to come [43:49] Ryan Eisele: back and get a height variance they know they know it has to meet that code then why are we in here discussing a variance when you're telling me a variance isn't needed a v no no no you're you're saying in a in a different scenario they come in because they have a variance and they exceed the 30 and 35 foot limits that's not possible so is the house you don't know whether the proposal is conforming or not I don't know I never know what what's conforming until they submit a building no just a second like how come Ben like what why is the what do you expect that they might do that would require a variance build a structure higher than the previous [44:36] Ryan Eisele: non-conforming structure on the non-conforming lot which by the state statute and by probably the orance adopted is an expansion the variance a variance would only be required if they built a structure that's higher than the current conforming code so I'm not asking relative to the old structure what do you expect that they're going to build that is not conforming to the current code I don't expect them to exceed the current code if then then no Varian is needed here B do you have the Minnesota statute that you're referencing I could probably look it up but the because I think I see where you're coming from and the need for it but if we need to get our dck rows about [45:23] Ben Wikstrom: looking at what the laws actually are then let's I mean I'm fine with somebody telling me that they expect the house to not conform to the current code B but you need to tell me how you expect the house to not conform because we only Grant variances to things that do not conform to the code it is an the definition of expansion in the statute is vertical or horizontal increase or expansion of the legally non-conforming structure yeah so if if we're saying we're starting from scratch with a lot of record and we're just saying the undersized lot is fine we actually don't need that variance either we're just saying this is a lot of record I agree I also don't think you need that variance that's that's fine that's what they app for in good faith [46:09] Ben Wikstrom: and so everyone agrees that they don't need that one let's see what the plans show I mean by not granting it you're not really slowing anything down based on your discussion but if you see the hole in the ground that's what I'm looking at in the middle of the packet it seems to me it's new construction at this point right yeah but it's one year to replace that right here's the other thing though if they if they had come here they had come here and you had had a less favorable favorable opinion of these here's the reason I don't think this is needed it says the conforming portion of a non-conforming structure may be expanded provided that such modification or expansion does not increase the portion of the structure that is [46:55] Ryan Eisele: non-conforming and provided that the modification otherwise conforms to the provisions of the zoning code so if you're expanding the height of a structure in a way that doesn't introduce something that's new and non-conforming that doesn't require a variance well the the 8 and A2 foot setback I guess it depending it depends what order you approve the variances in but the8 and 1 half foot sidey yard setback is non-conforming right the structure is occup in space within a setback that was not occupied by the previous structure ell you help with this I mean is isn't this based on on sort of legalities whether we need to do this or [47:40] Ben Wikstrom: not well I think the concern again is if this structure was still there and there was talk of like I said bumping up another floor or something like that that's certainly a horizontal um expansion of a non-conforming structure on this nonstandard lot right and so I understand the sentiment of wanting to make sure that they can go higher than what the original structure was there because you're right I mean they could rebuild exactly what was there within the next year right and not have any worries but they've come in and now you've gotten variances because they're shifting it around on the property you saw where the previous one was sort of caned at an angle they want to be a little more straight on and just use the use the lot more efficiently so there really is no downside in approving this VAR not at all well no they still [48:26] Allan (Attorney): have to form to the to the to the to the height code for the new structure right so all right so let's do this then I mean let's like Ben it really seems like it's concerning to me that you're saying that what I'm concerned about here is that we're basically granting a variance to a statute that or to an ordinance and then somebody could go build three stories high no without another variance because that's what a variance does it says you can't you you it basically relieves you of the requirement of building to the zoning code well exactly why you would put a condition on it saying you know the Varian is based on whatever you put up to not exceed I mean it's written [49:12] Ryan Eisele: into the the vote that they've already taken I will move to Grant a variance to sorry to the house height code no the oh say I will move to Grand a variance to for the house height such that the new house fully conforms to the zoning code is that what you're expecting Ben um does that work for what I mean we're basically saying granting a variance that they have to meet our code again Ryan it's because they're [50:00] Ben Wikstrom: exceeding the previous height they're utilizing an nonconformity part of the previous structure yeah okay what I was going to say earlier if they had come here and had a less favorable opinion from the board on these other variances they were probably just going to build on that existing footprint even if it's cockey and whatever they were going to use that right they could still put up roughly the same house but they'd want to go higher than the 25 ft that was there before would this would this hurt your project at all if this was tabled like this one no let's not table it why is no no Ryan because you you have you have legal concerns about it I want I want Clarity at this point from Ben and Allen on what what so either we don't have to do a variance [50:47] Kathy Weier: great or we issue the variance next month like is because you seem very uncomfortable with it I don't feel like I I thoroughly confused at this point I mean and so like I want to make sure we're doing the right thing and it's like we can sit here and we can discuss it all night if it's going to hurt your project if we don't issue this I'll give you an example let's say you have a one-story house and you want to go build your one story house and you want to put a second story on it you can do that without a variance as long as you don't exceed the current height limit of the house right Allan but as long as my my house is coning in every other way in every other every other way but this house doesn't seem like it was conform this one didn't conform and the new structure is getting [51:34] Ryan Eisele: variances because it doesn't conform on the lot so then why don't I have to Grant a variance to every one of our codes like I'm not understanding I you said that twice now I don't understand the not because you're saying that a CO a how an expansion the perception here is that the 25t roof is going to be higher than what could be rebuilt at 25 ft so they want a variance because what they are proposing it's my understanding is going to be just higher than 25 so that's fine but even though they expanding a conforming structure and the result is also conforming if it was truly new construction on a standard lot with a standard conforming house but again [52:19] Kathy Weier: we're going through these variances for that reason so okay what new non Conformity does the height increase create I think if I could speak on it if there wasn't a structure or anything on the site we wouldn't be putting a house here because right they' be asking for variances and everything and for variances you have to prove that you're going you know doing your best to make it so there just won't be a house here but since there was already an existing house they're asking to be able to make this more non-conforming essentially how are they it no okay so what you said there I think is really critical they're asking to make the height of the house more non-conforming because what they're [53:04] Ryan Eisele: allowed to do is put it exactly back how it is one for one replacement that's not for that's not correct they can build it higher just like you can take a one-story house and build it a two-story house as long as it meets the code we granted a bunch of variances for other stuff but explain to me why everybody expanding from a one-story house to a two-story house would need a variance because most of those are going to be on conforming Lots with conformities everywhere else those are the ones that we've seen so you're saying because it's not a conforming lot every zoning code has to be varied why is the height the one that has to be VAR and not say it's impervious surface so they would or something they wouldn't have to do any variances if they built [53:51] Ryan Eisele: basically fully conforming not fully conforming still it' still be non-conforming because the house was not in for me to begin with but if they just built a house that was basically a new house identical to the old one then they wouldn't need any any variances so couldn't the language be something like um because the original structure was non-conforming out of an abundance of caution uh they are requesting to be able to meet the current code in terms of I think I think we need to get through this and I will move yeah I will basically I agree I'll move to Grant a variance such that the height of the house meets the current code proposed the new house I will move [54:37] Kathy Weier: to Grant a variance such that the new house meets the current code all in favor wait need a second I second that thank you all in favor I okay I feel I feel like this is an issue I don't want to deal again so Alan can you do some research on on this so we can get some Clarity in the future oh sure I mean this is kind of a unicorn just because of the nature of the lot I think we need to get I think the person you should be asking for an explanation is Ben and you should be asking him how well Alan and Ben can you work together on getting me an explanation I mean I think what you need to look at here I'm sorry this really is just you know we're just politicking here a little bit but I think whether it's needed or not they asked for it and I think it just gives them some confidence to go forward [55:24] Ryan Eisele: absolutely so a variance that's not needed is the tree that falls in the forest that you don't hear so well I mean you're not varying now from the current code either understand that like I like to be right as much as the next person but like or maybe a little more sometimes but my concern here is when we Grant variances that they can't be and that's why I'm so careful with conditions is then all of a sudden you end up with a six-story structure and then all and that's fine