Okay, I see it's six o'clock. I would like to call to order the Tuesday, September 1, 2026 regular meeting of the Mound Planning Commission. Roll call, please. >> Uh, commissioner, city council leazison Mcini >> here. >> Planning Commission member Rosner >> here. >> Planning Commission member Samanther >> here. Planning Commission Chair David Good >> present. You have before you, I hope, uh, the agenda that Sarah sent out by email. There are no amendments. Are there any comments, questions, additions, or deletions to the agenda? Hearing none, chair, I would entertain a motion to approve the agenda as distributed. >> Motion to approve the agenda. >> Second. >> Motion. Second. Discussion. Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Those opposed, nay. Motion carries. You have also before you minutes of the August 18, 2026 reschedule slash special meeting of the planning commission. Are there any additions, corrections, or deletions to those minutes? Hearing none, chair would entertain a motion to approve the minutes as distributed. >> Motion to approve the minutes. >> Second. >> We have a motion to second. Discussion hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Those opposed, nay. >> Motion carries. Board of adjustment and appeals. We have first planning case 26-06. This is a variance reduced front and side setbacks for new/replacement house 1908 Shorewood Lane. The applicant is Peter Gubish from Timberline Homes LLC. The owners are John and Katie Hulcom. Johnny. >> Good evening, chair, council member, members of the commission. Uh we're going to begin with 1908 Shorewood Lane, a variance request for two setback reliefs for the construction of a new single family home on an existing constructed lot. So, the location is on three points. Uh we're partway down Shorewood Lane [snorts] and there is an existing home in place uh at the site of this proposal. The request is for relief from front and side setback >> [cough] >> uh requirements in the R1 zone. Um particularly the applicant is seeking a 13.1 ft uh front setback where 30 ft is the code standard and a 6 foot 6 foot 6.4t 4 foot side setback where 10 is the standard. Um, as far as the comprehensive plan and zoning review goes, um, this is guided low density residential. In that lighter shade of yellow, the more pale shade as seen on the map, that's the R1 district. Whereas the brighter yellow to the northwest is R1A. Uh, the reason I'm highlighting that is because it will be pertinent when we come to understand the applicants. um desire for setback relief given some of the lot constraints. This is as I said an R1 lot. It's a lot of record and it's a Lakeshore lot. Um no proposed in increase in intensity of the use of the lot is proposed. Um so there was a 1978 variance approved at this site to allow reduced lakeshore setbacks and side setbacks for a debt construction project. This proposal does not increase the um required or it meets all of the lakeshore uh setback requirements. So, we're not encroaching further in that direction. The R1 minimum lot size for um your reminder is 10,000 square ft, but the lot in question is 5,837 square ft. So, uh it's less than 60% of the minimum size required of this zoning district. Uh it's also smaller than the minimum lot size requirement for R1A and R2 districts which are the other districts um primarily consisting of single family homes. Um the lot is located in close proximity to R1A zoned lots and realistically when viewed in neighborhood context would be appropriate with an R1A zoning. Um though it is R1. Um now for the proposed setbacks, the applicant is proposing a side setback on the west side that is compliant of 6 ft. Um a compliant ordinary high water setback to the lake shore of 50, a front setback of 13.1 and a side set back of 6.4. Of note, if this were an R1A zoned lot, which would be more appropriate given its size, only front setback relief would be asked for today, and the side setback would be compliant as an R1A lot could have a six and a six. Um, that's neither here nor there because this is R1. That's what we have to judge this against, but it provides some context. While a front variance of 16.9 ft can seem quite significant um at face value, the current home sits 17 ft from the front lot line at its closest in staff's approximation. And so this is only a further encroachment of 4T beyond uh present conditions. As for hard cover, um this proposal, one of the reasons that staff believes that, um it is appropriate to recommend approval is that the environmental context is being improved with this proposal. Whereas the current existing hard cover on site is 38.2% pushing up against the 40% maximum for a lot of record. The proposed hard cover is uh now down to 32.4%. So, we've reduced the amount of hard cover by almost 20% on site with this new proposal despite the fact that it needs to encroach a bit further upon its side setbacks. The um lowest floor elevation is also compliant with city code. No comments have been received from any staff or uh public agencies to which this was distributed. And there were two letters of support from neighbors that had been contacted about this proposal. As for what you all have the option to do this evening, the three choice uh after discussion as a commission, you're able to either table the request and ask of staff and applicants more information uh approve the or recommend approval of the request for variance relief on the front and side setbacks with the conditions recommended by staff or with additional of your own. Or you can recommend that the city council deny the requests with new findings of fact. um that would differ from the findings