acre original farm step with the existing home and that has five assigned development rights. Additionally, they have a 35 acre outlot that was platted as part of Heather Meadow's second edition. There are no development rights assigned to that outlot. It was created before we had the rule that you couldn't create an outlot without development rights. Um, and then it Yeah, so it predates our current zoning and subdivision. So that is the current status of that lot. Next slide. And then for the OSMP plat does allow for development rights to be doubled in exchange for a paved public street to serve the development with curb and gutter as well as 50% of the gross acreage for the site of which half of half of which must be upland is then set aside as open space under a temporary conservation easement until municipal services are available to the area. There is no plan for this area to be served by municipal services. that's not in our 2040 plan likely would be not in the 2050 plan. Uh but the idea is decades from now if that were to become available then at that time additional development could occur. So there are 12 residential lots are proposed. They range from 2.3 to 4 acres. Uh as part of the OSP there is no minimum lot size but each lot must be able to have two septic sites that are approved by the county. Two lots will be carved off around the existing residence on Oakdale Drive and then Heather Lane will be extended to the south and southwest to serve 10 additional lots. Next slide. So the two open space out lots as I said they will continue to be farmed and they at this time it looks like the upland requirement needs to still be confirmed. It looks like there will be plenty of space being proposed that will satisfy that requirement that that is a condition in the resolution that there be at least 22.06 acres confirmed as upland. As far as ownership of the open space, our code allows for a couple different options, including the subdivider can retain ownership of the outlot, but then a restrictive covenant does is required in that scenario. uh the proposed restrictive covenant and working with the city attorney and looking at what the intent of this rule was is the open spots open space outs can be um in the future if they stop farming it. They could be dedicated to the city if the city were to accept the open space outs can be sold to the owner of lot one block 4. The idea idea being that this would be someone invested in the neighborhood and would likely continue the farming of the outlots. Uh the open space out lots can be dedicated to an HOA that comprises a majority of the homes within this development or the open space outs can be sold to a developer once municipal sewer and water is available. So this does limit their options into how they um divest their interest in this should they stop farming but it does not prevent them from renting out the space to be farmed as well. So that would still be an option to rent the outlets to a farmer. Next slide. May I ask a question about that? Yep. Could we ever restrict that option for and say if you do an OSNP once Musa comes, you cannot develop that piece? No, we can't because we are, my understanding is we're governed by the Metropolitan Council and we're not able to make it a permanent easement. It's a temporary ement. What if it's a conservation easement? So conservation easement would be different but that typically um what are your thoughts on that? Certainly an issue that can be raised again with the updated comprehensive plan but if for those that were involved in the last comprehensive plan update the Met Council's uh land use policies don't allow us to take what we used to do is exactly that. You may be remembering that we would say put this in a permanent conservation easement and uh their rules say it's it's one in 10 and you can only go less dense if you're planning for future development and therefore you can't put that conservation easement over the land. But in the PUD we're doing conservation easements over the open space provisions, right? Is that because you're achieving permanent conservation ements? Are there temporary conservation easements that only last until sewer and water in OS&P? But I'm talking about in the MUSA in PUDS when we change to having the open space as a requirement of the PUD. Those are permanent I believe. Correct. They replaced an outlaw that would be governed by an HOA. So there's not a permanent conservation easement being applied. Oh, okay. It doesn't apply here, but it seems like we're still meeting our density regulations. We're kind of screwing ourselves when we This is farther down from Musa, but if we do a something like this that's close to the Musa and then three years later Musa comes out, we've just kicked oursel in the teeth and we have um basically they can take what they used as a benefit for the community to have this open out lot to be able to put more houses on it and then music that comes out and that whatever we planned for. Well, too bad. So sad. Now we can just put houses in there. And we have control over when that goes out though. Huh. We have control over when that goes out to a certain degree. Yeah. But we couldn't just carve this out and say, "Oh, Muse is going to go, oh, we're not going to include outlaw A. It's going to go around Outlaw A." And like there would be a natural progression. um those OSNP standards were rolled back from 3 to one potentially then now they're 2:1. I I think we ought to look at that and maybe not make our development worse by trying to make it better worse long term by trying to make it better short term. It can't apply here because it's a it's under today's standards. But um this is penalizing future Corkran even though we're trying to have present Corkran be better. So uh just to clarify, so you're thinking maybe like in a future update would be getting rid of some of that bonus. Yeah, cuz it as the town develops there's no bonus. It doesn't matter and then the area that Oh, we're going to extend Heather over here now and put we can if that's I 30 acres, then 150 homes can go there. Yeah. So, we just got to I think we got to reook at it that Musa is actually here now and it wasn't here when that OSMP stuff was put in the code. Yep. Unfortunately, this one's pretty This is a long ways away. Yeah. Yeah. I'm not And this isn't denigrating this project at all. It just came to mind. I'm like, totally. Yeah. Makes sense. Or see if there's a workaround. Yeah. I mean, you're saying you're qualifying it a little bit, you think, and probably, but I would love to hear affirmatively that there's there's nothing we can do to prevent once the MUSA line coming out. Well, the other wrinkle too is probably it's not even just what the Met Council's rules are right now. could be what the Met Council's rules are in 2040, 2050, 2060 when that's looking at getting I feel like if we got something in writing. Yeah, maybe. I don't know. We got to think about that. Yep. Agreed. Sorry, Natalie. No, it's okay. Um, doesn't seem that okay. No, I'm just exhausted. I'm sorry. I've been here since 8:30 and I'm my brain is starting to shut down on this. I apologize. it. Um I'm trying to get my flow back. So for the setbacks, the principal structure setbacks can be accommodated with the proposed lots. The two eastern agricultural structures on lot one block 4 have a legal non-conforming setback of less than 100 ft. However, there will need to be a variance for an existing agricultural structure on lot one block 4 that once we take out the required ride ofway, it will have a setback of 91 ft. So this is additional rightaway that would be dedicated as part of Oakdale Drive. Um and so right now it does meet the setback but once uh we take that rightaway because of the plat we will need to grant a variance to allow the structure to remain in its current location. Uh there are several design guidelines that are required of the OSM OSP and they are satisfied except a 100 foot buffer perimeter buffer that would be required along Oakdale Drive. Again, this conflicts with existing houses and structures on both lot one block four and lot one block five and a variance from the standard is required. Next slide. And then there are several design objectives and the subdivision specifically says that the applicants should the application should achieve as many of these objectives as possible. So should is used instead of shall. So they're not required but they are recommended as part of the application. Um the satisfied standards include that they've arranged most of the lots around a c oh no they've arranged the lots around a central focal point. They've located the