I think we were careful not to do this but the what the code says and I think what Ben needs to give us an opinion on is that it says the conforming portion of a non-conforming structure may be expanded provided that such modification or [56:10] Ryan Eisele: expansion does not increase the portion of the structure that is non-conforming and so it sounds to me like reading that it can be expanded up to the amount that's conforming I disagree it expanding the portion that's non-conforming doesn't mean expanding the portion that's non-conforming by the height any non-conformity okay but that's not what a but a height variance applies specifically to the height but it's expanding any nonconformity when it's on the undersized lot when it's got an8 and a half foot setback when it's got a setback from the ordinary high water of whatever it does and those are non-conforming if you're [56:57] Ben Wikstrom: the height the structur is being expanded in a non-conforming area well probably but here's here's the example like Allan was saying the detached well listen like we need I think we need to make sure Ben understands this because I think we need to get an explanation here so that we all understand of why a variance is needed for this so I feel like I understand why a variance is needed um and I do want to be respectful of people's time um but it sounds like we are ready to approve this variance and then we want some research Clarity we need Clarity for going forward Ben to come back and tell us why an expansion I'm hearing what Ryan's saying he's reading right out of the code and he's saying as long as you're working within the window of [57:43] Kathy Weier: what the code says you can expand it even if it's a nonconformity I I understand the tension there so I think we can move on I agree we need to move on but I do think we need to make sure that we are that the code is being read in a way and if it's not then I think the code needs to be cleaned up a little bit so all right I'm going to move on to variance request number six did we get all eyes right uh we did get all eyes Okay do we need to vote again uh making sure well we can do all in heard one and two but yeah let's do a vote again all in favor I any opposed we've had problem this votes before in the city council so I just want to make sure we're voting agreed me too like I said I got you on the second but I didn't see the all eye I usually [58:28] Kathy Weier: check that off so yep um variance request number six retaining walls requested within the 50ft ohw setback requirement um do you have a picture of all of the because there is a lot of retaining walls on this one I [58:52] Kathy Weier: recall so this walkway is sort of they in crumbling fashion so that's an existing right yes this is the existing replaced walkway and then there is a retaining here and here so reping those then adding these adding two more and then it looks like you also have retaining walls around the west side is that right we have retaining walls yes on the west side for the rain Gard so we have a rain Garden here associated with the ous is that working now can can you go there's a camera camera you want put that on the screen so you can [59:39] Kathy Weier: show all right oh there you go we go perfect right there all right okay so as he was showing me there are it looks like four different retaining walls Each of which are four foot tall Max right so there is an existing rip wrap wall here that we want to replace with raining wall these steps are already there we're going to replace them um this retaining wall is also there wood we're going to replace so this is new structure this would be new structure basically just to manage the erosion and [1:00:26] Joe Gadt: the um infiltration of the runoff think our calculations uh what calculations put us in a position to basically absorb almost all the runoff from the impervious structures and um uh you know everything else that we have what are the retaining WS going to be what's the material you're going to use we're going to use a natural stone okay and then uh also on this if I don't know if you can back it up just a little bit but over by the garage and the other portion there is retaining walls around this um where all the arrows are directing as a rain Garden right here drawn here to here and these are just [1:01:12] Joe Gadt: like one foot high these are not three foot high stone style same Stone and they're there because again you know the west side is a much higher elevation and we need to have um you know a basis for the rain Garden it's a cut stop not irregular Boulder right rectangular shaped ledge Stones yeah it's one foot deep by various lengths okay 3 feet long or two feet long all right the issue is is that that storm water just runs right into the lake right down I'm sure it does Jo Joe hired [1:01:57] Joe Gadt: a firm that specializes in Shoreline and we're going to break that and run off hold it so it doesn't go into the lake and then in the uh area where we have these four walls yes there's also rain Gardens as well no there's not rain Gardens there but these are all this entire space is natural plantings you know to a ensure that we're you know have the set aside sure in the repairing area I think our required set aside is 40% but we're set asid and all of it it's 70 or 80% is set aside okay any other questions [1:02:42] Kathy Weier: comments um I guess the only question I have is um Marcus have you looked at this yet um um have you have you did a little Consulting with them if I um we kind of work together before they submitted their original request to kind of interpret the code and they bounce ideas off me and went back and forth yep and so do you see this as as it's drawn as basically meeting the city's cod's engineering requirements yeah I I think that or close or or such that as proposed yeah a tweek or two will get [1:03:29] Marcus Johnson: it there I haven't okay what they submitted again in the Cs but from what I saw in the past um they're meeting the codes and and you will go through code with a tooth comb and or needle yep yep and by the way like I will like we spent a lot of time working on this impervious surface code and I will tell you I was I was glad to see you work through it you're what kind of an engineer are you I'm actually a biomedical engineer okay so you're a biomedical engineer and I think that what I saw here is um you basically just had had you done this sort of thing before not quite like this [1:04:15] Ryan Eisele: and you just kind of figured it out right so I was sort of impressed but I also like I'll give ourselves a little compliment I think our code was probably written okay here but I we were also like I'm sort of proud of that code but I think we also like you know was sort of impressed with you um going through it like that so um did you did you find the code was understand very understandable it was just a matter of you know really understanding the broader context of how to you calculate infiltration rates and so on yeah and let me ask you one one question question while I'm I'll shut up later in the meeting but [1:05:03] Ryan Eisele: um um when you went through the variance or the impervious surface stuff there's a bunch of code with storm water management plans and and stuff was it pretty clear to you and the maintenance agreement and the repairing and buffer was it pretty all pretty clear to you that that stuff applied to you and how it applied to your in your case and where you were seeking impervious above so somebody like an engineer could just kind of read that code and see that that that's how it applied okay thank you so um Ben or Marcus will he need anything from the DNR for his [1:05:51] Kathy Weier: walls I have not don't move into the plan that in detail either um I don't I don't know the routing of these plans if they have to all go Joe's checked into it I know did you oh okay sorry Joe yeah there is actually an error in my application we do need I was wondering sorry I screwed up you were doing good too I know right up until this moment we do need a Rice Creek permit we don't need a DNR permit we're fine with every other uh uh municipality or entity from this regard but I did find out after I did I I I screwed up um we do need a [1:06:36] Joe Gadt: permit from Rice Creek we have applied for it already um it looks like it won't be an issue to get the permit granted but it certainly would be you know important for you to you know if you're going to Grant this to Grant a contingent on you know the r cre per that's what I was wondering about okay any other questions [Music] concerns well you found the condition on this one C I did so I'll go ahead I think I made too many motions and said too many things so I'll give somebody else a shot thank you um I'll do a motion to approve variance request number six retaining walls requested with within the 50 Foot ohw setback requirement contingent upon the issuance of a permit from The Rice Creek Watershed um District district thank you [1:07:23] Kathy Weier: second Ryan all in favor I opposed that's six believe that's the full welcome to Birchwood welcome thank you when does construction start uh we're going to start really because of the lot we have to start uh the retaining walls and work our way back so we'll start in the spring how was the process for you this process well not me personally but like the city in general I mean the the process was great we we I understood what I needed to do with the rags I think the most difficult part for me and kind of what you guys um struggled with as well is whether or not that height variance was [1:08:09] Joe Gadt: a variance or not okay I didn't know it wasn't super clear but I put it in there because I didn't want to have you didn't want to be short why did you submit this variant so so that was a little unclear but for the most part I thought everything was straightforward uh in the process uh it was great working with Ben and Marcus sorry I was Marcus uh and just you know getting this all figured out so it's a complicated situation because it's a small lot and all of that but I think the process was good excellent it was okay all right well let us know maybe I'll talk to you at sometime L and you can tell us if there's anything we can do a little better so excellent all right been a lot [1:08:57] Len Pratt: of progress made here as you know my history for 10 years I was on the Planning Commission here and that was about 10 years there's been a lot of progress made so excellent but that doesn't mean we're done and now that we have him coming on board to the city he can help there you go oh you've been signed up already welcome um all right we're going to move on to our variance request for 425 l Hold on I just sorry I I do want clarification from Ben and Allen regarding that variance whatever you find just let me know oh just that section of the code I want you guys to dig into the the [1:09:42] Ryan Eisele: hous height thing MH and and just kind of provide some clarity sure okay um and I did Skip aart because we have to approve our findings of fact right that's what's left we are moving on to that yes I'll there we go try to read my Spiel quickly here um you know first of all I would say I'm going to okay so let