of fact and supportive approval that you will have seen in your packet. [cough] So with that, if there's any information that you all would like to see, um we as staff have only provided the sort of boilerplate conditions of approval that we would attach that obligate the applicants into uh bearing financial responsibility for this variance and for taking responsibility for its the recording of the resolution. Um, but if you all have any questions for me, I I now stand. >> Okay. Questions for Johnny. >> We typically judge these against is this the minimum variance that would work have what's the assessment on that dimension? >> Thank you commissioner for the question. Um, so the applicant is welcome to speak to what their consideration was um, as it relates to trying to find a proposal that would work with existing um, code and then putting the burden of proof on them to figure out why it doesn't work. I will say that the minimum lot uh width in this district is significantly greater than the lot width at the median of the lot that we have here. Um I may be mistaken while counting this at the top of my head. I believe that the minimum lot width for an R1 district lot is 60 ft. And this is already less than 50 at the street and tapers as it goes back to the lake. So it's not only that the lot is undersized as far as square footage is concerned, but um it's also much less wide than would be typical here. Um I from a personal non-professional opinion you can I believe that the home is not generously wide um to the point that the request is um one beyond >> um the means I guess of our code but um as it comes to why the applicant was not able to meet the front setback where they're currently at 17 they have the lawful non-conforming rights to rebuild at 17 ft uh from the front should they choose to do so. I think that the guiding constraint of having to request that additional 3.9 ft to the front is the fact that the applicants are seeking to, if you can tell on here, um they're building right up to the 50 ft from ordinary high water. um they have a variance approval in the past to that lakeshore setback and this new proposal meets the city's code for lakeshore setback that was mentioned in the context of the 1978 variance. Um, so we view it sort of as an environmental win that whereas there had been a previous approval for construction within that 50 ft at the rear, they're now pulling back to ensure that they are consistent with our 50 foot lakeshore setback and the preservation of that space near the water line. Um, >> Johnny, can I speak to one thing while you have this up? uh following questions that the commissioners have for me. You'll have an opportunity to present and they'll ask questions of you as well. >> Perfect. Thank you. Um but yeah, primarily it's we're working with a constrained box as we improve the lakeshore setback and we feel comfortable that given the distance between the property line and the curve as well which is another 13 to 14 ft in addition to the 13 that remains that there won't be any parking hindrances or um >> sort of projections out into the city's built right of way. So it sounds like on the Lakeshore side they're coming from previously allowed to be non-conforming to conforming and we're proposing allowing someone on the front to compensate. >> That's correct. It it's a not quite a tit for tat, but it explains the box that they're now working with. >> Great. Thank you. I did drive over to see the home and I bet you wish these architectural drawings you had that much space on each side. [laughter] Um, but it is a really like mound a very unusual teeny little space and it's it's a beautiful um rendering and an improvement I guess to add to the neighborhood. Um, and I can see why you asked that about the front but if you walk down there you would see why. So, I think it's a huge improvement uh environmentally, too. >> Um, and it looks like a beautiful home for you if you end up building. >> Okay. Further comments or questions? >> The only question I had was the So, you referenced the 1978 variance. Um, there the one in our under the discussions the first point there was another variance in 1982. Is that just noted for reference as a fact in this case or does that tie in at all to anything related to this request? >> Um it was more provided for contact context but um are the findings of facts that are proposed uh should you all recommend approval are listed here that the criteria of city code section 129-40 are being met that the home is in harmony with other uses in the area. the lot um is significantly smaller in size than the minimum requirement. Um and that the neighborhood context and the [clears throat] lot's designation as R1 in close proximity to similarly zoned R1A lots uh are provided as our findings of fact. If you all think it necessary to introduce additional findings of fact to make it such that um this proposal feels adequately justified um for your recommendation, we're happy to introduce those. Uh we did not include past variance approvals as part of the findings of fact uh within this presentation. >> Okay. So the one in 1982 was just a reference. There's nothing to it that pertains to this. >> Yeah, that was provided simply forformational purposes that based on where the the location of the house was at that time, they granted a variance. Um, and we we didn't have anything to back that up. It was just more forformational purposes. And again, this is a new project. We don't know what the conditions were. That was just I think providing as as Johnny said context that it was recognized previously that there was some nonconformities with the house or with the