lots that at least 50% of them abut the open space. Uh the views are preserved from each building unit and from an off-site vantage point including to the maximum extent possible. So the outlot A does go all the way up to Oakdale Drive providing a view there. Um and then the they locate the lots to preserve farmland and they've located the septic systems on the most suitable soils. Um as is been determined by the approvals we've received so far from Henipin County. Uh one of the standards that staff did not find particularly applicable was the location of neighborhood recreational open spaces so that they are an integral part of the neighborhood. the applicant intends to farm the full capacity of the outws. Uh so there aren't really there isn't really a recreational opportunity that doesn't uh come at the expense of the farmland. And then what's not satisfied is providing covenants to create an architectural theme. Uh even if they didn't want to do an HOA at this time, they could we could work with the city attorney to potentially add some kind of a deed uh restriction. So, um that the it depends on what kind of theme that they want to go with, but one example of a recent uh OSMP was having some kind of rural theme. Um and then we do have some example of the language that was used in those documents. Uh as far as UNC some objectives that's a little bit unclear but probably could be satisfied. Uh the locating houses and garages so that the garages do not dominate the streetscape. The plot does not show the garages. It just shows the building path. But there does appear to be enough space that this would be easily accomplished. And finally, um, landscaping the common areas in street rightways with native vegetation that has high wildlife conservation value. The planning commission did want to see this added as a condition of approval and that is included in the resolution available to you. Next slide. Uh for the streets, Heather Lane will be extended to the south and southwest. Uh one-sided parking would be allowed and the existing culde-sac and Heather Lane would be removed. The existing driveways that go directly into the culde-sac uh and the culvers will then be modifi modified and extended as necessary. Um this would be a project that's more fine-tuned. It's part of the final plat. and a temporary culde-sac will be required at the new end of Heather Lane to the southwest. Um, as far as the ghost plat that does show a future public street that would directly front Oakdale Drive and then connect to Heather Lane in the southwest area of outlap A. The current alignment would not be permittable due to the location of wetlands. So, the engineering memo and our um public works director has said that that eastern lot line for lot one block five lot oh my goodness lot one block five must be moved at least 15 ft west. Um now that we have more information on the septic location for that lot. Um there is a concern that this may conflict with the actual location of the existing septic system. However, the the survey also said that the location was provided by the owner. So, I do want that to be actually confirmed, the actual location. Um, and then there are some options outlined for the applicant should it be determined that there's a conflict because of the PU sorry, the OSMP ordinance. um if they want to have the septic site be offsite um or um request a deviation from our minimum lot standards such as having two septic sites on site, we do have to do a PUD. The alternative to a PUD would be they need two new septic locations to serve the slot. Next slide. For the conditional use permit, lot one, block 4 is proposed to have an accessory structure footprint of 7,428 square feet. One of these structures less than 200 ft is exempt from it. So, the CP would grant a footprint of 7,236 square feet. You saw that this is allowed on parcels less than 10 acres if they are adjacent to an actively farm property under the same ownership. And staff did find that the standards of the CUP are satisfied. Uh some conditions of approval includes removal of two buildings as shown on the exhibit provided by the applicant. And then an additional condition is that should outlaw a no longer be farmed andor the accessory structures no longer be used for agricultural purposes only um there's some flexibility provided based on the by right footprint. Uh but basically at that time the structures need to be removed that exceed the footprint for a 4acre parcel. Next slide. Variance one is the perimeter buffer of 100 ft. The practical difficulty of the existing residences on the Oakdale adjacent lots appears to satisfy uh the standards to grant a variance and a proposed condition of approval is to plant the buffer area as required where it will not conflict with the existing structures. Variance two is the exemption for all OSMP lots to front on an internal paved street. Again, the practical difficulty provided by the applicant's narrative is that the existing residences uh provide a unique situation that they're trying to retain. Uh and so that appears to satisfy the standards to grant a variance. And the potential condition of approval um that staff had suggested was to remove the west uh if you look at the horseshoe shaped driveway. There was some discussion in the planning commission report to remove that west access, but the applicant did uh explain wholeheartedly how they rely on that to be able to navigate, especially some of the bigger vehicles coming to the site so that they're not having to back up onto Oakdale Drive. And so the planning commission did not recommend that as a condition of approval. Uh next slide. Variance three is for a 91 foot setback from the uh front setback for an agricultural structure. The practical difficulty again stems from the a requirement to remove an existing and inuse agricultural structure that would otherwise comply with the setback if not for the city's right ofway requirement for the new plat. Uh and then the proposed condition of approval is to plant the buffer area as required where it will not conflict with the structure. Next slide. So, planning commission and staff recommend approval of the preliminary plat resolution. Resolution 202450. Resolution 202451 approves the conditional use permit. And then resolution 202452 approves the variances. And the applicant is with us tonight for additional questions. Thank you. Who's the applicant? Right in front. Oh, okay. Because you were here a long time ago too, right? Correct. Five, six years ago even. The concept Clinton was in 2022 when we looked at this. Yeah. Oh, okay. I thought you someone was here way earlier than that. Um, is there anything you you'd like to speak to? Uh only to the north in the on Heather Lane was the uh existing culdeac. it it was written there to be removed and my thoughts were is that I think that's a to consider leaving it for the purpose of uh you know people can don't have to drive all the way to the end to turn around and come out like uh say uh different garbage trucks servicing that community. If they don't need to drive all the way into the end to turn around, they can use that earlier turn around and it serves I think three properties now is their driveway entrance. But that was just a suggestion. I just thought about it when I seen it there. I was going to disc or discussed it with my son. He couldn't be here tonight because he was uh he's not feeling well, but when it's written there to be removed, I thought it'd be good to consider that possibly could say. Okay. Um so that was was that discussed at the planning commission? No, that's a requirement, the engineering memo. Maybe Stephen will speak to that a bit more. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you mayor and council. It has a lot to do with even like public works and plowing too as they're trying to we're you know plowing the road now as it's a through road to be able to stop have to plow the wings continue through it kind of creates an issue of having a culde-sac within a culde-sac so just having that continuity of maintenance is also kind of important as well. Gotcha. Thoughts on that council? So if it gets removed who extends the driveways to the new road surface it would be done with this development. Okay. So we'd have to modify the ditches and driveways to carry them through because we're kind of pushing it a little closer. So it would all be done with this application. I think with previous applications they have they would have ghost plotted that road that comes out and said that the culde-sac is temporary. That's how we do it now. So we it'd be that might sound good at concept, but perhaps the original people might have a beef with it because they might say, "Well, this culde-sac was supposed to be removed because they approved this road with the temporary culde-sac in like whatever 1992 or something. It's a good idea and I'm glad you're your only comment is about other people which is pretty awesome." Um, so thank you for that. Did did we have anyone that wanted to speak on this? something. Okay. Oh, Tom, I just when parks and trails looked at this, we were concerned only with the onroad trail which which um but back in the day when we first talk about this sort of development where you get extra rights for creating a more natural sort of environment. This is my own personal comment. This doesn't do that. These are just a bunch of lots which have no relation to the open space. Um there's no and there there is no focus here. There's no land feature. There's no there's no wetland that is highlighted in here. It doesn't fully It doesn't It doesn't do what an open space preservation lot is supposed to do, which gives you extra rights to provide extra ability for the folks living here and for the folks in the neighborhood to enjoy that space. It just it just doesn't to my eye. I'm not sure about tech technical view of half of the properties to access it. It sure looks short. Gotcha. Appreciate Appreciate the feedback. What is the technical definition of it? Does it have is there anything to Tom's point that you get credit for half the property being out of development if if there are there qualifiers on that? There were several there that that you listed. Oh, sorry, Tom. We can go back to the maybe the design objectives. So, there's objectives. There's guidelines and there I'm sorry. There's um so the design objectives these should should be. It does not say shall and that was intentional. That was a change. So, the idea is they're supposed to attempt to hit as much of these as they can. Uh, and so they um the location of the lot so that at least I'm sorry, Natalie. I I remember seeing this now. So, okay. I don't we don't need you to repeat for me. Thank you. I think we could achieve more of it if we had some kind of an access point for the folks who live in that new development, like a walking trail, so they could walk through the tree farm and it becomes more of a neighborhood amenity for those people to expand that access. Is it going to be farm? I thought we were preserving a farmland. I didn't realize we were doing open space for parks and trails. Well, it says tree farm on it's it's tree farm and farming is what's going on out there. Two different farm types to farm farming that's occurring including the tree farm I think is one of the major uses. I could be wrong but in the planning commission they were saying that there was some other crops too. Correct me if I'm wrong. It sound like there might have been a couple different front things happening. Uh there's both trees, tree farming and cash crop which we ran out. [Applause] Tree farming is expanding every year. We plant like an acre or two acres a year in the trees. So we're slowly going from treat from cash crop like corn and beans to trees. Why would why would that land so for example if you have 100 acres and 50 acres is going to be continued to be used for farming. Why would you get credit for that being an open preservation thing anyways? Because it's not really the point of the whole was to take like you take that 100 acres that 50 acres would be included in the plot. And in this case, they're just saying you it's next to 50 acres that's still being used. So why would they get credit for just because they happen to be next to a place that has open space. It's it's not part of the development if the owners can continue to use it for their own benefit. Is it? So, I'll I'll just remind the council that this was reviewed as a concept plan in 2022 and this was the layout in that concept plan and at that time it received very favorable feedback to move forward and this is a byite plot. Our wording in the open space and preservation plaque ordinance does allow for continued agricultural use by the applicant. So the idea is that a farmer could decide to use some of their development rights but continue to have the more valuable agricultural land and kind of be able to eat their cake and have it too. So that I think maybe it was written as a a goal separate from having the open space per se, but also incentivizing people to continue farming and be able to develop some. And it's a different potential benefit. Maybe it's less of a benefit. No benefit to the people around here. When I when I got on the council, we had we had a place called Pollson Farms and that was 90 some acres and half of it was preserved and the other half was 18 lots underneath the power lines, all of those things. And we approved that. But that went by the wayside because that developer couldn't afford the right turn lane off of County Road 30. But the intent there was of the remaining 45 acres, I believe 24 of them were all woodlands and prime stuff and there was talk and conversation about adding walking paths and those kind of things through that and the rest was farmland. This has nothing other than the the the resident or the owner is doing farm or doing uh tree farms and those kind of things and doing cash crops up until the point the tree farms overtake it I assume is what's happening. So, I just I I don't quite get if we're preserving farmland, why would we give access then for walking paths and stuff through somebody else's property? Because it would be part of included in part of the development. Yeah, I know. I just You're getting credit for that to put more houses on your You get double the rights. So, so the exchange is you get double the rights, double the amount of houses you can put on, but that has to stay um empty of stuff, which empty of stuff, not even farm. You mean that's the exchange is you have open space, which means there's nothing going on there. That's this is like a it's kind of a little bit of gamesmanship to get double the development rights. It does. Okay. It doesn't mean I won't vote for it, but this is what this is why I would say enough with the double of the development rights. It kind of goes to your earlier point of of reducing that number. Yeah. The bonus. There's no benefit to anybody who lives there or anyone else to have the owner just continue to do what they've done there except they get twice the property rights without doing anything. They come up. Yeah. regarding the current topic. Um, if I understood it right, when the engineer was working with the city on the concept plan, the options to to us was um if if you do like a a gravel road, there's so many Yeah. So, foams or whatever. If you tar the road, there's so many. If you do curb and gutter, there's more. So I don't know if that helps you answer. So I'm not I'm I'm trying not I wanted to separate what you're doing with just a general discussion on this doubling the property rights and I'm not intending to advocate against your property. I'm just saying this brings to light something that I think is important to discuss as a council. Yeah. And I just wanted to say that if you do a paved street with curb, for some reason you get more more u development laws. Yeah. Yeah, that was the intent. You've done everything by intent. You've done everything by the letter. I don't know how I voted on this one, but I remember the conversation. in on the concept. Yeah, I think my recollection of that one at the time was we saw benefit in the tree farm because it was like having a woodland that would progress over time. I thought I remembered there being an access component for the residents of the development and that's how it was going to satisfy that recreational piece of the standard. Um, I think there's less benefit without that. I'm not sure how I feel about that. Can I make a motion to table this till our next council meeting so we can investigate how that conversation went? I was going to suggest that I'm just not sure what the deadline ends on this one, August 1st. So, yes, you could. I'm going to make a motion we table this till their next meeting to so till the June 13th. We actually anyway we could table it to June 27th. June so we can keep that meeting available for non-planning items. Since no one seconded, I'll make a motion to move this to June 27th. Second. Any discussion? All those in favor say I. I I post. Okay. Like we need to have some conversation on a couple of these items. Then on to our remaining uh planning item AE which is Fairway Shores Villas. And Natalie if you'd like to. This is a preliminary a reszoning preliminary plan unit