me do it this way I will make a motion to incorporate the following findings of fact into the record um so first of all I would like to in um include Mr gad's findings of fact is that your name correctly into um from his application into the record of findings a fact I [1:10:28] Ryan Eisele: further have these um with respect to prop practical difficulties the property is an undersized lot of record for dating current zoning requirements it is among the smallest properties in Birchwood the lot size is 7,590 square ft while the minimi minimum lot size required by zoning code is 15,000 square ft this makes the property non-conforming the property has a slope towards the lake which poses challenges for development and erosion control um these practical difficulties were not created by the applicant but rather are inherent to the property with respect to reasonableness the proposal allows for the Redevelopment of a non-conforming property in a manner consistent with the surrounding neighborhood the reduced [1:11:14] Ryan Eisele: setback would allow for 11% wider access between the garage and the sidey yard um at the garage the reduced setback would create less non-conformance compared to the pre-existing garage it would create off street parking spaces on the west side of the house to reduce setback would eliminate pinch points that limit emergency or practical use access on both sides of the house the retaining walls would facilitate fulfilling the required 40% repairi and buffer area and will improve storm water infiltration the Lots will be merged together improving the non-conformity The Proposal brings the property into Conformity with the impervious surface code and should reduce runoff with let's see with respect to [1:12:00] Ryan Eisele: essential character the proposed development will not alter the essential character of the locality many many Shoreline properties in this area of Birchwood have S have setbacks of 6 feet on one side of the property um with respect to Harmony with the ordinance this proposal strikes a balance between the non-conforming code and the setback code and the shoreline estate ized with retaining walls and the repairing buffer and Rain Gardens offset the retaining walls effects um with respect to consistency with the comprehensive plan um the addition preserves the city's low density signal Family character which are comprehensive plan talks about um the project will require the removal of some trees but the impact will be [1:12:47] Ryan Eisele: minimized to preserves our tree canopy um let's see and there are no negative impacts on traffic public services or negative properties um it also maintains water quality and improves erosion control so end of motion okay end of list of findings end of list of findings y that was nicely cherry-picked from the application so it was a very good application I will totally give you that um we need a second for that yeah well the first to adopt those as the findings of the board right to justify the all these variances just as a collective whole so a second on that [1:13:33] Kathy Weier: list and a vote any second otherwise second Ryan I'm picking Ryan we'll see you can have the next one um and then uh all up let's see all in favor of AD all in favor my goodness I'm tired already I all all opposed all right motion passes okay that would be everything for 131 Wildwood Avenues variance reviews next one we had on ours was 425 Lake Avenue and it appears that one from the notes has been withdrawn but we wanted to confirm that [1:14:19] Kathy Weier: it actually has been withdrawn it it didn't withdraw their application they just didn't have inform information ready that we needed or that we had requested okay so we need to send a letter from the city to extend one of two things has to happen if the applicant is actually the one that withdrew because they needed to bring more information or if the city said you don't have enough so they can either say we're pulling it which is what the notes reflect right but we need something from the applicant saying that I'm withdrawing for now and I'll get back to you let's just that's not what happened then we need to extend it by the city let's just send them the 60-day letter and I would suggest that we hear this in May no matter what well we need to justify the 60 days that's all I think we if it's not [1:15:05] Ryan Eisele: something that we did or that we're slowing it down for then it's not really our request did did they get added to the um Regular Planning Commission meeting in March not yet I don't think we have that agenda yet do we please um so can I ask when was the application received by the city I roughly uh end of January late January so I didn't see a signed one but I think it was like the 27th of January somewhere in there and so did we send the applicant within 14 days of receiving a letter we have to send the applicant a notification that the [1:15:51] Ryan Eisele: application is incomplete if it's incomplete did we sent such a letter no we didn't send a letter um okay the applicant basically asked you need anything else and I and I had looked at what they sent and I said well I'll be my writing my report and I'll let you know if I need more information so we did not send a letter within the 14 days and so I don't think we sent a letter to the pratts or Glades either saying your application is complete okay but I'm not asking whether we sent a letter that they application was complete I'm asking whether we sent a letter that the application was incomplete no we did not send any such a letter and so as a result of that I think it would be the best Avenue for the city would be to [1:16:39] Ryan Eisele: send a 60-day letter at this time um extending the deadline for 60 days just to cover ourselves here well if they haven't removed their application as well I would agree that we'd want to send the letter regardless to make sure we extend ourselves the courtesy of the time um and can I can we just no I think alen is correct that we have to give a reason why and and I think just just for people's edification here the problem is if we let the 60 days lapse those variances are automatically granted and so um I would just say that um what well what was left in terms of [1:17:25] Ryan Eisele: calculations why are they coming back um additional calculations in the checklist that you know what they had submitted a couple of weeks ago was basically meeting this you know the section of the code says you can't you have to prove that you aren't increasing runoff and here's their calculation for the new 284 square feet and the rain garden and that's what we use we'll send them a letter just there city is asking you for for this data it's not in your application and we're extending 60 days for us to take action period okay so of a discussion don't you do you agree that we have to send them a reason I mean I I work for developers and I get a 60-day notice as soon as we submit sometimes [1:18:11] Ben Wikstrom: saying sure you do you're this is going to not be heard in the next two months they don't give a reason I recommend and I've recommended it to this group that you just send them out whenever an application comes in automatically granting yourself one requires that we give a reason and I'm fine with Allan's reason okay um that sounds good I moveed to direct staff to um provide a 60-day letter um by it'll go out this week this week um to Mr shiy we have to calculate when it came in so we can inform when that date actually moves to that's all okay we should be tracking that though right someone knows that date I don't CU I don't get those applications but someone knows when it came in and so that BEC as [1:18:58] Ryan Eisele: long as we do it within the original 60 days I think we're fine so okay okay and then so I made a motion I do we or are you guys just going to take care of that think you had a motion you're welcome to Second it but I think administratively we'll just send the letter out so the next question I have is there's a bunch of stuff with respect to um the impervious surface code um in relation to 425 though CU I don't think we should discuss anything with 425 here well I want to deal with this with respect to 425 not necessarily relating to evaluating the variances but I want to make sure that we are addressing certain requirements we could probably do that [1:19:44] Ryan Eisele: offline though right okay can put in offline I just want to make sure staff are aware that the requirements on impervious surface variances have to be fulfilled on the part of the city yeah and that should be in front of the Planning Commission so they have that to recommend with too okay I mean I'm making a note of this because so that if they're missing then we should tell them that that's one of the things the city needs to move this forward why we're extending I want to make sure that the the so with respect to the variance section [1:20:31] Ryan Eisele: 30250 section six says um any property owner unwilling or unable to meet the requirements of 30256 may still apply for a variance and if that's the case the city planner shall note in the city planners report that the property owner is unwilling or unable to comply with 30205 6 and she'll enumerate the reasons if known that the property owner and so I want to make sure that if we don't get anything back from M Mr shiy we're still evaluating the variance in terms of those requirements to apply for variants is that reasonable yeah actually says that in uh sub in the planning commission's minutes [1:21:17] Ryan Eisele: to yep and we just missed that last time so and certainly we can highlight that in the letter to them well those are requirements on us well I'll end on them by by extension y agre should be a recommendation from the Planning Commission yes or know that they did it before it gets to here so noted yep okay thanks sorry all right believe we can move on to we have a couple people here so let see if we can get items here so we have B is lift station update that would be Marcus right Marcus no variances required so I think my letter or my memo [1:22:02] Marcus Johnson: is in the packet if does council have any questions for me or anything any concerns or anything have we heard back from the EPA at all on the getting Jennifer on that asap. goov yep she's on it she called me um and designated um people so we're in the clear and ready to PLL whenever know okay so we're still waiting for for the pump pieces to be available and then they will assign us a date for when they're starting is that right yeah at the precon at the end of this month yeah at the end of this month on 26 I think um they'll kind of go over their schedule who their vendors are um they've already been coordinating with us on um because what the epa's [1:22:49] Marcus Johnson: requirement everything has to be sourced from the US and that has shown some challeng difficulties yeah which we're through hopefully I think okay so they've been submitting to us we've been reviewing working with the EPA on that okay um and stuff so and then everything else regarding this project once the pump pieces are in everything else is in line and ready to go as far as repairing the area around the structure and the roads and whatever is getting