lot. >> Okay. >> Further questions or comments? >> Okay. Hearing none. Thank you, Johnny. Uh if the applicant is in the audience and would like to address the commission, uh you're welcome to step forward. >> [clears throat] >> And our custom is please to state your name and your address. >> Uh Peter Gubich, Timberline Homes LLC, Bloomington, Minnesota. Couple question or question has a question. Couple things I want to point out of why we're asking for the front variance which was a a question you had is as you can see from this picture by moving the house forward we line the house up with the neighboring houses. And normally this wouldn't be a concern, but as you can also see as the lot line goes across to be the left side because of a prior potential road project that was designed when it was originally laid out, the lot line is pushed up, which normally would allow the extra 3 and 1/2 ft that we're really requesting 4T. Uh that would then make that more conforming to where it currently is. But the main goal was to bring that house forward so we didn't block the view of the neighbors and we could still utilize and minimize the uh overall uh coverage of the lot. So that that is the main reason for pulling it forward. The sideyard setback uh variance is it was very difficult to get a house that could be two cars and still have a decent front door without a side entrance. So, by narrowing or expanding the house them extra couple feet made a difference for just the feel of the home. >> Um, I'm happy to answer any questions anybody might have. >> Questions that you proactively answered all my questions. So, thank you. >> Perfect. Thank you. >> Uh, are there others in the audience that would like to address the commission regarding this planning case? And again, sir, state your name and your address, please. >> Hi, >> John Hulcom, 1908 Shorewood Lane, currently residing at 6852 Brierwood Court in Chanhasson. And I just wanted to say um thank you for your explanation and all the detailed comments and and uh emotions that went into why we're applying for this. We bought this house in 2010. Um we've really enjoyed being a part of the Mountain community over these last 16 years. We're at a point now where my prior commitments, as I've told others, I was on the Minnitanka school board for 10 years, that those terms have ended. Now I'm free to leave the district. And uh we're excited, my wife, Kelly, and I are excited to join the mountain community full-time, and I very much appreciate your consideration of this request. Thank you. >> Questions for the applicant? >> Hearing none. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Discussion amongst commission. hearing none. I took the liberty of numbering [clears throat] the packet with page one being the agenda. [laughter] Uh if you so if you'll turn to my page 11, which is actually page four of the write up on this >> planning case. >> Yeah, >> if I'm not confusing everybody, you will find a staff recommendation to approve the variance applications subject to the minimum list of below conditions. There are four conditions and also as Johnny explained there are four findings of fact. You will also find in your packet uh two letters of support from a Mr. Karsten and a Mr. Price both of whom have no objection uh to the project under considerations. hearing further any further discussion >> just seems like a straightforward >> okay hearing none uh chair would entertain a motion to um approve planning case number 26-06 and forward our recommendation to the city council >> I move that the planning commission uh recommend approval of the variance application for planning case 2606 with the four conditions and four findings the pact noted in the agenda. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> We have a second. Discussion >> hearing. None. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Those opposed. Nay. >> Motion carries. Thank you for coming tonight. You're welcome to stay here if you're >> interested in doing so. Otherwise, you're welcome to go home or go to the fair at some. >> Thank you. >> Um, may I be recognized? Yeah. >> Uh just >> Oh, yeah. You want to give them some dates? >> Yeah. Yeah. Um because with se it's September and assuming that we have enough time, um staff's going to proceed with preparing the information for the variance to include on next Tuesday's city council agenda. So, um we welcome you to join us again next Tuesday. I do I also want to express our our apologies for the the page numbers. We have some we have some technical things we had to get fixed and so um we promise we'll have page numbers next time. So, [laughter] but thank you for joining us. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay, moving right along. Planning case number 26-07. [cough and clears throat] Excuse me. >> Variance Lakeshore setback for house edition 1609 Bluebird Lane. Applicant Nate Berg from True Concepts Inc. owners John and Kari Severson. Johnny, >> thank you, Chair. Uh, so we're back on three points for another variance. Um, though this one is to the established lakeshore setback that this home has today. So, we're at the end of Bluebird Lane on its southern edge of the sort of Well, I guess there are two Bluebirds, but um I'm off on a tangent already. Um the parcel to the south is city-owned. It is a parcel of record, but the city parcel to its south uh does contain wetlands. Um yellow >> there. Okay, I see that. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Um the the city parcel to the south does contain wetlands. It is the opinion uh the professional opinion of our city engineer that a wetland delineation report was not needed um when it comes to this request, but we'll dive right into that. Um, the request is for a two-story home addition to the front of the existing home that is not to be deconstructed, but rather expanded to include a two-story garage and bonus living space above. The variance um that is being sought today is to the 50ft ordinary high water mark setback uh for the lake shore. This is an R1 single family lot of record that is Lakeshore. Um it will continue in the same use and with the same intensity of use as is guided in both our zoning code as well as the comprehensive plan. Um so we have two lakeshore frontages that are in question with this parcel. There's the standard lake shore to the rear that can be seen in the aerial imagery, but there's also some wetlands to the side, which is the south here. Um there was a 1982 variance approved to allow for a reduced setback on the south side. And when that was approved, um it just barely infringed with the home's construction within that 50 ft. What's interesting about the proposal that we see here today is that it did does not appear at face value to require a setback at all. If anything, u an expansion permit because the side of the home is being expanded laterally toward the street. um the existing or the variance that was approved allowed for It's hard to tell the pointer here against the white. Um >> Oh, sure. >> That's right. That's right. >> Turn the lights on. >> Oh, no. Don't you worry about it. Thank you. Um the variance that was approved if oh I this is on record so I still need to stay by the um speaker allowed for um an encroachment within that 50 foot ordinary high water line um which is that 50 feet is roughly demarcated by the dashed blue line seen on your screen. Um just immediately to on the southwest corner of the proposed addition highlighted in green, you can tell that there's existing space that comes within that 50 foot and as part of the main home further to the west, there's also space within that 50 ft. Um however, because wetlands are tricky and they don't follow a clean line, once again, I'm going to te turn back to our aerial view. Um you can see that the wetlands approach the southeasternmost corner of the site even as it is the home gets closer to a publicly or a an improved public right of way. So this variance is that's being sought is simply to continue the line of the existing home toward the street. The front setback that's proposed is 40.1 ft, which is in harmony with the fact that there is a 40ft drainage and utility easement in place that was put or that was enacted upon that variance approval that granted the high watermark relief for the construction of the home. So, this is a 23x 24 ft proposed garage. It's a twocar garage edition. um but less than a tenth of that space is within that 50 foot setback and even less of than that 50 feet actually requires the variance due to the existing nonconformity. So, um, what's being sought is the relief that brings us to about 47 ft from the ordinary high water line. Though, because a wetland delineation was not required by our engineers, we don't know exactly if it's 46.5 or 47.5 ft, but staff estimate um that we're about 3 ft encroaching within that um ordinary high water setback. That's our code standard. Um the proposed hard cover is 36%. This is a lot of record, so it's it meets code. Um and the proposed minimum elevation is consistent with staying out of or 2 ft above the 100red-year um flood plane, which is our standard as well. So, uh no other relief needed. Um as far as the wetlands, again, uh the city's wetland specialist indicated a delineation was not needed. Uh and the Minihala Creek wershed district confirmed the project does not need a wetland buffer. So um partner agencies have reviewed this and have determined that this project uh does not meet the threshold that requires further review. uh for the planning commission's consideration. Uh following discussion again, we can table pending more information from staff and applicants, we can move forward with a recommendation of approval based upon established findings of fact, either those included in your packet or additional uh if those feel the need to be justified. Or we can recommend denial of the request uh with separate findings of fact that have not yet been provided uh on your behalf by staff. um given our own recommendation of approval. The reason that staff is recommending approval today is that the proposal is in harmony with the neighborhood um bringing this both closer to the street as well as providing a twocar garage um is in the neighborhood's interest as well as the fact that the request does seem to be uh harmonious with the intent of code and uh with the massing of the existing home. Uh it's unfortunate that the wetlands encroach toward that southern property line in the way they do, but when you have multiple wetland frontages on all parts of your or on your parcel, um some of these impacts are um unavoidable. When it comes to trying to determine if there's a feasible alternative to avoiding these wetland impacts, staff finds that um a request that shrinks the size of the garage makes it not usable for the twocar width that the family would um seek to gain from this addition. Um and even though there is bonus living space at top, we find that that is accessory to the construction of the garage and therefore um the utility of the garage's construction um is the primary motivator for this. Um anything that stays within that high water setback would reduce the utility of the space being granted. So I now am ready to stand for questions. Thank you for your time. questions for Johnny. >> Would