development plan and the preliminary plat application for fairy shores villas at Cook Lake. Next slide. Uh the applicant applicant is Berseron development and they are proposing 75 single family residential lots and five outlots on the property directly east of 7600 Maple Hill Road and it is west of Cook Lake. Uh as part of the application, they do show an off-road trail that will be provided along the north boundary that then moves south to follow the wetland complex around Cook Lake and that is in compliance with our 2040 parks and trails map. Under the comprehensive plan amendment, this is needed because the pre-development density came back at 2.43 43 units an acre and the estimated post development density using the met council formula is 2.75 units an acre. So the current guiding for this property uh requires three to five units an acre, but the city adopted the conservation residential land use category with the Woodland Hills application in April and that was approved by the Met Council to move forward with that land use category and it does allow a density of two to three units per acre. So for this site, it does seem sense to ma to have that change made here as well to allow reasonable development of the site which is located within the shoreland overlay district while catering to the supply and demand for a variety of lot sizes. This is a policy decision for the city and there is a high level of discretion for the city council. Next slide. Um assuming that we move forward with a comprehensive plan amendment then a resoning request would be would be next and it would be resone from RSF2 to APU. Uh and then again the staff report outlines the different reasoning that why this is supported for this request. Again this is a policy choice for the city has a high degree of discretion. Um forget planning commission feedback. That is an old line. I apologize. Next slide. For the preliminary PUD plan, this is basically what sets the standards for the PUB district. Uh there are several requirements and standards that the application must meet, including the open space requirement. Because they are requesting a 55- ft minimum lot width, they do have a 12% standard for open space. Their plan currently shows about 10.6% as proposed. However, they also have wetland buffer widths that are um almost double in some areas what is required and uh if those widths are reduced to the minimum standards, then this would likely reach the 12% if not exceed the 12% open space requirement. Additionally, the proposed trail takes a less direct path and adds about a quarter acre to the trail corridor than what the city has proposed on our 2040 trails map. So when so the council has to decide do we want to see the buffer widths reduced to the minimum extent possible in exchange for more open space. The planning commission preferred to have the enhanced buffers particularly along Cook Lake uh and still have that count towards the open space requirement. Next slide. for the preliminary PUB plan. Uh they are requesting some flexibilities from the RSF3 standards, which is what gets used since this is the district that's most similar to what they're proposing. Instead of a minimum lot area of 7,500 square feet, they are requesting 6,875 square feet. The minimum lot width would be 55 ft instead of 65 ft. They are proposing an increased setback 25 ft where a 20 feet would otherwise be required. A flat 7 and a half foot setback instead of having the setback vary between the living and garage side of the house and then a 25 foot rear setback instead of 35 ft. Additionally, uh because they're in the shoreland overlay, there's uh additional standards that they need flexibility from. Uh the shoreland overlay require Oh, go back. requires 125 ft for the minimum lot width. But again, the smallest lot with they're requesting is 55 ft. Instead of a 20,000 square foot minimum lot area and a shoreland overlay, it would be as low as 6,875 square ft. And then they are requesting as high as 45% for the impervious surface limit where the overlayer has the limit of 25%. This would only be that significant on the smallest lots. It's not every lot where they would be hitting that 45. And then if you consider the impervious surface limit for the development overall, they are closer to the 25 than they are for the to the 45. They are requesting for some flexibility in the percentage mix for the materials on front elevation. They are proposing Hardy board or smart sighting and they would like to use that up to 85%. Um they actually think that'll allow them to have more variety in the terms of uh some people will have less stone, some people will have more and it'll provide more variety in the how the facade looks. the garages, they're requesting um to be able to have them comprise up to 65% of the viewable ground floor street facing linear building frontage instead of 55%. They are requesting this flexibility on only 13 lots. Up to 13 lots is how they proposed it. And it's specific to two areas. Block five as well along the north end of the development. And lots that have a width of 60 to 75 ft would would be the only ones eligible for that request. So that it the thinking there is partly inspired by the planning commission discussion and attempt to get more backyard space for these houses um from the trail. So the idea being if they can make the structure a bit um we'll let the applicant decide of it but if they can have more flexibility in the structure in the front um then they were able to make them a bit have the depth uh reduced so that there's more rear yard space for the residents. from the golf course. Next slide. So for the preliminary the proposed PUB public benefits they this application did not or was reviewed concept level after we passed the PUD public benefits policy. So we are reviewing it against that policy. This is the first application and uh they are proposing the that natural resources and features be retained. The property has a high quality maple basswood community identified on the uh city's natural resources map and it goes into the middle of the site around a wetland lobe and then follows Cook Lake. The applicant is proposing 50% of the significant healthy trees on the site to be preserved and most of them are located within this specific community. uh they are using the northeast district plans for use of prefer I'm sorry the northeast district plan preferred treeless uh for their landscaping they are proposing higher architectural standards they've submitted six example elevations where five are required for the application the James Hardy or LP smart sighting that they're intending to use will allow for 20 plus pre-finished colors and then the proposed different styles of the building material will allow for a variety of home designs in the neighborhood And then the lot size variety was a big one when this was discussed with the um city council at the concept level. 48% of the lots will have a lot width of 75 ft. 72% of the lots exceed an area of 7,500 square ft and nearly a quarter of the lots exceed an area of 11,000 square ft. Next slide. They are also proposing a larger tree size to be used at the time of planting. Our policy states that to qualify for the standard, they need to use 4 inch minimum to receive the benefit. But a local expert submitted comments that explained this is not something accessible in the Minnesota market, nor is it best practice for long-term health of transplanted trees. At most, they would say three feet minim uh the three three feet at the time of planting uh would be in line with best practices. Three in three inches. I apologize. You're okay. It's getting late. I prefer three. I'd like to see that tree mover. Tom, you got one of those. I apologize. That's all right. The three in an effort to still try to meet this standard. The applicant is proposing to use 3 in size at the time of planting for their shade trees where 2 and 1/2 in is what is required by our code. So, it still exceeds it. And then he also had said that where he can source something that's larger than three inches he will. So uh the what's written in the resolution would be a 3-in standard that we would hold him to. Uh additionally there was significant collaboration with the adjoining land owners specifically Chastic family farm to the west which is an application that is on our June 27th agenda. uh they had to coordinate storm water management along their shared boundary as well as identify uh the trail connection and the road connection um particularly in the north part of the site so that there is flow between the two developments a bit as well they are proposing a significant monument