torn up so we have all stuff available so it's going to be as short as possible right yep yep they're um in our contract we require them to have everything ready and available and then they're not [1:23:34] Marcus Johnson: allowed to dig until they're good to go shut down be dug pull out the old one put the new one in you guys will see bypass pumping up the hill for as short as time as possible um so that's kind of part of the reason why they have to have all the ducks in a row yep we said that before bypass Popp in when the lift station got inundated with water yeah it was all very exciting we had to figure out where it went I uh I've heard that story it's not much of a story where's the sewage going um I don't think we need a motion or anything for this portion so uh let's see we are we removed stre Tre [1:24:21] Kathy Weier: Stewart is is the part about the Tre is being marked for trimming part of that as well I think that was just an update from Jennifer um just a one sentence update saying that trees have been marked uh Steve Dean will be getting back to us so I guess the bonus on that okay all right then we have uh Marcus are you here for any other items like sighting window foundation repair Ron umage issues issues can we move G up so we can take care of some of our staff yeah absolutely yeah all right brainage issues have had it did you get married Marcus you did right a while ago yeah [1:25:07] Kathy Weier: well you got to get home now late earlier she understands this I have three this week so um I guess I didn't see if there was anything on this or is there questions concerns um we had a note from I think it's from Jennifer actually uh for the residents of oakd drive and White Pine Court had contacted uh the mayor Jennifer regarding drainage issues um there will be an open house on April 7th yep um you know what time that's going to be I do uh [1:25:55] Marcus Johnson: it is 6:30 6:30 here at City Hall not coming in the morning for sure all right 6:30 uh p.m. April 7th open house here at the city hall to discuss drainage issues and um let's see similar issues regarding Road drainage could we get an email out about that possibly maybe theres about this maybe even a couple of them that would be super please I'm sure you would have done it anyway but and then I I think we'd probably want to hit Facebook and website too for that and the whole city is welcome because I'm I'm the way I'll structure it is looking at the drainage as a city [1:26:40] Marcus Johnson: as a whole because what their issues might be also apply across the city right so ideally we don't want to push it off of one property onto another too so okay um I think that's everything with the drainage then we have have the next items uh let's see the items we' pulled out of the consent agenda we have treasury report um doc fee that wouldn't apply to you City credit card no additional office equipment no and tment rental agreement I assume nothing for that one for I think it's in the consent agenda we probably okay we probably are okay I think that's everything for [1:27:25] Kathy Weier: you thanks Marcus thank you Marcus bye Marcus should we try Ben next here unless you really wanted to stick around Ben do we have I don't think we have any other items for you well Ben's the subject of a he's one of item on the consent agenda so yes I'll stick got well it's it wasn't pulled out of the consent agenda so I don't know if we want to move the consent agenda portion that is not up for discussion forward so he knows if he's all I'm noting is that's the only time he's mentioned for the rest of the meeting yes well just so that he doesn't have to stick around for longer thank you I'll let myself out okay um are we okay with skipping to [1:28:13] Kathy Weier: approving the consent agenda for everything that has not been pulled out yes okay yeah and then we're going to go back to City to City business MH all right okay so I had pulled out a d e f and J was there anything else for consent agenda that anyone else wanted to pull okay so then um I have a motion for approving the consent agenda for b c g h i k and l so moved Bridget if that was all the right letters then yes I'll second all in favor I opposed all right you're all set Ben thank you thank you [1:29:00] Kathy Weier: okay um next one up do we want to take a quick break let's let's take a break thank you let's do a five minute break okay Chris [Music] [1:29:24] h [Music] [1:31:24] o [Music] [Music] [1:32:43] oh [1:32:50] [Music] oh [Music] [1:33:45] oh [1:33:56] [Music] [1:34:15] [Music] [1:34:24] [Music] [1:34:43] you [1:34:51] [Music] [1:35:09] [Music] [1:35:27] [Music] [1:35:37] [Music] [1:35:45] Kathy Weier: [Music] we okay that's why you're you're the acting mayor and I'm not that's right um all right we are back we're going to jump into uh D which is review bids for sighting window and foundation repair at City Hall that is number or page 67 if you're playing along at home um okay so this one do we have it looks like we have a couple bids in here but this one that we have someone here to present at all regarding details I know theres got the bids do you want to do you have anything to say [1:36:30] Kathy Weier: about didn't I don't remember this ever being a council item was this just like a Margaret item or something or I'm just I'm just a little hazy on yes please yeah if you don't mind we can get the microphone just give us a sorry go ahead Kathy so actually this goes back to November 24 um Andy senson brought to our attention annually an annually Andy will come and do a roof inspection MH so last year we noticed um while working a lot of woodpecker noise so and as the year progressed obviously more and more holes um developed so also in [1:37:15] Therese Bellinger: that site visit if you will Andy discovered other issues we have a window over here in the kitchen that's been leaked leing off and on apparently that's been going on for some time it's not bad um but at some point it will cause some issues so that was discovered and then the Hope was then to find out how we can fix the Woodpecker holes so the best way to handle that was to obtain estimates from siding contractors so when the contractors came out unfortunately there consensus is is that it's it's really challenging to stop wood prepers once they start so [1:38:01] Therese Bellinger: with that we just had the conversation well I suppose we should talk about what the cost of siding would be and then also find a way to temporarily repair the holes and so what you're seeing in here is just um option you know options available to the city should they want to consider that obviously the city can continue to just repair them so apparently this has been an ongoing problem um I don't know for how long um I've been told that the sighting that is currently on the building was to help with that problem maybe five years ago um so I don't know [1:38:48] Therese Bellinger: that um I I I don't know the extent of the damage back then so um that's all of the information I have okay so so what you're looking at here is just basically a variety of different contractor estimates for work to be done and so we can kind of pick and choose um according to Andy there we would want to repair the Woodpecker holes as soon as possible because we'll have animal um potential animal infestations that we don't really want to have is the sting W wood Teresa do you know pardon me do you know what the siding is is it wood yes um my understanding it is wood [1:39:37] Kathy Weier: we also have extra siding down in our storage area for repair the problem is is it's on the Lal register isn't it it's on the log side of the building um which we don't have any material to replace that with so would have to be handf filled so if I recall from a few years ago it would have been our 100th anniversary for the city they were talking about how this city uh Hall was built in a very specific architectural style and is on a historic register we can't change the sighting to stay on that register are we on the historical well that's what I'm wondering because it was something that was brought up at the time but I don't know that it ended up being on on that [1:40:23] Bridget Sperl: but they tried to do historical changes so that the windows are the same style that they were they have the same the green above it it was it was it was a big deal at the time I know as so my concern is uh putting Hardy sighting on it will be going back to the previous one that they just took the sighting off of they basically said they wouldn't add it to the historical register because of the sighting the and so it didn't and so so now we have holes but my assumption is that all of the sighting options that we're being given here are for standard horizontal sighting which would not keep [1:41:09] Kathy Weier: the character of the right I think that was only four years ago that they that they did this they redid the whole thing right redid the whole thing so I'm wondering why we're having problems with Windows yes that's why we weren't advised that there might be issues with woodpeckers I I mean well that doesn't surprise me because it's wood siding yeah right woodpeckers are a Birchwood issue not a right but still four years old when we're talking about a redo of this building yeah it seems It's rather appalling yes I agree with that um so what how how extensive is this woodpecker damage how extensive um we do have photos um right now maybe there's 15 holes but the wood woodpeckers continue [1:41:55] Ryan Eisele: um Andy senson has offered to do the repair you know he can do it immediately um and and so really these estimates are really just for consideration are are they just in the back or are they all over actually all over you you as you walk in the front door you can look up and and you will see the holes there they seem to spend most of their time on the east corner or the West corner corner of the building so so we've recently I just purchased an owl I don't know if that's helping but trying things maintenance is going to bring in bring by your owls over by your house yeah so um well the windows I'm I'm very [1:42:42] Therese Bellinger: concerned about as far as leaking because I I thought and I could be completely wrong but I don't know if we have the records for that I thought all the windows had been replaced at that point in which case if it's only been four years all of my windows have 5year warranties so I'm curious well in their recommendation based on how it's leaking it's primarily just the window over the kitchen sink and it's leaking on the interior side so they believe if they change the flashing above the window that potentially will solve the problem okay um all of them had said that it wasn't necessarily installed properly but um that doesn't mean that there to for it yes but I'm curious if it was installed by a contractor five [1:43:29] Kathy Weier: year like if it was done within that 5e time frame it should be under warranty but I don't know that because none of us were on this this one of the new windows all of them were fortunately I don't have that history so I could we could do some research record I imagine we just walk back there and look I mean well see they they restored them to historical