Thank you. I'll call the meeting to order. Welcome to the September 23 uh 2005 city council meeting. I hereby call the meeting to order. Members of the public uh may attend the city council meeting in person or may watch or listen remotely by viewing the meeting on channel 8 WCTV. Uh YouTube and the city's website at www. uh.orgetta.orgwv. orwv public comment during the public forum and or public hearing portions of the meeting may be provided in person or at the meeting in advance or by logging on to the team's call and raising your hand during the public hearing. When your name is called in the meeting, you will be seen and heard in our council chambers and on the cable channel and online. You will be asked to unmute and you may begin your comments. Uh you must have your camera on. All public comments must include your full name and address. Uh the next item uh on our agenda is the pledge of allegiance. Please stand if you are able. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. >> Next uh is our roll call. Um the uh let the record reflect that all council members are present. Earlier this evening uh the council participated in a workshop and an open house and discussed the following uh discussion of of uh sale of city land on Lake Street. Uh we conducted candidate interviews to fill the uh council member Parkill's open seat which will be uh open as of the close of business tonight. And we also had a very nice uh farewell open house to Mr. Parkhill. Um uh and he will get a chance to say a few things uh here on camera too. Um the next item is uh I need uh to approve the agenda. Uh I need a motion to approve the agenda as is or any changes. >> Move to approve the agenda as outlined, Mr. Mayor. >> Okay. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Further discussion? All in favor say I. I that passes. >> Next on our agenda is the public forum. I'm just checking to see what came in here. Is there anyone on teams, Mr. City Manager? So, I do have one um item here which I'm going to defer for one second because it's STR. So, it's it's not it's in the consent agenda, but I'm going to actually go to the next thing and see if if the consent agenda gets approved as as as as uh presented before I take this or do you advise that I take it now? >> Mr. Mayor, it's up to you. >> Okay. So, what I'm going to do is I'm going to move on to um uh where is it? Um is our consent agenda. Um well actually we do new agenda and then consent agenda. So the next item is um new agenda items. Uh does anyone have any new agenda items to discuss or bring out this evening? Okay. So we don't have to do anything on that. The next item is the consent agenda. And there is going to be a couple items pulled here. Um and so we'll see how this goes. Um we need to approve the consent agenda. And I'm going to read everything on the consent agenda. Approval of the check register. Approval of municipal licenses. Receipt of the police activity report. Receipt of the building activity report. Approval of the second reading and adoption of ordinance 852 amending chapter 815 to prohibit short-term rentals. Approval of the second reading and adoption of ordinances 853 amending chapter 805 subdivision. Approval of the second reading and adoption of ordinance 854 amending chapter 810 and swimming pools. Adoption of resolution 342025, approving of the preliminary single family house plans for,400 Holdridge Lane. Approval of the professional services agreement for 26 through 28 recreational services with Weisetta Community Education. And lastly, authorization for the Heritage Preservation Board to support the local request for application to the National Register of Historic Places for Bluewater Theor Company at 605 Rice Street. So, um, I'm going to ask for a motion to approve the agenda as presented or amended. I have one item that I'm going to start with that I'd like to pull, which is I'd like to pull pull item I and have that voted on separately because I'm going to recuse myself from that vote, and I'll explain that in a minute. I'd also like to um pull from uh the agenda the uh second reading of the adoption of ordinance 852 amending chapter 815 to priv prohibit short-term rentals. So, those are my two uh items I'd like to pull. I'd offer it to other council members if they would like to pull any other items and then we'll take a vote on if that if that items that I'd like to pull is affirmed. >> Any others? So, I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda as revised. Uh pulling uh item uh E and item I. So, uh, if I, uh, I'll make that motion. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> Uh, further discussion. All in favor say I. I. >> I. Okay, that carries. Now, I'm going to go back to the public forum. A gentleman wanted to speak on short-term rentals, but I'm going to defer that because now I'm going to discuss it. Um so um the first item I'm going to take which is easy which is um discussion of the um approval of the professional services agreement for 2628 recreational services with witha community education. The reason I'm recusing myself from this vote is I own a business in town called Wanani surf and paddle. We also have a contract with community ed and I did not want um any perceived conflict of interest to be present for my vote on that matter. So I would ask uh maybe the mayor prom to take over to uh lead us through a vote on this item and I will recuse myself and be silent. >> Well that should be easy enough. Um so before us is the approval of professional services agreement for 26 through 2028 recreation services withetta community education. I'll take a motion to approve. >> I would make that motion. Mayor prom. >> Is there a second? Second. >> Any discussion? >> Hearing none. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Oppose. No. >> I remain silent. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor Prom. >> That pass. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh the next item uh will be the uh second reading and adoption of ordinance 852 amending the chapter 815 to prohibit short-term rentals. Um I really don't have any questions other than somebody filled out a forum and I wanted to give them a chance to speak. So, I procedurally pulled it so that that could happen. So I'm going to invite to the dis uh Mr. Mark Sherry at 1053 Lake Street East for 3 minutes. Thank you sir. Welcome. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Hold on just one second. We got to get the mic on. >> The vast viewing audience. We can't miss your riveting words. One moment. Got it. Thank you, mayor, and thank you, city council. Um, my name is Mark Sherry. I'm at 1053 Lake Street East. Uh, two weeks ago, I was unable to attend uh as I was traveling for work, and my wife Penny, who's in the audience, was the first person to speak, and um and her comments supported the elimination of the uh short-term rentals. the end the next day I actually had the opportunity to watch that on the city website and I was really proud of the message she delivered um and I'm sure you know this topic is personal and it's personal to me and many of the and many of our neighbors but my my comments today is really simple. I just wanted to extend my appreciation to this group to the city council. I know you've been overwhelmed, excuse me, with this response by people reaching out to you. Uh I've personally reached out to some of you. You've raised your hand. You've volunteered uh your time. You've had workshops. You had another one tonight. Uh you've had separate meetings and discussions um with the interested parties. I suspect you've received strong feedback on both sides of this issue. Uh, in my opinion, your decision was sound uh and best for the residents of Weisetta, but mostly I just wanted to thank you for your willingness to listen and serve in this role, and it's appreciated. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. >> Okay. I don't see any other cards on this item. So, I'm going to now uh accept a motion for approval of the second reading uh and adoption of ordinance 852 amending chapter 815 to prohibit short-term rentals. Who would like to make that motion? >> Uh, Mr. Mayor, I'll make that motion, but I that's one of the things that I was going to comment about during the uh consent agenda, but you pulled it so we could talk about it here. Go ahead. >> Uh, I wasn't going to pull it. I will vote in favor of it, but I don't think we got it exactly right. I think there are pieces of it that we probably ought to revisit. uh specifically the cases where somebody actually lives in a home, stays in that home, is not a a snowbird, uh and rents out a room for various different reasons. Uh I don't think it's something we should relitigate tonight because we can pass it as is and then we can make amendments like that down the road and that is something I think we should do. >> So with that, I will move that we approve. >> Yeah, thank you for that comment. I actually share your view and I couldn't have said it any better than you just did. Um I I would say to the public that um if there's a will of the council to to perhaps reopen this before the ban goes into effect in March of 2026, that is our prerogative as advised by our our u you know adviser on the outside here. U and so um that may come up in the future. But uh now I guess I need a formal motion mo motion to approve the second reading of the adoption of ordinance 852, please. >> Well, Mr. Mayor, I think I made the motion. >> Oh, sorry. Okay, then I'll take a second. >> Second. >> Any further discussion? Okay, hearing none. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I vote no. Uh, as I did previously for all the reasons I stated previously, I won't bore you with that rationale again. Um, so um, public hearing. Now we move on to old business. Um and first item on nine old business A is consider adoption of resolution 362025 approving the preliminary plat at 565 Ferndale Road West Ferndale Bluff. Mr. City Manager. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council. Uh it's going to be kind of a fill-in role here for our planner who is our community development director Sharp who was traveling out of country. got back late last night and then returned very ill. So, I will be running the presentation for this. Uh following the presentation, I will stand and uh city attorney Shelzo will stand for any questions that you might have. Clicker. Do we have a clicker? Before you this evening is the consideration of the preliminary plat to subdi subdivide property at uh 565 Ferndale Road West. Uh this came to you in the past. I'm going to start with a few um kind of historical slides. You've seen them at previous presentations. This is the project location out on West uh Ferndale Road. This is an aerial view of the property and some of the adjacent properties. Hillside Drive to the northwest, PV Pond to the east. The neighborhood is zoned single family R1A. Uh am I reading that right? Yes. Um existing conditions. These are the existing conditions on the site. It's a existing single family home uh with a detached structure uh and a single driveway, asphalt driveway, PV pond to the east. Uh the property has steep slopes, bluffs, uh significant tree cover. Um and we've talked about all of these items uh in the past. The development application that was brought to you earlier this year was for the the subdivision of a single family lot into three R1A lots to create a new public roadway to serve those homes with some sort of turnaround. Uh these are dimensions for those lots that meet our preliminary plat standards for the R1 zoning. comprehensive plan guides this uh as a state single family and the proposed development meets those standards. Uh as presented to you earlier this year, some uh sketches of what those uh sites could be for lot coverage as well as imperous surface coverage. All well within our guidelines. Recent actions. In February, the planning commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the pre preliminary plat as it had been presented. April 15th, the council adopted resolution 11, 2025, actually denying the application based on impacts of the roadway and concerns about um character of the neighborhood. uh September 9th and this evening, the council adopted ordinance 5853, which amended our subdivision ordinance to allow for lower impact roadways in smaller subdivisions similar to this one. These are just some of the guidelines from ordinance 853 uh as presented in our packet that so you can see those standards that we have added for narrower rideaway options, narrower roadway options, steeper grade options, firet truck turnaround options as well as private ride roadway alternatives. uh as noted there in the parenthesis, all subject to meeting state fire code as a minimum. Before you this evening is resolution 362025 approving a preliminary plat at 565 Ferndale Road West with the condition that the applicant amend the preliminary plat to meet the standards of ordinance 853. I will stand for any questions as well as city attorney. >> Uh questions of staff at this point. Okay. Hearing none, I'll bring it back to council for discussion. Um, just for those following in the room and perhaps online, the item that uh, Mr. City Manager referring to on our consent agenda was item F, which was the approval of the second reading adoption of ordinance 853. With that for context, um, I'd invite any, uh, discussion at the council level, uh, if there wish to have any. Okay. Hearing none, I would accept a motion to approve uh the adoption of resolution 362025 approving the preliminary plat at 565 Ferndale Road West. Anyone like to make that motion? >> So moved. >> Can I have a second? >> Second. >> Thank you. A second by Mr. Pleish. Uh further discussion hearing none. All in favor say I. I. >> That passes five to Oh, sorry. Uh did you have further discussion? I apologize. >> No, I was just going to vote nay. >> Oh, please. Sorry. I thought you raised your hand. And I apologize. We have Go ahead. So we have a no vote 4 to one. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So noted for the record that it was approved 4 to one. I apologize Miss McDonald that didn't catch that out of the corner of my eye. Thank you for that. Moving on to the next agenda item um is now to agenda item 10 which is new business. And we will consider adoption of resolution 372025 approving the excess reserve transfer. Mr. City Manager and I believe Mr. Pete Zimmerman is is going to do this. Correct. >> Correct. Uh we're going to tag team three of the next agenda items as they all relate to the budget. I will leave it to the council to determine if they'd like to take action on all three following our presentation or if they'd like to stop us in between uh and take action on each item individually. Uh we're going to start with the approval of the excess reserve transfers uh followed by the fee schedule and then ultimately followed by the 2026 preliminary budget. Uh just for con context uh last council meeting on September 9th the council approved a preliminary levy of 7 12%. The budget that will be approved tonight is the detail of each department that that validates that seven and a half% uh levy increase that the council approved at the last meeting as well as preps the staff for future conversations regarding our 2026 budget by setting the fee schedule and allocating excess fund reserves. And with that, I'll turn it over to Pete Zimmerman for his presentations. >> All right. Thanks, Mike. Um, good evening, Mayor and Council. As Mike said, we're here to talk about the 2026 budget. Um, and a number of other items. Just as a little bit of background, kind of looking back what we've already gone through on the 17th, July 1st, 15th, August 19th, and September 