entrance our policy currently says that monument entrances can count towards the visual terminal Gemini benefit. This will be a policy discussion. It's not really at the end of the road. It's as you're entering enter entering the site. Um but it is a heavily landscape entrance monument that encourages neighborhood identity. The planning commission did uh feel that the extent of proposed landscaping um did make it a public benefit. Uh so that was part of their recommendation. Next slide. uh extraordinary environmental protection is another PUD benefit that would be satisfied if the council prefers to see the enhanced wetland buffers as they're currently proposed. So they right now there's excessive wetland buffer widths and averaging proposed particularly along Cook Lake. Uh the planning commission said that they wanted to see that more so than additional open space uh because they like that there was additional protection provided to Cook Lake for additionally the applicant had the some two benefits that not captured by our policy. Um a a commitment to use a single lawn or snow company as well as a single company for sanitation in the interest of cutting down traffic through the site. And then a 25 foot front setback is proposed where 25 or 20 feet would be required under the RSF2 or RSR3 districts. Next slide. Uh so for the landscaping the buffer yard ordinance requires a rear setback to be maintained between similar districts as the buffer yard. Uh RSF3 typically has a 30foot rear setback. However, this is surrounded by Bass Lake Crossing and Chastic to the east. And Bass Lake crossing has a 25 foot rear setback. And Chastic was requesting a 20 to 25 foot rear setback that they're um believe that is something that they were moving towards at least on some lots is a 25 foot rear setback. Uh so the what the question is for the council is which which setback should apply? Is it a 30 foot rear setback or a 25 foot rear setback that needs to be maintained along the boundary of the site? The PUD approvals handle the setback in this area um as a a requirement instead of a separate conservation easement since no plantings are required in this area. So that's how it's currently drafted. Uh and then for the preliminary plat if all of these other components are approved then the preliminary plat does comply with the applicable ordinances and requirements in order to move forward with complying. Next slide. So planning commission and staff recommend approval of the resolution approving the comprehensive plan amendment. The ordinance reszoning to a PUD that does require a four-fifth majority vote. The summary ordinance for publication also requires a four-fifth majority vote. The resolution approving findings of fact and support of the resoning. A uh resolution approving the preliminary PD development plan. And then the resolution approving the preliminary plaque. The meat of this approval in terms of where we'd be looking for adjusting standards and benefits would be within the PUB development plan resolution. Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anyone from hope that wanted to speak on this? Come on up. Mr. Mayor and council members, my name is Lyn Alberts and I live at 7490 Fland. Thank you for allowing me to speak tonight. First, I would like to commend the council planning commission Natalie and Dwight for their work in designing and adopting ordinance 2023-486 for amending the zoning ordinance for the planned unit developments. It is great to see that the city now has specific criteria to evaluate the proposed PUDS. These standards address protection for the natural areas along and along with the treat preservation. It also requires a certain percentage of the POD to remain open space within the development. One thing I think that is exceptional with this PUD proposal is that it will allow 2.75 acres or units per acre under the new conservation residential category. This will protect one of the few environmental lakes in Corkran. And now the entire scenic west side of Cook Lake will be protected, including the 8 acres of the parkland that was approved by the city. This PUD will help honor the rural character of Corkran and the off-road trail will allow scenic lake views that will make you feel like you're walking in a rural area. I do have two issues that I have to address with the council with our development. The first one is according to the Corkran PUD ordinance, the PUD should not have an undue and adverse impact on the reasonable enjoyment of the neighboring property. I have a concern about the construction traffic for the PUD coming through the Bass Lake crossing development. I am requesting that all construction traffic be routed down through Maple Hills Road and enter through the Chastic property. There is a current easement in to the fairway shores development through the Chastic property. This could be used if the Chastic property is not developed at the same time. There are a total of 191 units that will be developed between the two PUDs. Construction will be ongoing for several years. I have one other concern about the PUD. The attachment item in 8E8 is a memo from Stantech Engineering. Item five of this memo discusses how the storm water discharge from Fairway Shores documents is flowing into outlaw D on Bass Lake Crosses property. The standing memo states that the storm water should not be discharged onto the Basic Crossing property. I would like assurance from the council that fairway shores plans for the storm water discharge will not be discharged into outlet D and Bass propping and the filtration pond on Bass Crossing property. The way I understand the engineering memo is that no storm water will be discharged onto the Bass Crossing outlet D. Outlet D is currently receiving all the storm water from all the houses on the east side of Furlane, the filtration pond on the west side of Furlane, and the 10 houses along the off-road trail being developed by Robert Thomas. There are trees I've lived there for 5 years. There are trees that are have died in Outlet D because of the current excess storm water. So, the additional storm water is going to even cause more problems. Um, thank you for addressing my two issues for the proposed development. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. Um, and to maybe kind of address those questions or concerns. Storm water. I think that we can give if you want to speak to that. Yeah. Yeah. Storm water. So, we review the storm water for all the storm water rules. So, all the rate control water quality, they're required to meet both the city and wershed rules. Um I'm looking through the memo because I think it might be a confusion between the outlaw deeds between the two memos. I know there's a significant portion of their um storm water that goes through outlaw D. But um regard outlaw D. Yes. And the and both of them go to Cook Lake. So within that we do look at both the on-site and off-site impacts and so this isn't a finalized storm water management plan but multiple revisions to go through. So we'll keep that in mind throughout the way. Does Cook Lake ever flow into Outlot D or is out lot D's elevation I suppose I could look we're high so the sightes go down into Cook Lake. Yeah. Okay. I figured that. But but did I just mention the outlet D on ours? The way it reads is it's going to there's a there's a storm waters cover that goes under the trail and that will then flows into outlet R outlet D. So what the proposal that you're proposing is not to use that culvert but to actually do have what's holding ponds and still ponds for that development. This development will have their own storm water ponds to manage the storm water down really will be worthless then because there won't be any water going there. Yeah. If if any water it's the existing water that goes there. It won't be any additional water. They don't use the the offset water for their management. pretty strict on that. Um, and then regarding the other item, access, I think, um, that item's coming up. Well, the easement is specific to agriculture access. So, we were talking about having to work with if if that does not develop. If it does develop, isn't there a potential to work between the parties to for construction access or no or so? I think that there's potential to work through it, but it requires um willing parties and my concern is if chastic were to go away for some reason to condition it on them obtaining an easement from the property owner may be very difficult. Um so the fur lane is a public street that is their primary access to condition this uh development to have to use Maple Hills I think um would be very difficult. Got you