window style so it wouldn't like it's not like you're going to go and see the Anderson stamp or something like that on it but as far as like the actual window replacement I thought it was all of them so if we can find out when that was done and if it's still under warranty that would be a fixing of the contractor who installed the window but I don't know who did it so and the name is ringing in my head it'll take me a [1:44:14] Kathy Weier: minute but you'll remember will you're the only one who was here at that time so um I think the White Bear Lake historical Society they did a story on it didn't they well they were involved in Consulting on all of this I think you're right at least on the historical right right maybe they could be helpful in telling us more about the context and how important the sighting is and anything else we need to know so I don't think that City Hall needs Hardy sighting to prevent the woodpeckers I think that's just um these two companies being like hey we should should we sell Hardy sighting we sell Hardy sighting I think this sounds more like handyman work so basically filling the holes with epoxy [1:45:00] Ryan Eisele: repainting it I just I have the same thing in my ass I fill up with every couple years and move on with my life and if they get really bad someday maybe I'll replace it but yeah I I think we shouldn't let it get to you know 15 no big woodpecker holes so I think we just need to stay on top of it but I think it's more just a regular maintenance kind of thing that's how I feel about that as well instead of I I'd like to if if we went through all the effort and money of making this historically like back to its original look that i' I'd hate to dispel of that quite so quickly but I would like to find out if we rep placed all the windows at that time to see if we can get our warranty C if it has a warranty for one it might be a one year wouldn't surprise me at all but if there is a [1:45:48] Kathy Weier: warranty that we take advantage of that to have that preped I I will see what I can find um does everyone else agree with that I guess as far as like um reviewing the bids Etc I'd like to potentially have Andy I think he had $75 per hour to repair yes okay was his also potentially the window if it needed as well or is that outside of his um well alongside of the the Woodpecker holes there also is open holes along the foundation primarily on the west side and so we need patching concrete patching what size are we talking for these open holes uh not large but again it looks like it's coming in underneath the foundation [1:46:34] Therese Bellinger: and so animals are finding their way to dig in so um what we can do is I can certainly provide photos you want to look at we could review it at our next meeting if you want and we can provide pictures where I'm very curious what these what material they are in as well as like is it in the concrete or like what's deteriorating for that I would like some pictures I think personally okay uh but that's just me anyone else have thoughts I agree we just have to sort of plug the holes is there any issue Allan with Andy on the Planning Commission doing some work for us that's there's no [1:47:20] Kathy Weier: conflict of interest if we have him do some work if it's handyman work I mean obviously it'd be nice if there were some bids whatever he's charging but yeah I agree I $75 an hour seems like Mark R is there is there any is probably easily MH I know we had um just as another option um Ron K kley is that is that his name Kern let's call him Ron um on our maintenance crew on our maintenance crew he did some he's done some pretty nice work for us he was a is this something he might do for us I think the challenge will be who has the the ladders the ladders yes okay damage has to he'll [1:48:06] Ryan Eisele: have to repair along the um north side of the building too so I don't know maybe he does we can certainly ask yeah I would like to make sure it's done in a way that it is actually fixed and not a Band-Aid if we can do that for the like holes in the foundation I me I know mind if somebody wants to authorize Andy for a small a few hundred bucks worth of work but I agree with Alan that more than that we probably ought to be I would say if it's a thousand bucks I mean it's it's someone that's going to be able to be here and do it and get it done so I mean it's just small enough ball that I mean it's going to take you a lot of time and effort well that's the problem want to give you quote after quote is it takes a lot of work to get quotes so I'm well it does look like has [1:48:53] Ryan Eisele: on his his uh $75 per hour at the Woodpecker damage repair window repair and cement repair uh I would I would agree if we do Under the thousand dollar that would be several hours of work I can't imagine 15 holes would take long time well we can figure out the hours per hole Y no maybe we could maybe what's this per hole rate I mean h honestly from having experience like patching my own house and doing little concrete work like like you're not going to get anybody coming in here that's going to give you a realistic bid and he's at least a contractor so I know that he should know what he's if he spends a whole day you know he spend a thousand bucks and all your problems that's a pretty good deal I agree so I I would make a motion to uh [1:49:41] Kathy Weier: have Andy make the repairs up to $11,000 Max um or to authorize are we talk hold on we talking just labor are we talking uh it looks like he had said $75 per hour um everything I'm willing to donate or wait no do minimal uh for material rep pairs to the building so so it's just I I'm going at $75 per hour for whatever that rate is to fix it if it ends up where the materials ends up being a lot more I would like that coming back to us can't imagine that would be much in materials I wouldn't think so either because it's filling holes with probably epoxy is what I would do for wood 100 bucks yeah so yeah [1:50:29] Kathy Weier: but that's my motion second Ryan all in favor opposed okay got that one um then we have radon mitigation in lower level which is Page 73 do you want to do this I'll just do this one theres unless you want to do it quick we're just re did a great job of getting a couple bids for rate on mitigation it looks like it's $2 to $3,000 to start with and they may have to do a second round of mitigation if possible the radon levels there are high enough and when we have staff working down there it's worth just a couple $3,000 to make it a safe building so resolution [1:51:17] Kathy Weier: 202527 does that and so with that I mve to adopt resolution 2025-the staff to commit for raidon mitigation Birchwood Village Hall should be an add in there but it's not that important up to 3,000 correct up to 3,000 yeah we could utilize one of the holes that's already there that would be amazing you have a preference on the contractor select um cheaper okay unless you have a preference I thought they were both qualified and um had all the right [1:52:03] Kathy Weier: credentials so I was going to just leave it to you to make the decision but I'm I guess if you ask me cheaper well let say if we're the resolution says up to $3,000 staff can use their discretion on yeah I mean it unless you have a good reason to go with the more expensive one I would go with the cheaper one so um the less expensive contractor was available on the 19th of this month we want to move that quickly yes please sounds good to me yes all right okay super thank you I made a I made a motion you made a motion do we have a second second all in favor I opposed thank thank you theres for your [1:52:49] Kathy Weier: effort on that so okay then we have uh we have some discussion points which I'm gonna see if I can get toes out of here soonish um do we need theres for the Birchwood communication water drainage we've already talked about review survey results for what the city looks like for City administrator you want to be here for that theres um I'll see you're okay all right well then we'll just go through in order you don't need to change order okay all right don't be angry when it takes a long time I I can speak to the Birchwood communication strategy which is simply a [1:53:35] Kathy Weier: draft um and I submitted it uh so that all of you would have time and the community would have time to take a look at it um kind of play with play around with it put your thoughts into it your edits and then it can be a more fruitful conversation on our meeting on March 31st but it's really about looking at all the various ways we can communicate and I think all of us when we ran said we wanted to up our Communications so this is a first start to say okay this is what it could look like okay I like it but I think I'll most of my comments for the workshop yeah that's what I thought is we can [1:54:21] Bridget Sperl: all great maybe the community it's a nice document so have input and then we can nail it down a little bit more at the 31st meeting all right uh let's see I believe that the survey also applied to that correct it did okay yes we'll review all of that on the 31st then yes but you know just a couple of of words about the survey um which is one we have 104 people respond to it which isn't too bad it's about a third of the houses yeah assuming that it's not right assuming that it wasn't it wasn't um couples and then most respondents feel [1:55:07] Bridget Sperl: the city has been somewhat responsive to Residents concerns so we've got some opportunity 39% we um prefer maintain maintaining the current administrator's hours they talked about the key priorities for the uh for the role and then we incorporated that into the uh posting or the the letter we sent um about the open position um 51% of respondents were satisfied with current city Communications so we've got more upside there and then we've got 38 comments from people that I think are worth looking through one by one because they point out opportunities perceptions uh Etc that I think will be helpful for us to know so again spend [1:55:54] Bridget Sperl: some time with it and uh we can talk more about it on the 31st yeah um part of that does kind of pull into H as well so um because that we've skipped over G as we already discussed water drainage if we want to jump into the what looking for for a city administrator I feel like part of that does apply to this survey as well which yeah I I completely agree someone had made the comment regarding uh if the city administrator is doing all of these things and then also in charge of updating the website that is a lot it's a lot um and our website definitely has some grandiose plans but maybe it's almost um more than necessary for some [1:56:41] Kathy Weier: of the areas I I would like to point out that the formatting for our website when you're going to various uh areas in the uh City and it has the expansion it goes off the page because of all the different things to go on so you can't actually kid into some of the items because they're off the page um as far as the expanding lists so it might make sense to do a a remap of the website as far as what's actually showing on that one because we do have a lot under this one role agree uh I think that was is there anything else