9th. Several discussions, and then the approv approval of that levy on the 9th. Um, tonight we're here to discuss the fee schedule, excess reserve transfer, and the preliminary budgets. And then on November 5th, um there's a planned council workshop to discuss the CIP, which we've also discussed at least once before. Excuse me. And then on December 2nd, we'll approve the final levy and um final budgets. All right. As Mike mentioned, um at the September 9th meeting, we did the council did approve that 2026 preliminary levy um in the amount of $7,421,212. And also, as Mike kind of stole my thunder, but um as Mike also mentioned, the budget that we're looking at tonight does support that preliminary levy amount. So, we have three action items. Uh resolution 37-2025, which is the excess reserves transfer. Resolution 39-2025, which has a typo, um adoption of the 2026 fee schedule, and then resolution 38205, which is the 2026 preliminary budgets, both general fund and all the enterprise and special revenue funds. Um our excess reserve transfer, we have a fund balance policy that sets this practice that allows the council to determine um a transfer of the prior year excess reserves for future year um uses. The excess reserves can be generated either by the general fund, licensing fund, liquor fund, or marina fund. Um, for 2024, that looks like this. Uh, we have $973,329 of excess in the general fund and $47,958 in the licensing fund. The liquor and the marina fund, they have an excess of zero. That's only because we maintain that fund balance of 40% of budget. So, just wanted to point that out. Um, at the September 9th meeting or C council workshop rather, the council directed the staff to distribute 820,000 of this excess from 24 to the following areas. We have 25,000 going to the comp plan, 100,000 going to parks and trails, 250,000 going to the facility CIP, 350,000 going to the equipment CIP, and then 95,000 we're transferring to the general fund um as a stabilization, namely for the increase in staff of the full-time fire chief, which gives us a total of 820,000. Um, so we have the resolution 37-20225 which kind of just outlines um what I just spoke about. As you see, we're not using that full amount of excess. We're choosing to reserve some of that. Um, and that will just remain as unallocated in unallocated funds in the general fund. So with that, there any questions? >> Questions of staff on this agenda item? I have a process question for Mr. City Attorney. Um, there's two others that are related to this resolution. Would you like us to take them individually and and pass them or let them present all three and then I would facilitate three votes? What would you prefer? >> Uh, Mr. Mayor, I I think it'd be good to have a separate vote on each one of the action items. >> Yeah, that's what we'll do. So, I'll bring it back to questions of staff. Okay. I didn't hear any. So, bring it back to council for any discussion. Hearing none, I would accept a motion for to go back to give me the number. Resolution 372025 of the excess reserve transfer. I accept a motion to approve that. >> So moved. >> And I hear a second. >> Second. >> I heard a second from member Pleish. Any further discussion? All in favor say I. I. That passes. >> Next item. Okay, the next item is the 2026 fee schedule. Um, just a few notes on that. Generally speaking, we did a three and a half% increase. Um, has been applied to most of the fees. There are some fees that are set by state statute or by city ordinance that were not adjusted and we've just kept those in line with those statutes and ordinances. Our water utility rates are being held flat. The water fund is actually um performing pretty well. And we did have a rates study I think last year, the year before that suggested an increase, but because the fund is performing so so well, we're not going to implement an increase. We don't need to. Um the sewer utility usage rates are increasing by 3% which is in line with that rate study. And then storm water utility rates are increasing 1% again recommended by the rate study. And this is all to um ensure that the funds perform well and can support the capital projects. Our solid waste fees are being held flat due to just a strong fund balance performance. Building permit fees will also remain flat for 2026. And then the municipal boat slip fees have been increased by 5%. And the budget does reflect these changes. So not a lot to talk about on that one without looking at um that whole fee schedule. So we do have resolution 39-2025 um accepting or adopting the fees for 2026. >> Thank you. Questions of staff hearing? None. I'll bring it back for discussion. Okay. Anyone like to wait? I have three friendly amendments that I'd like to add. They're not really they're more guidance to staff. They're not changing material anything in the resolution, but the three are as follows. Um when we went through several workshops around potentially uh implementing a local area food and beverage task uh tax, one of the requests that came back from the restaurant community was to adjust the date by which we post the liquor um license call um away from the the hardest month for them to pay it and move it to a more uh month where they they're cash flush. Um, I