you mind? Yes. Uh the shape of the set the the blue dotted line is that due to the elevation of the wetlands or the shape of the wetlands or both? >> It is due to the um >> ordinary high water mark. >> Yes. It it's the ordinary high water line. Um where we estimate that the 929.4 four uh which is the ordinary high water mark set by the Lake Minnotonka Conservation District. Um it's 50 ft set back from where we estimate the water to be at 100 or at at high water. If I can just clarify something, it's important that um planning commission understand the the surveyor does show the ordinary high water mark on the survey and you can see where it says southside ordinary higher or ordinary high water level which is an elevation of 929.4. Just to elaborate what Johnny said, we we were not provided that exact dimension, but they did give us the ordinary high watermark and they and they identified with the with the slatted blue uh lines. That's all of where the 50 foot is. So it might be 47.1, it might be 46.1, but that's what we were provided. And for the purpose of the variance, we were comfortable because we're seeing what the impact of that variance is. As you can see, it's relatively small considering how the nature of the addition. And additionally, had that ordinary high shifted the other way, it wouldn't be a variance. It would likely would have been or could have been an expansion permit. So, that's what we're trying to demonstrate with this graphic. >> And just for my knowledge, the wetland delineation study that we're not recommending would have just gotten a better line than the survey. Well, the wet the wetland the actual delineation of the wetland line may differ from the ordinary high water mark. They're two different things. Wetland is is vegetation and ground when when things start to shift and you have to be a wetland delineator to do that. This is actually the 929.4 elevation as it sits. They might be close but there could be a little bit of differential too. And then I I don't know that I could reconcile the 100redyear flood plane versus the 50-year high water mark. >> The the 50-year the the 50-ft setback is a dimension from measurement from that 929.4 >> elevation. Got it. >> The flood plane is that that is the 931 for for FEMA and for mound and our minimum is 2 feet above that. >> Got it. And and the reason for that is is if this is the 100year they want they want you high and dry your lowest floor. So in the event water comes up your basement isn't going to get flooded. That's that's >> Oh, so it's 50 foot, not 50 year. >> Sorry. Yes. >> Okay. I must commission. >> Good question though. >> For your clarification. Yes. Um we only care about the 100year. >> Yes. >> As well as the ordinary high which are two different numbers. The ordinary high is 929.4. We require a 50ft setback from that point. The 931, which is the 100red-year flood elevation, is just our basis to add 2 feet on top of that to say lowest minimum construction level of finished floor. And this is um >> and we're not having any variance on the flooding. >> No, we are only seeking a variance at all from the 50 ft from the ordinary high water mark. That 50 ft is where that dash blue line is. Um, and the reason that again we're comfortable with this is there are already two portions of the existing home that >> um have a similar encroachment to that which is being proposed. >> Um, >> and what's the current garage situation? >> I will let the applicants answer that. Um, I believe that they're present and able to speak to the need for this garage expansion. >> Great. Thanks. Okay, further questions for Johnny. Thank you. Discussion amongst the commission. >> Hearing none at this point, would the applicant like to come forward and present to the commission? >> Please state your name and your address, sir. >> Hi there. Uh Nate Berg from True Concepts. My address is 17824 Southshore Lane West in Eden Prairie. >> Fire away. >> All right. So, you had a question about the existing garage. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, their existing garage is a they have a two style garage currently >> with a bonus room above >> and we are going to add another um addition to that garage. So, it'll be >> essentially a four deep garage. Okay. >> With a bonus room. um you know for for some with some living space above. Um in turn the um we're going to get them a the bonus room will have full 8ft ceilings instead of the uh slope down to 36 in on the on both uh both sides. So that is and yeah, so that's kind of the what they have now. >> Perfect. That answers my question. >> Okay, thanks. Um, yeah. Do you have anything else? >> Other questions for the applicant. >> I don't I'm good. >> I'd go over there after being over [laughter] on the other, you know, a couple miles away and make it look great. Doesn't look like it's going to cause any problems. >> Okay. Discussion amongst commission. >> I don't have anything. >> Go ahead. >> I don't have anything. This is it's kind of a weird night. I feel like [laughter] I I mixed them up in my brain a little bit, but because I don't think we've ever had two similar cases like this on the same night back to back. So, um >> in the same neighborhood. >> I Right. I'm just That's what I'm saying. It's like deja da vu. I don't know what's going on. But no, I think it's pretty clear-cut kind of with the the first one. I think it'd be hard for us to deny this one when it's so similar in context. So, I I don't have any questions. And in general, I do like to just make sure we have space for wetlands, but the but the fact that it's just a natural shape and just it seems like small incidental seems