in this packet regarding the what the city is looking for in the [1:57:27] Kathy Weier: administrator I think it was just the survey just thank you to Bridget and uh um you got more responses than I thought you would so I was I was happy to see all the responses I actually um was surprised that we hear a lot about the communication issues but it looks like most people are actually okay with that and most people are okay with our current office hours but I know that was something right nobody's terribly unhappy no which is good which is good but I think we've got some opportunity yeah I mean my I don't want to go make this into another variance but um so um the [1:58:13] Kathy Weier: uh my issue always with the office we had a lot of staff and I think if we have a few less staff and our running slightly leaner I think residents will be kind of understanding of the balance there so okay uh not a few less but a few less hours so yeah well I I find uh office hours are also when you're permitting people to come in and it's somewhat of an interruption to your day too so as far as like I I don't want it to be a as long as the staff is there feel free to come in and and divert all attention because that will be all day every day if you give the people the opportunity to do that not that people can't bring up information when it's like I like the [1:59:00] Kathy Weier: appointment idea as far as here's normal office hours and then appointment for anything else I think I think it would be really good to talk about yeah just some Modern ways of managing customer service so yeah so is there anything else we needed to discuss about the what we're looking for in a city administrator I know we already have posted that no we posted it we used the information from the survey so that was good okay anything from you Ryan or Ryan no all right so can we move on to consent agenda questions good to move yes no okay um the first one I had [1:59:47] Kathy Weier: uh thees can I have you see if you can potentially answer my question on this sorry um in the treasury report I was looking at that and um the list of checks that we have for uh claim history which I can find a page hold on we have some reimbursements for dog licenses in here um one of which is actually Bridget so I was trying to find out what happened there because it looks like they paid 45 and then we have dog licenses down below that are a different price for payments did the dogs demand their money back I don't know but I wanted to find out why back 45 okay actually what happened I think [2:00:35] Therese Bellinger: the the application itself or the the license application the verbiage explaining the fees by term you know for second third year yeah um was misunderstood and so they overpay so I paid for three years you did right yes yes and you w you weren't alone bridet there were so so as we caught them I see yeah so that's all you're seeing is it's based on a calendar you're not based on how long you've been here so it's not like you're buying a license and yours extends for three years it's based on the it was like I see it sounded like you could buy a license that would go for three years like you could pay for your three years [2:01:22] Kathy Weier: yes and pay for one yes so you were not alone we we did we might want to reconsider how we $30 is the price for three years no it's 15 per year for a dog license no oh it's it's $30 for the entire term for the three years yes for the three-year term so we reimbursing a $45 check what happened they paid 75 oh yeah over a yes but you weren't alone others um interpreted it that way too they also paid the same amount okay not alone re word on that one slightly on the form next term for sure okay so that was one that just caught my ey is like [2:02:08] Kathy Weier: what is going on there giving people $45 back for a reimbursement for dog licenses I assumed that their dogs were up upset or something so okay so that was my only aspect of the treasure report that I had a concern about was there any else had anything they pulled out of that I just have a couple questions the the on the bottom of page 98 in the agenda the cais utilities for $188,000 that's filed under escro refunds oh good point oh that's that's a mistake y yeah and I think there might be it might just be worth going through these CU I thought I I don't have it handy right now I thought I saw another one that wasn't didn't seem like it was coded right the other one I saw [2:02:54] Ryan Eisele: was uh the Ben's city planner rate is $1600 a month and I saw one in here to him for planning Services February $1500 a month so I think he might be yeah so I think we might need to fix that for him nothing so yes so we owe you another $100 yeah I think there were one or two things it would probably be just be good to look through the coatings on these that one 18 Grand yeah that the water main break one might might show up pretty significantly in the wrong budget that's that all I got okay so we still have Mara helping with treasury [2:03:43] Kathy Weier: right I'm in the problem so um back to C yes okay that came up escrow reimbursement yep yeah so in column I think account name it says escrow refunds from Capper utilities which was water main break work escrow would be strange for that that was definitely quoted wrong okay yeah and I thought thought I saw another one in here but I don't think if it's a few bucks it's not going to break a budget but well we do have electricity under the water utility as well I think that's the one I saw I think I saw one under like water or sewer that sounds like sounds like one where there was a we also have gas service underwater but [2:04:29] Ryan Eisele: that could be actual like it's both to XL underwater utility the lift station probably should be under sewer that one for sure yeah yeah okay those have probably been like that for a while then so those would need to be looked at and corrected oh and this 1500 band that's the one that bothered me that I I noticed too was that's also under sewer engineering expense it it's just that that's all it just looks like a couple of typos or something coding issues yes that yes that makes me want to review them all right so can we how do we do the approval for the I would just approve it and then ask the changes to [2:05:16] Ryan Eisele: the yes we'll review those um it doesn't the reason it doesn't make sense is that entries just default back to the prior um and so I just want to verify that codes are correct so I will make sure that we do that okay and I know you guys went through that whole coding thing did last year so we probably need to make sure it still matches up with whatever that was you are very right they eliminated a number of of accounts okay okay so with the changes to some coding and then uh looking at Ben's 1500 I don't remember which page that was [2:06:02] Kathy Weier: on I I saw the 1600 at least once here so it's on page six of or versus one or 103 in the agenda as a whole okay that was that kind of in the middle yeah well that's John Wickstrom that's Ben okay all right so then $1,500 for sewer engineering expenses is what that one's coded as but that's planning Services February is what's listed there I would just approve all the payments and because that's what you're really approving and then yep just you've noted them Circle back yeah okay no and I'm I'm happy to review [2:06:47] Ryan Eisele: those codes and get back to you I don't think I don't know unless I don't need to be gotten back to but okay maybe you do Kathy I don't know just fix fix we trust you yes thank you I move to approve the February Treasures report second all in favor all right opposed okay so treasurer's report is done um next one was D which is Empower parks with Doc fee Authority that's page 139 I think who whose resolution is that by the way okay okay I think the resolution is on 140 yes so there's the it starts [2:07:35] Kathy Weier: on 139 with a little blurb and then yeah we're still working out some of the agenda issues yep so but I I wanted to uh pull this one because the the name makes it sound like we're giving the parks um committee full use of those funds and I wanted to bring this up so that it was in record and all that wonderful thing so we could discuss a little bit um allowing the parks committee more access to a budget to use for Revenue projects related to the special Revenue fund to plan budgets throughout the year so that they're not scurrying to try and get something done um before snow flies [2:08:20] Kathy Weier: and we don't get it approved yet kind of thing so and the way I read this was that it was just a authorizing the parks committee to create a budget it it's authorizing the parks committee to create a plan Y what do we want to do for parks for the coming year which then Council would approve Y and then giving them the money from docks which I understand goes to Parks special Revenue f they would put together a plan that would cost what the revenue is from docs and my understanding uh is that this has been a [2:09:05] Bridget Sperl: sensitive issue for many years that docs don't understand where their fees are going so I thought from a transparency standpoint this would be a really good thing for this Council to do I mean two Council people are on the parks committee M and I think it would be more empowering to them um and uh then docs would know where the money was going so that's the logic behind it I think Kathy's concern is just that that the council maintain the kind of the final say on payments yeah and I'm on the parks committee as a Lea on as well so I'm okay with this I just wanted to make sure it was brought forward because uh depending on how you read it [2:09:51] Kathy Weier: it does look like we potentially let go of purse strings but that's not the way I was envisioning either because they would have to present the plan to the council we would approve it but then they don't you know I remember being on Parks years ago you always felt like you were being sort of jacked around like yeah we think we have this money maybe we do maybe we don't orome to Birch right but um I think that's the oversight because because Kathy and I sit yeah as advisers and then the council would have to approve the plan so anyway but it would uh one of the things that they had brought up was as far as like The netting that we want to add to the hockey rink and some of those items that it's it's underneath that budget amount [2:10:37] Kathy Weier: if they're planning on doing that they can plan on these things but they also want to make sure that those funds are reserved for them which I understand so we have 10,000 right now that is in the special Revenue fund it has already been earmarked as the um match for the grant that we have so the money that they have left is the money that they would be planning with and then the doc association should have funds coming into that special Revenue fund coming up this upcoming year that the parks committee would like to designate portions of that towards either a bigger project or some of the things that need to be maintained or fixed such as um I know they wanted to look at doing the nets for the tennis esort which are getting old uh there was mention of [2:11:24] Kathy