with how they're landlocked. Question for uh I guess any one of the three of you maybe whoever feels mo the best able to address this. I think it came up at the planning commission. Someone mentioned maybe potentially uh finding some sort of traffic control elements that could be temporarily installed. I was looking up like temporary speed bumps that you can get that are either rubber or some sort of metal speed bump that you can install that's not permanent on the road. Is there something like that a potential option to keep heavy traffic from speeding up for links? I think that would be a concern. We can look at those. Um something we consider I probably shy away from kind of those permanent ones that damage the roadway. We have a brand new roadway, so we want to reduce the amount of times we kind of poke something in. So what you know we can look at whether it's kind of some of the you know lane narrowing or some of those approaches that just force people to go slower and whether we can do that through cones and barrels or things like that. We can kind of look at that as we get closer to construction to try to manage that. But as Natalie said it is a public roadway and so we would envision it would and just want to make want to do what we can to try to limit uh it's going to be hard to do. Fair warning if This happens sometimes where you have to go through a development. Yep. It's tricky access. Go into another development. No one likes it. It's really hard to not have that happen, especially here. Yeah, we can try, but well, just something to keep in mind. If there are things that we can look into, I'd be in favor of that. So, you couldn't force them to go down road and come in that way? No, because there's not a public street there. There's no public easement or anything. But I mean, if Chastic was there still, if they developed a public street, they could potentially come to an agreement on I don't know. If they came first and developed a public street, then you could use that public street, but we can't it takes a while to accept it as a public street. A true depending on the phasing plan, it it while I would encourage the parties to the reality is to condition approval I I think creates a hardship on the applicant. Yep. Yeah. So then what do we say then Chastic would have to come down Maple Hills Road and Fair View or Fairway would come down fast road and they would be separate. Chastic's got their own entrance. Fairway's got their own entrance. If Chastic were to happen at the same time, I think there's the potential that the parties could come to some sort of agreement together that would be separate from the city mandating that. Um, so there's a possibility that that that could happen. I would I would But yeah, the main entrance for the entrance for this development is off of Furlane. Yes, that is that is true. Mr. Mayor, just real quick, there was conversation at the planning commission meeting that they were all going to work together and everything would be great and it would be neat to do all the excavation, everything off of Maple Hill, estate and all that stuff, but that's all sounds like it's falling apart. Well, I wouldn't go so I wouldn't collaboration between so there has been significant collaboration between the two and the the but we can't count on that. Well, the reality is is to condition access. I think we're that's a tricky area. Um, but as far as the continued collaboration, I don't want to say that wouldn't be possible, but if Chastic were to go away and we've conditioned it on, we have to have some catch-alls. And if you look at the resolution, um, if Chastic were to not Chastic Family Farm were to not move forward, then they do have to do some redesigning on the site. So um to be able to move forward with the plan. So there are some caveats that we've included to try to capture. Ideally they move together they move forward and there's continued collaboration but should that not um be the case we have some fallbacks so that the to protect both applications really and the only easement was an egg easement an egg that's the only thing just so everybody is clear there was a lot of people in the audience at the planning commission and uh there was some misunderstanding there was misleading and such not on our part. So that's a whole another conversation. So yeah, if you'd like to come up. Sure. Oh, uh was actually pointing to him and then if you would like one more private public person and then the applicant to get up. Fair enough. Matt, we do this almost. We do this every other week. I wish I could run around here. Matt Summers, 7485 Furlane. Um, thank you. And um, my my main concern and I've worked with Mr. Bertra on here. We went to his open house. He's I've talked to him on the phone. All favor of what he's doing over there. It's going to be a great improvement to, you know, it's going to help our areas. Our biggest concern on Bird Lane and I'm also the president of the Bass Lake is our association there for Cross Lake. Whatever we live in, Bass Lake, it's been a long day myself. didn't leave late. Um, is when MI put the second layer down of the road, the pavement, it was poorly done. It was done late in the season and the roads cracked. Two years ago, they said they would seal it for us. And here we are two years later, two winters later, and they had never sealed it. So, moisture was getting in those cracks, seeping in and freezing. And we know what happens there. It starts causing potholes and stuff like that. Then if we start getting this heavy machinery and a lot of traffic going up and down our road, it's going to deteriorate that road much faster than its life expectancy will be much shorter than when it is what it's supposed to be. So that's our main concern. Our road's going to be, you know, not that we object to what's going to happen in building and everything, but what's going to happen? Who's going to replace that road? Who's going to repair that road? Because MI, I know they have that escrow out there. they haven't done their job yet and they haven't fulfilled what they're supposed to do with that road and they said well that's normal. We had the engineers outage from Corkran here and they said that's normal but the other part of our subdivision it didn't crack only our section because it they laid it so late in the fall or early winter when it was already been freezing and so that's our main concern is what's going to happen to our road after all this building construction goes on for the next you know six months to a year. So, gotcha. Thank you. Appreciate it. Like, you want to Sure. Do you know the answer to that? I don't. That road is going to get ruined. So, the roadway with the cracking um you know, our roadway is generally cracking because they haven't finished up their punch list. They do have to crack fill, which is a part of our two-year maintenance. So, they're doing some of our maintenance activities just because they haven't closed it out. Um the roadways are designed to carry the construction or carry this level of traffic. They are public roadways built to a tent ton standard. So they can handle the construction to to a regular degree. It's taken care of responsibly all the things that go alongside it. So do we know when when that that punch list is supposed to be completed on this phase? They are pressing them actively to try to get it completed. Let's I'd say let's stay on that and if we need to motivate them more, let's motivate them more. Do we have the kind of drop dead date that we talked about for the phases last year on the other development? Is it too soon for that with them given it's newer development? I think it's a little different than the one we had talked about last fall. Um, but yeah, we need to get it going. So, we'll circle back with Kevin and the team. If we think we need to, we'll ask for some assistance. Maybe we haven't finished after the project is done. Yeah, that's probably all that to be figured out. I know. Yeah, just a suggestion. Go ahead. Sorry, Kendra. Natalie, thank you. Appreciate everything. Thanks for staying so late. Yeah, thanks for staying late again. Um, I guess I don't really have anything to add other than, you know, the trails kind of came up um that leads along the golf course. I had a conversation with Derek from the golf course and if we need to do anything with fencing, you know, he said that we could work off of their fence, but thank you, Natalie. He he still wanted the fence if I remember his conversation. Yeah, we just thought it's a sixoot fence. I've been out there quite a bit. You could see the elevation change. I mean that fairway is deep. Um golfed it