reasonable. >> And the long narrow lot is is pretty pretty tough to to expand on when you have that much narrowness. So fine. >> Yeah. If I may add one thing and I'm sorry to do so at this point during your discussion, but the existing space on which this home is to be expanded is already part of the driveway. So it's not like we're transforming green space in proximity to wetlands >> into new constructed space. This is a transformation of existing hard cover. >> Thank you. That's >> just non structural. >> Okay. Further discussion amongst commission. All right. Hearing none. On my page 31, we have staff recommends. Planning commission recommend approval of the variance request. This is planning case 26-07 with four minimum conditions and four findings of the fact. The chair would entertain a motion. I move that the planning commission recommend approval of planning case 2607, the four conditions and four findings of fact on page 31. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> A second. >> We have a second. We have discussion. >> Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. Those opposed, nay. >> Motion carries. And when will this go forward? Uh similar to the previous variants, uh staff's uh planning to uh advance this on to the city council uh at its meeting uh next Tuesday as staff recommendation and planning commission recommendation are similar. The matter will be put on the consent agenda uh for action by the council. >> Okay. Thank you for coming. >> Thank you for coming. >> Thank you for all your help. >> Have a good rest of your evening. Nice to meet you both. >> Thank you guys. >> Thank you. >> Okay, moving on. Kath, anything from you? >> You know, I feel like we just saw each other. >> We did. [laughter] >> But just to let you know, on Tuesday, we did uh forward the water filtration plant to for bid. So, we'll be getting a bid back. And then at the October 13th meeting, that's if we approve one of the bids, well, we'll have to approve the lowest bid. That's the rule. Um, then we'll be full steam ahead and at the following meeting again on October 27th. That's when the staff would be talking, showing us how this will impact our water bill and our franchise fees. And that will be again at the October 27th meeting. >> That's an evening meeting. >> Yes. All both six o'clock meetings at the city council meeting. And you know, we are just getting that much closer to what many people would be excited about and that's clean water. >> You know, it's been a hundred years of complaining and I don't know what people have to complain about once we get that water fixed. [laughter] I'm sure they'll come up with something, but to find out what. And that's all I've got. >> Thanks, Jeff. Sarah, >> um I don't have much today either. Uh probably because we just saw each other a couple weeks ago. Um uh Jesse and I had uh comp plan uh [cough and clears throat] community engagement number two uh at the music in the park in in August. And I may have mentioned that on the 18th and we had a nice time. Um, and then we are planning our third uh event at the farmers market on the 12th of September. So, we were at Spirit of the Lakes, we're using the Park, and now we're going to farmers market. So, it's been it's been a really really um nice endeavor and we've gained a lot of comments and we've had a lot of great conversations. It's also just good to get out in the public and for people to come and see us and say hello and uh and share their thoughts uh about whatever and and so we'll look forward to being at the farmers market in a couple weeks. So um other than that, it's it's busy building permit season. I say this every meeting, but it has not slowed down. [laughter] Um and so uh we're we're all busy. The whole the whole the whole staff is busy and I know planning commission's busy and council too. So, thanks for your all of your due diligence with the packets and we do apologize for the for the page numbers. Hopefully, we'll have the software stuff squared away. Um, so, but thank you and I I appreciate your your understanding. >> Well, we had David save the >> Yeah, we did. David [laughter] >> Oh, yeah. Um, and just as a reminder, um, we have two commissioners that whose terms expire at the end of the year. It's Jason Baker and Samantha. And so when you reach back to us when you're when you're knowing if you want to seek reappoint, we'll make make sure we're they're working on new forms >> that that will be sent out. Um the council's new policy and ordinance last year is that the council will be doing interviewing and that includes both candidates and existing commissioners of all the boards. And so I know the manager and deputy city manager are kind of programming when that's going to take place, but you should be hearing from us soon. Um but I if you have any questions, just reach out to me directly. That would be fine. Um, the goal is is obviously to get the interviews done so that we have folks appointed and seated before our meeting in January. And I and I think they're looking at some dates in November um uh or early December and obviously we meet the first Tuesday in January. So, it has to take place then. >> So, they're working on that. >> Okay. Questions about that hearing? None. Next meeting date, Tuesday, October 6. I see no information items on the agenda. Does anybody have anything they'd like to raise? Hearing none, chair would entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> With motion, do we have a second? >> Second. >> We have a second. Discussion hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Nay. Thank you for coming tonight. >> Thank you. Good night. >> [clears throat]