Weier: hockey nets potentially other smaller projects that not might NE necessarily need to come to the council every single time right right and if there could be a plan that says this is what we're going to spend the money on for the rest of the year and then they can talk to the doc people and say this is where your money is being spent and maybe the doc people would have some ideas about well did you think of this or that or another thing I just think good things would happen so that's why I I wanted to discuss this one because it you want to make sure it's clear that the proe will not be taking all of the money it's just just if I may point about the sort of the mechanics of it or the housekeeping of it um if you look at the resolution [2:12:09] Allan (Attorney): you're not resolving to do anything so I think that was my first resolution I think we need to massage it a little bit so that the the now therefore here's what we're going to do 1 2 3 4 okay so if there's no urgency we can table it bring it back with that part filled in perfect so I think because right now it's like you've got all these nice wear ases we need to do these things yeah right so now we're going to do these things okay so you and I can work together I'll be happy to fill in whatever thank you so it's a little uncooked at this point for for for purposes of voting pretty good for a first try so it's a hell of an effort yeah I just would have passed it we got an idea why you want it but uh we need to tell everyone what we're doing okay are you able to help with that a little bit all absolutely needs it if I had the document instead of a PDF I'd try to do [2:12:56] Allan (Attorney): it on the fly but um if there's no urgency we can just take care of it next mon okay that sounds great thank you and as far as Mo the only thing the parks uh has on the the money table at this point is that 10,000 that we've committed already from the city council so they still owe us a couple pricing and various info for projects that they're looking to do this spring so and I didn't get a chance to jump on this we were waiting for other things for the agenda so I didn't see it until very close in time to the meeting but okay all right so we're going to table that one for now we're good with that we'll bring it back okay and we'll bring that back next month good okay sounds good perfect [2:13:42] Kathy Weier: okay next one is City Credit Card implementation which is 141 I don't know if you want to talk about it you can I was I talked to Jen a little bit about this and I think we need to get some policy behind it and maybe we should I think we should probably table it for now um yeah so mine was similar where I was a little concerned about having well one I was thinking that our Treasurer should be in charge of getting any credit card that we potentially have um but then as far as what actually constitutes City purchases would need to be put into some sort of document so the [2:14:28] Kathy Weier: the state auditor has some guidelines on what we need to do here okay and I'm going to throw together a policy is anybody but would you mind Kathy if we just asked if people are generally in favor of the city getting a credit card need a credit card okay I I would agree as well because I I I'm not a fan of doing reimbursements for personal cards agreed I I want the statement and the receipt to go with the item so all for it but as far as like let's let's some rules yeah I'm going to just work with Jen a little bit and get this um find nailed down and a I have a policy I have like more pages than have ever been probably [2:15:14] Ryan Eisele: this I I have several Pages we'll we'll do it next round so all right so then uh that would table for now the resolution 19 yeah yes 20259 so we're tbling that one for now too okay um next one we have is additional office equipment needed that's n uh 143 yep resolution 20 yes and let's not forget to just we need to not forget to approve the rest of the consent agenda before this oh we did approve the B already we did all right yeah that's right we did all those the alphabet that we had before okay so this one I had pulled did anyone [2:16:00] Kathy Weier: else have anything they wanted to say about it before I chat about this one yeah why a desktop computer I'm sorry um this is the uh office equipment office where it's desktop computer two large monitors adjustable desk and two drawer filing cabinets I I I mean yeah why a desktop computer I guess not a laptop oh sure so so not too long ago maybe a year and a half ago um new laptops were purchased I think the idea behind that purchase was to create a mobile office um I think we're learning that that isn't I think hybrid is a better way [2:16:48] Ryan Eisele: maybe to manage our work and So currently we have two desktops that are set up with laptops as our um stable if if we want to be a stable desktop they are what's operating our um computers and monitors or that's the laptop is our computer running our monitors um if we want to provide a laptop to our employees we also need a desktop computer then for at least one of the stations to replace the prior City administrator position so that's why this request was placed here what [2:17:34] Kathy Weier: happened to Becky's computer it's here but it's a laptop only okay so um for my own office I have a laptop that I plug into a a hub and it allows me to use that as my actual desktop computer you plug it in you have all your monitors your keyboard your mouse everything is involved it's actually a much larger um storage than a desktop computer typically are and if I do need to work from home for or travel for whatever reason I travel a lot personally sure my entire computer comes with me so as far as uh we still have Becky's computer I feel like we just approved in the last two years three or four different [2:18:19] Kathy Weier: computers so we have more computers than we have people that's correct okay so I'm trying to figure out why well it accommodates a few things one is um it gives us an opportunity to have an extra workstation for people to work on so that was people visiting or extra support so one thing that I did do in um in the interum here is I am asking for a lot of volunteer help so we've established lished a city support desktop so others can come in and actually help us create documents if necessary um they can send information uh to various places if we need extra help um it's actually been [2:19:07] Kathy Weier: very beneficial okay um the station works very well there's nothing wrong with the way it's working um but it just offers flexibility and you know our our hierarchy and our makeup of office staff works really really well except when someone's on a vacation or if someone's sick MH um so it does sometimes cause challenges to get work done and so it just the the primary reason is to offer flexibility in a whole variety of ways you know to maybe we're all mobile for some reason maybe we're all working from home or I I mean the because we're so [2:19:53] Kathy Weier: tight staffed um it offers a lot of solutions okay I'm thinking a hub would make more sense with laptops for everybody because you don't take the you don't have to take the laptop with you it can stay as just the as the computer itself sure I we're absolutely open to ideas it's just trying to set it up so we can perform better more efficiently it's um unfortunately the desk area the desktop that I work at the laptop there would not be functional for me to take home I'm not kidding it has every port filled with cord it is terribly impractical for me to take it down and bring home so it [2:20:41] Ryan Eisele: sounds like we need a hub docking station the docking station so you have all of the cords hooked up to one and you have the power cord that goes from the dock to your your your laptop one cord plug in so can can we do before we do a resolution for any sort of Technology can we do like a there's a docking yeah that is a docking station this this is something that you would use everything get plugged in including your internet and all you got to do is plug it in and everything works and I and I have one and I am full wow really so I would I would welcome site visit do a technology review and see what see what our our needs are and see what we can do but yeah like you should have two big [2:21:27] Kathy Weier: monitors you should have an addressable desk I agree filing cabinet great I just the desktop versus laptop and kind of what our currently techn current technology needs are I kind of want to I want to see it yeah open to whatever we we're just looking for improvement yeah but I would anticipate that with so we still have Becky's laptop as back and we had another laptop that we have for theres you have one and then there was another one I believe didn't we do four no we did two two laptops in the last two years uh correct oh I think they provided a laptop for the treasurer yes so I think I think we've done I thought it was four though in which case we have [2:22:13] Kathy Weier: an extra laptop somewhere I doubt it not that I'm aware maybe just replace one yeah my understanding just to and then very recently we purchased the one for the treasurer so she be mobile is part of the concern here that the laptop became unavailable when the city administrator yes took took some leave okay yes yes and then that and then that station became unusable I will say say this I guess I don't mind doing a technology review and I think that that would be good to do I do really want to say I think we often run very lean in the office on supplies and I appreciate it when you come in and [2:22:59] Ryan Eisele: say this is what I need because it will make me more efficient in my job and I think I just want to say please keep doing that because you know sometimes we're saving a hundred bucks on this or 500 bucks on that and spending 20 or 30 or 100 hours a year to to recoup those expenses so like let's do our oversight but let's also just make sure that like staff have what they need to to to be efficient so I welcome that I I welcome a a visit by all of you so you can see that might be helpful so um did you have something record one of the laptops that think got replaced is now designated in my a [2:23:45] Therese Bellinger: there's the fourth one I knew there was a fourth one that's probably where that fourth one came from okay right all right so that's we should probably have an official inventory as well I I feel like that might be something we want to do then so all right let's have a scavenger hunt between meetings so who's GNA um sort of partner with and figure out what the office needs are you gonna be in on Thursday teres are you gonna be in on Thursday is th I will yes okay I'll I'll come up in that would be great do we want to fill up the floor oh God do we want to adopt this resolution but just say that no I think we we wait till we do some sort of review and then we table this and then we can but there [2:24:30] Kathy Weier: were some other office supplies like a filing cabinet in there too right a filing cabinet and an adjustable desk and two large monitors uh I'm assuming we're replacing monitors that exist or are we replacing replacing monitors that exist but are very small I mean