golfed it many times. So yeah, right. I've got three balls over where your culdeac is just an air shot. So we thought, you know, the concern is the trail going along the golf course and it's a sixoot fence. We wouldn't have to it would basically be a fence remodel. We could go to a 10-ft fence, still, you know, put in some new posts, um, but get good protection along the trail. And could you possibly do that? Possibly add a nylon screen to it or slats, something that would be aesthetically pleasing to both sides. Slats are not slats aren't, but a a nylon nylon mesh or something to prevent so from going right through it. Balls going through. I mean, that's a pretty pretty well-directed ball if it goes through the right 2 by two square. Yeah, my concern was more of, you know, if someone's on a bike or something and their head's above the sixoot fence. Um, that's, you know, again, it's a very errant shot, but it is happening. Yeah. Well, and we've got I took some pretty good photos. There's there's a pretty good tree line for most of it. Yeah. You know, there's a few holes, but for the most of it, there's it's it's grown up quite a bit. Thanks for working with them. Yeah. And the the draft resolutions and ordinances that include anything with the fencing. No. So if we wanted to add a condition um we would need to add something if we if the if the idea is you would like them to do. I don't know exactly what we disagree. I apologize. If you go back, if you go back to the drawing quick, that picture, I can help. Where the white line is right there, the the first dash line and then it goes into the walkway right at that corner. In my opinion, and being on that course and stuff, that would be a good spot to start a 10-ft fence from the Yeah. kind of from the opening right here, right over here to maybe just past here. The first T box to the property line where it says 970 right there is 206 yards. So just keep that in mind when we're thinking about how you know sounds like you've been right a few times too. I just looked it up. Oh, I have a thing on the on my wish I was so so wizardly and I have probably hidden into that property before. Um the forward T is your exact 26 yards. No, the back T the very furthest T box is 260 yards from that property line below 270. So I think if we re I don't know who's in charge of keeping balls on the golf course. I would think it would be them more than than you. But that's that's just my opinion because they're you're you're legally liable if you hit a golf ball into a house off out of bounds. Um so I I I don't know, but somebody ought to come up with how to put a fence there just for the sake of those lots right underneath. How many balls are on that property right now? A million. Enough. Yeah. Yeah. Not I've been out there quite a bit. So, it's been a year since we've I basically got in front of you guys. It's hard to believe, but I've been out there a few times. There's There's really not that many balls. It's according to our engineer, the design for golf uh courses is 150 ft from the center of the fairway to the property line or to the to where the house could be. And you know we're 85 and then we're asking for the 65T on the garage so we can gain another 10 ft. So our houses will be 95 something here. Yeah. To hit the houses. It seems like the standard is much closer. You said back and I you know when I've been out there I've not seen anywhere near where the houses are going to be. Oh okay. Keep going. Yeah. I think would only potentially be a concern on the trail. That's Yeah, trail I could see a public safety didn't record that. That makes sense. Record it this way. So if you wanted to add um in the 20 resolution for the PUB paragraph 12, we would add HJ K. Um as so in exchange for the flexibility the applicant would will work with the golf course to provide um a fence of 10 of 10 ft to provide additional protection from that. Yeah. Does that work for everyone? I will make a motion to update that resolution to include that terminology. Have a second. I'll second it. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. I. I. Opposed. Okay. Um, so now we have that updated. That's fence issue. Um, anything else that we want to start off with? Mark, I don't know if you have anything you want to cover. It was one of the uh most helpful planning commission segments items I've seen. that did a great job uh running that and I think that it was a very useful session to kind of go over all the potential issues. So, I don't have too much. Um, I don't know if everyone's seen it or my only concern, and I raised this with Natalie and she addressed it, uh, was not hitting the 12% open space. But my primary goal is that we have open space created within the development as fulfilling the mission of the PUD. If we're categorizing some of it as wetland and feel like it's more valuable as wetland buffer, I'm okay with that. But I want people to know I asked the question and if it had been under 12, I would vote no. Um, but I'm okay treating it flexibly as buffer rather than a separate kind of open space. So, it's a unique situation. It's a neat piece of property. Well, we only have four lakes. There's not going to be any chance for this to come up. We have two. Go back and look at maybe thinking of wetlands. That's the only two I can think of. I know. Uh, either way, yeah, it's a pretty rare pretty rare thing. And I'm I preserve that. Something that's kind of got me a little bit confused. Can you back up to the drawing with the trail in quick? Wh right there. The trail goes down into the red. Is that a buffer? Yes. So they will in those areas the buffer will be reduced and that would become open space. So they are going to have to get the trail out of the buffer that is required. Trail was going to be up the hill a little bit is what's going to go on. Yeah. So that that is a condition of approval. So that draft something to work on. Perfect. I'm seeing Scott and Marin likes as well. Keep going. Oh yeah. Mhm. Wait a minute. Guess. All right. Who wants to leave a charge in there, too? Yeah. Uh getting her done. If there's anything else doesn't seem like it. So, I will entertain a motion to approve resolution 202453. Um, adopt ordinance 2024522. Approve summary or adopt summary ordinance 2024 523. Approve resolution 202453 findings effect 202455 with uh or approving the preliminary PUD plan and 202456 approving the preliminary plat. So move second. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. Natalie's happy. What can you mind? I was just going to ask what not much we can do if the chastic property doesn't come through. I think on that one. Yep. Okay. Yeah. We'll see how that goes in June. Yep. Just keep that in mind. They should. Yeah. Okay. That's a whole another conversation for another time. That's the art of the deal. Okay. On to uh we had an added item 9A. Thank you guys. Yeah, thank you. Appreciate you guys staying so late. Thank you. Thanks for working together. It's really awesome. We appreciate it. Have a good one. Um, we have a public comment opportunity if there's anyone interested for 9A. Looks good. Um, so we will go right into it. It's u Jay. Uh, so mayor and council uh we you gave me permission to go ahead to recruit and pursue uh hiring an assistant city administrator. We had 13 quality applicants. Uh we're narrowing down the field. Uh we still have some additional um interviews to complete. The intention was to bring this to council on Thursday. Uh however, we moved the meeting from Thursday to today. And the reason that really messes up my plan is our next meeting is not until June 13th. And I would really like to get an offer out there to get somebody on board to start June 13th uh rather than having to wait potentially until July by the time they could give notice. And so I am requesting that you consider authoring authorizing myself to work with the mayor in order to extend conditional and final offers to the preferred candidate once we complete interviews. I make a motion we do just that. Second. Any discussion? All those in favor say I. Hi. Thank you. And I do do just want to add Jay's done a really good job of getting Yeah. that position out there and I saw some of the numbers on the impressions that that job posting has gotten and it's very pretty cool, isn't it? So, we actually got I do I do want to brag for a second for little old Corkran. We had an applicant from South Africa uh was interested in considering moving here to work here. Uh that that was pretty neat. Uh, and also we had the highest density of veteran applicants that we've had for any position, I'm told, from other department heads. Nice. Uh, we had uh over 