just this is the tech isn't it yeah yeah right okay so that part uh do we want to talk about the adjustable desk and two drawer filing cabinet then to pass that portion or do you want to just hold off after we review all things well you let me share why we need file cabinets well I think that's that one is the one that I'm like if we don't have one we should have one all we are we are full we are full with permits so um so our goal and we've [2:25:18] Therese Bellinger: talked about this um is to revamp how they're organized um but we will run out of space soon now it's it's possible a lot of things can be tossed I was going to say what's our record Management schedule like how years God don't ask I think we're I think the hope is believe me if you want to spend some time with the that's not a question you want to ask well I just asked it because the the answer is like there's lengthy lengthy document retention for the state that have to follow you don't want to know and they have to be kept in paper form they can't be digitized I think things can be digitized but it doesn't someone has to do it the but somebody has to code [2:26:03] Ryan Eisele: everything based on what type of document it is and figure out how exactly what time to delete it you don't want to know like you'll have nightmares so I don't think we need to fix the back office I I mean Teresa knows what she wants and Brian's G to do the tech and then we're going to if you guys want sit stand desks and more filing cabinets I mean this say how many I guess well I would move to authorize but not require staff to purchase an adjustable desk and a two drawer filing kit do you only need one adjustable desk really the goal there is um the treasur area the back room that's really not a very that desk really doesn't accommodate um things very well now do [2:26:50] Therese Bellinger: we occupy that office that often no but when we do um it it could be reorganized and I think we could even shift a lot of the countertop that we have that we probably can just reuse that I think things if they're just moved around so so a maximum of three people working at one time possibly is that yes and especially if we're going to increase office hours yep um we we do need we will have a full house potentially but for with the three of you three people working would each individual want their own adjustable desk it would be nice so I I would how much are adjust [2:27:37] Ryan Eisele: I'll withdraw my motion how much 150 bucks okay yeah you can buy them used um well sure but I mean as far as like I'm just trying to figure out like are we talking thousands are we talking hundreds no I actually few I did actually shop I did um and if we want to look at used office furniture they're not terrible you can find um crank UPS um that are inexpensive that aren't bad and when I say inexpensive $200 so again nothing's critical and and we could shift things around and make the space work better but that back office that desk probably really really is yeah I think I think that if there's going to be three people there I don't [2:28:22] Kathy Weier: think there's a reason that we shouldn't have adjustable desks for everybody just for pure comfort for I'm I'm fine with the adjustable Des if they were like 200ish um for three people potentially depending on what the person wants because I don't want to throw an adjustable desk on anyone if they're like all I want to do is same so well here's what I here's what I found so I did find an actual adjustable desk that we can get for $200 bile cabinets are minimal um and um and then we could just shift some things around in there and it would just be mainly a maintenance expense to move things around what we don't have more space for but I think if we shifted some files and things around it's the permits that we have are overflowing on [2:29:10] Therese Bellinger: and obviously we have to think about future and it and being able to expand do we have a scanner where we could actually start we have to think about we have to seriously think about not having paper documents much anymore like but I don't want to and we have that ability now to go paperless with our current permit system so a backlog that you're worried about I feel yes I feel like I'm fine authorizing something here I guess I don't know what you guys think um or if you want to do a review you if this wait a month I'm fine with whatever I guess here what I ask so like I'm okay with author uh I want to do a review of the technology before we do anything if we can strike the desktop [2:29:58] Ryan Eisele: computer I guess just the desktop computer I'm okay with the monitors as well but the understanding is like we might have to come back and get more adjustable desks so like we'll get this one because the resolution is in front of us but and then we might okay so then we potentially would have because the thing that makes me hesitant to as far as just passing it immediately so there's no dollar amount involved as far as what this actually would cost and um actually we did get a quote so I can give those dollar amounts yes I I te um right but I can share with you what what we were provided with by techie dudes and that was the desktop computer was just under 100 thou uh [2:30:44] Kathy Weier: ,000 the um adjustable desk was 300 and then the file cabinet might be $25 to $50 and so if you re if we can find that we can re reconfigure our Hardware um the expense should be minimal what would it take to be able to play [Laughter] fortnite so you're winning a gaming computer uh so that included the monitors right for the desktop oh I I forgot about monitors monitors aren't I don't believe they're expensive you C but I mean honestly in today's environment desktop seems expensive for how much I don't think we should get a [2:31:30] Ryan Eisele: desktop and I don't think we should be deciding how we manage the back office great yeah um that's that's not our our job and um T what I hope you're hearing from us is we support we really want to support getting you what you need and um so I I just think the next step is for Ryan to well generally I I would like to approve something but I don't want to approve anything with a blanket I don't know a dollar amount which is why I'm bringing it up $800 to off that list EX for the desktop yeah yeah that's great are we good with that yeah that's fine okay and there's nothing critical the [2:32:16] Kathy Weier: the only um thing that I think is important would be making sure that that City administrator desk needs is where we need it to be for a new person no absolutely and then i' really like the monitors okay and beyond that we're we can make everything else work excellent um so I would you were thinking 800ish I threw out there just what you threw out okay but would that be enough for the monitors and the uh adjustable desk and then filing C that should be plenty right yep that should be I'm guessing $200 for each mon monitor $400 $300 for sit desk puts us at s $100 for filing cabinet I'll take her to Costco and we'll get monitors for yeah yeah okay take much effort I even have a stand up I have an adjustable desk that I'm willing to donate to the [2:33:02] Ryan Eisele: city if we can't find affordable fabulous we go all right so um I would make a uh motion to pass resolution 2025 D20 authorizing the city to purchase um two large monitors just able desk and two drawer filing cabinet up to $800 um and then potentially if there's enough left over which maybe for a look at the computers to see what options we'd have and come back for more for that second I all in favor I I thank you all right I'm going to go no no Nays since everyone was an eye on that but were [2:33:47] Kathy Weier: there any Nays no okay um okay then that gets us down to our last one which is Tai Schmidt rental agreement um which is J and starts on page 154 I just had one comment on that which is we were going to take the fall yeah the date reference to fall off yes um I believe Ryan you you're the one who wanted that one pulled do you have something specific I just want to abstain cuz I know it's funny but I just we benefit from this basically so I just want to abstain so that's all I know [2:34:33] Ryan Eisele: it's funny I'll come I'll come and address it as a resident if you want but yeah he's very proud of himself by the way he did such a good job um okay so you were just wanting to abstain because the consent agenda you didn't want to have an eye for that okay all right U the I agree with you as far as like I was saying it was missing dates for the the fall I'm I'm okay with the fall dates depending on when that is based on we have some work planned for the park for drainage I don't want to guarantee that that won't overlap with whatever fall date is because we were planning on having that work start after they're done with the would be on them so going have to work around the city they're to find it just [2:35:19] Kathy Weier: would take fall out unless we're assuming this contract applies to fall well they wrote it so that's why I'm I'm curious as to when those dates are because we also have a like rental fees that says due date and it's in Brackets meaning that there was a date supposed to be put in there and that's not in there um so there was a a few areas that i' I'd like added to it before we officially sign it as far as the specifications for when those dates are and that we've actually set that up um because right now it's never ending so that was my concern with that one Perpetual yes anyway if you want a strike call and let them come back if they need time because I mean they've defined the term as May through July already so okay well [2:36:06] Ryan Eisele: I'm okay with that are you yeah okay absolutely you want to make a motion so just govern govern the 2025 season right that's what you're approving the yeah every year there oh yes that is correct it would only be for uh 20 2025 season and I would recommend that as opposed to just rolling forward with without being able to review it okay yeah I would anticipate we would want to reup every year depending on activity okay I mean if it's the same thing we can put it on consent and they come back for 26 we'll see how first year go and I'm okay with them coming back with fall dates but I I want to know when it is [2:36:52] Kathy Weier: so um so I guess I do we want a motion on this one it looks like they're actually looking for one did you want a motion so move the we strike the reference to any fall we make it for the 2025 season and then approve as is okay second all right um all in favor I I abstain all right you guys think it's pretty funny don't you no no totally fine trying to be trying to be ethical man get laughed at it's that your son was the one who [2:37:37] Kathy Weier: proposed and I think his the part funny but no that's that's great and I did notice that they took out the portion about the city additional insurance so I wanted to point that out too they're laughing is suppor they're laughing with you you just don't know it okay um that was our last item no what am I missing oh yes do I have a motion to adjourn okay second second all right all in favor I I do we have stuff we need to sign here [Music] [2:38:48] Kathy Weier: oh I [2:38:58] [Music]