3,000 views uh on LinkedIn of the of the job. And so that is pretty remarkable. Uh, and for us to get 13 quality applicants out of that uh I'm I'm excited hopeful for what it means for all the other hiring that we have ahead of us. For sure. Well done. Okay. On to we have nothing in new business. Mr. Mayor, can I add something real quick? Sure. Um, we've had the pleasure of having somebody for nearly six months. Are we doing a review on that certain person? He's sitting to the left of you. Uh, believe is that on the calendar in uh, it should be scheduled for June 13th. I'm I'm asking what are we going to do? How do we do that? I suppose. Yeah, it's a good good call though. That is our it's on the agenda for Well, no, it's it's not on there yet, but I would propose that that would be the time frame that would put right at the sixmon mark. I'll be on that night. Uh, okay. Well, didn't mean to didn't mean to bring up something. No, no, it's I think it's I don't want I don't want to let that drop through, though. Nope. I think that's a good thing to bring up. Um, so we I would assume either can go forward on the 13th or move it to a later date. My only caution waiting until the 27th is our second monthly meetings are, as we're experiencing this evening, planning heavy and uh so if we were to do that, I would request that we have a work session prior to the meeting in order to have a productive conversation. uh because I really believe I would benefit and then the staff would benefit from dialogue uh to get some feedback from you on the on my performance. I can send in a written something to the Yeah. both the mayor and Jay. Yeah. And we can have and you and I like if you know he can have a conversation as long as I don't we don't have a Oh, that's true. Yeah. Yeah. That's fair. So if that if you're okay with that. Totally. Would you prefer to do that as close session, a work session, or how how would you We've done the closed sessions before. That's how we've done it in the past. Okay. Are we are we going to get a template or are we just going to So, what what I would like to do if you would give me permission is uh I would prefer to do a 360 degree review. Yeah. Uh that's uh I I think it would be helpful to you. I think it would be extremely helpful to me. I also would like to hear the feedback from from our staff. Uh I think that would be most productive. Uh my recommendation would be that I go with uh feedback from three employees per department, a department head, they go with a supervisor and then another non-supervisory employee. So we don't have too much feedback, but but we hear it from every department. Okay, I think that sounds great. Thanks for bringing that up. Do we need to make a motion about that? I think so. I think we can do it by just consensus. Okay. Okay. I'll take I'll take that feedback and uh be ready uh to get that in place to execute on the 13th. All right. Thank you. Um thanks for letting me do that case. Of course. Thanks for bringing it up. On to 11B. Uh cuz 11A was removed. So crop land weed control maintenance. So this is just stuff we need to know, right? I you know what I didn'tformational so we can skip it. Yep. You're right. So So the one thing that I think is helpful for the public to be aware of is we're in a tough spot with our cropland spaces in that if we want to go through and get bid and have it farmed. Uh it gets pretty heavily taxed. Uh we went forward with that strategy per per council guidance and we received no bids. uh and we have a responsibility to maintain it. And so the information that's before you is the cost of maintaining it. Uh and and the proposed cost right now is to to sew that property and then just as we expect residents, we have to maintain the property and not just let it go crazy, right? Uh and it's much more expensive than I wish it would be. One of the things that I I talked with Kevin about for a long-term strategy, but we don't have this as a plan. It would be more expensive, but it might align with our rural character is as we look at long-term planning to consider some of these as an opportunity for pollinators and to sew pollinators and allow that to be a long-term strategy. The challenge with pollinators is that it really takes about three years before it's it's going to seed and be effective. And it's not, so no one's confused, it's not zero maintenance. You don't just plant polymers. Right. Exactly. Uh and and so um those are some things for us to consider that align with the royal character. Uh it's it's not no cost. And so the the challenges with all of these if we go with bid, we have tax expenses associated with it. If we go with sewing it uh then with and letting it go to grass, we have some maintenance expenses associated. There's no zero cost right now for these properties. So, we're trying to manage the cost. Uh but it's also important to note that some of these in future phases of park development are probably going to be developed as park spaces. Uh so what that looks like, we don't have a plan for that right now. Uh but long-term that could be the goal. Near-term we have associated costs with this property. Can the city get Henipin County grants for pollinators? I bet there's some. So, not just Henipin County, there are other grants available. Uh we were successful in my previous role at Shakape that we're able to do a lot of pollinator planting. Uh but you want to be judicious about where you put it. You want to be jud judicious about when you put it there because you don't want to go from no pollinator maintenance to all of a sudden, yay, we just did 180 acres of pollinator maintenance. Uh because we don't have all of the tools and we certainly don't have all the people to maintain. I just put in 100 acres of pollinators. So I I've been through that and it'll be a lifetime maintenance for me. So Awesome. So I just heard you volunteer to do that for us. I'll help with that. Yeah, I'd I'd love to do it. But I I I mean that in all seriousness, like in in the fact that you've been through that as we try to develop a long-term strategy, I think your insights from that experience would be helpful for sure. We haven't done that and I know the people. I know the process. Talk to Henipin County. Yeah, I think that's a great long-term strategy. Near-term, we've got some expenses. Sounds good. Yeah. Karen, can I just say a quick word about that? when the city applies for the grants, you're competing with residents who are applying for the grants as well. So, just keep that in mind. The money's limited. Unfortunately, that's number one priority for a number of agencies to put money into restoration for habitat. Would the wershed have a program? Watershed has a program, too. Oh, yeah. Ken just talked to us about some significant dollars that are available. The water Yeah, the watershed, Henipin County, US Fish and Wildlife, the DNR. There's a lot of spiggots that don't run very fast that you can tap into a little bit long term. There's there's a lot of options to look at those for sure. Sounds good. Uh planning report. We have that for what's upcoming. Uh one thing I just wanted to clarify for on mayor council reports. Um we have a planning commission vacancy and we've done a rotating selection committee for interviews. Jeremy, did you and I do the last one? Yes. Okay. So, would it be me and Dean? I think this time. Are you available? We got applicants. Uh, I think we have one. Yeah. One that um we had on file. Why wouldn't Mark be a part of that since he just left? Could be if we wanted to change up the order. No, I Well, I can do it. Let's just go that way. Let him settle it. Either works for me. And then Monday, Tuesdays, I'm wide open. Happy to do it if that fits your schedule. Sound good? It should. Okay. Perfect. Will you make the Would you make them public? So if one of us wants to talk to him, we can do that, too. Oh, yeah. Yep. Still call. Okay. For sure. I think it's help. We've always done it. It's Yeah, we called the other the people. We just Yeah. Yep. It'll be out in the packet ahead of that meeting. But don't publish their phone numbers in No, Michelle Redacts. Yeah, I know. She does a good job. Basic info. Perfect. Um, and then with that, city council is going into close session to consider an offer for real estate. Under the authority of Minnesota statute 13D.05, subdivision 3C3, the city is permitted to close a meeting to consider offers and counter offers for the purchase or sale of real or personal property. City Council is going into close session to consider an offer for real estate. The following property is the subject of the closed meeting. P 0119 23420000001. Good session.