would propose that friendly amendment to move it from the standard date to summer. Um, there's only a cash flow implication to the city. It's not material. Um, we we maintain a fund balance of uh close to $4 million. So, I don't think it's going to hurt us in any way. That's friendly amendment number one. Friendly amendment number two is um in workshop several times I brought up uh uh or posed the question to the council and to staff could we explore um franchise fees and park dedication fees uh not changing them per se uh but ex you know formally put it on staff's agenda to explore those to vet them to explain the pros and cons of exploring franchise fees or not. Um and uh park dedication fees the same because our park dedication fees are quite antiquated and they they they are predicated on a subdivision triggered in a commercial redevelopment to fund our parks department. That funding mechanism has precipitously dropped off the cliff over the last 10 years down to now on average $18,000 a year where 10 years ago it was in the hundreds of thousands which makes it hard to have an ongoing sustainable funding source for our parks. So I'm not uh these three friendly amendments are not uh forcing us into approving any of that. I'm simply saying is it the will of the council to add those to the staff's agenda to explore on our behalf and bring them back next year. So the first one is again moving the date of the liquor license from April I think it's April Mike correct me if I'm wrong or Mike I don't remember when we when we call it for liquor licenses when is it due? I think that's what I had still my discussion with Kathy earlier this week and I believe she said I was able >> so so move it to the summer um for when we we collect those funds. Second would be uh two friendly amendments uh that would uh ask staff to to further investigate uh franchise fees and park dedication fees. With that, I'll bring it back to the council for discussion to see if those friendly amendments can be part of this resolution. Well, I I think it seems reasonable to change the date of the liquor fees. I think that's fine. I would I would also say to maybe anytime at towards the end of the year would be appropriate to and then just assuming that's all prrated so they don't get stuck paying a year and a half and it ends up being larger. So, I would just be mindful of that. Um, we have talked about franchise fees in the past, so I'm I'm comfortable looking at at those more closely. the the park dedication fee. Um I've always been curious to take a closer look at it, but I I just don't really understand the context in which you're just putting it on like another workshop or on our on the >> Yeah, I'm just asking it to be part of like a future discussion is all I'm asking and I'm just affirming it in the public record so that it's clear to staff and the public that it's on our radar. >> It's more of like a strategic plan sort of thing. Okay. Yeah, I'm in favor of that as well. >> Okay. Any other comments? Okay. So, now I would accept a motion approving resolution uh 392025 with the friendly amendments of guidance. Um >> yeah, Mr. Mayor, I I just might suggest a few of those things. Probably uh I think there might be some some legal considerations with moving dates of liquor license and that sort of thing. And certainly with the Parkland dedication fees, we we have to follow the statute on that, too. So, yeah, but we're not any changes though. >> My my friendly suggestion to your friendly amendment would just be that it be to direct staff to look at all three of those things along with adopting the resolution as it is. >> Okay. Yeah, >> let me start over. Um, I would accept a a a motion to accept resolution 392025 with the three amendments of park dedication fees, franchise fees, and moving the liquor uh license call date. Um, to advise staff to consult with our outside council on the best process to venue all those things and make those changes. >> Okay. Accept that motion. >> Moved. >> No. Well, I needed to accept someone to make the motion. So moved, Mr. Mayor. >> Okay. Second. >> I'll second it, but I think uh it was still mischaracterized. I don't think these are amendments. >> Okay. >> Just directions to staff to take a look at them. So, as far as I know, the resolution is as it was presented. >> Sure. So, um I will withdraw the motion on the second and I will try to restate it again. Um, I would accept a motion uh to approve resolution uh 392025 with additional guidance to staff and outside council, right, and direction to to explore those three items. So, I would accept that motion. >> Okay. Uh, so moved. >> Do I have a second? >> I'll second that, Mr. Mayor. >> Thank you. Any further discussion? >> All in favor say I. I. That passes. Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Um, now we're on to your next item, Pete. Last one. There we go. All right. The 2026 budget. So, we have a number of budgets that um you're reviewing and approving tonight. Uh the general fund, water, sewer, storm water funds, uh solid waste, liquor, which includes both the bar and grill and um why is that a wine and spirits, the marina fund, motor vehicle, cable TV, and the cemetery. So, our general fund revenues look like this. Uh we have a tax amount of just 6.9 just over 6.9 million charges for services about 963,000 licensing and per permits 3 or 758,000 excuse me um some intergovernmental revenue of 444,000 and change transfers in of 50313 which is um where we'll see that general fund excess transfer franchise fees of 88,000 fines and for forfeertures of 89,000 other 210 for a total of $9,986,92 of revenue. And just kind of looking at a little graphically to show you, you know, nice little pie chart of the biggest piece obviously is taxes and then everything else sort of falls into place there. Um, our general fund expenditures, I have this broken down by department, police is about 3.9 million, admin and general government, excuse me, about 2.2. Public works 1,119,000 and change. Parks and wreck 1,147 and change. Community development 773. Fire 694,000. Capital improvements is $125,000 for a total of 9,986,92. And just a little chart to show you those, you know, the bigger chunk of that, which is obviously police and then um admin general government. So our general fund sum summary we have revenues of 99 98692 minus our expenditures of 998692 equals a balanced budget which is what we want to pass. So with that are there any questions questions of staff at this time? >> Okay hearing none I'll bring it back to the council for discussion like to offer any comments. I just have a couple comments. Um, just for those of you who might be tuning into the the the budget process for the first time, we actually start our budget process back in July, which Pete you noted uh earlier slide. So, we're just not we might be appear to be breezing through this, but we've had hours and hours of discussion on this topic over time. And reminder that um you know what we approved what was it two weeks ago was the prelim preliminary levy at 7 and a half%. which just means that it can go no higher than that, but it can go lower. So, by affirming each of these clicks, which is the excess fund transfer, the fee schedule, uh the the expense line items, and the budget, it all comes back into a package in December where we decide, you know, is do we get it right or or do we want to uh perhaps uh pull it back a little bit. Um, you know, news flash, I'm going to be making also a statement at the end of the meeting in the city manager's report about some implications in the county budget, which is 39% of everybody's tax bill here, and offer some guidance on that. Don't feel like it's appropriate here. So, I'm I'm moving it to the city manager's report. So, with those comments, any other comments from from council on this topic? >> Okay. So, can you click it back one slide? I would accept a motion to >> We're going to Oh, sorry, Mr. Mayor. We're going to just look at the enterprise fund budgets real quick and do it all one resolution. Nope, that's okay. It wasn't very clear. >> So, our enterprise and special revenue funds look like this. We have the liquor fund and this is expenditure with about 10.5 million, water at 1.4, 4 the sewer fund at 1.7 storm water at 398,000 solid waste fund at 466,000 motor vehicle at 761 cable TV at about 89,000 cemetery at about 11 and then the marina fund at about86,000 so um all told that all budgets combined for the city are 25,41,732 and just another little graph to show you what makes up those bigger parts of the budget. Obviously, the general fund is um is right up there along with liquor the liquor fund. So, um here we have the resolution 38-2025 approving the budget. Sorry about that. I >> a little bit. >> It's all all good. >> Okay. So, uh questions of staff on that second part of this uh discussion. >> I I have one if you could go back um a couple slides where you show each of the Okay. So when you when you think about what we approved previously around excess funds, those are only really coming from the liquor fund. Um potentially it could have come from motor vehicle and it did a little bit um a little bit from cable TV because we have you know more more of that comes in than the expenses in that one that comprises that that combination of excess funds which is we have enterprise funds and then we have special revenue funds. special revenue funds if if guided appropriately can take in more money than zeroing out, which is what we do in our liquor fund. We do it in our motor vehicle fund. Uh we do it in our cable TV fund and and just trying to make sure everybody understands what we're voting on in the public. So with that, I would turn it over to any further discussion at the council level. >> Okay. So we can click forward again. Couple slides here. I would accept a resolution um for approval of resolution 38,2025 adopting the 2026 preliminary budget. Could I? >> So moved. >> Could I get a second? >> Second. >> Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. >> I. I. >> Okay. That moves forward. Okay. Next is item D. consider adoption of resolution 352025 approving a shoreline setback variance at 547 Harrington Road. I will turn this over to Mr. City Manager, I believe. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council. Uh this evening, planner Headbloom will be giving the presentation on this topic. Uh there will be presentation from the applicant and public com to to follow. So with that, Thanks, Mike. >> Okay, mayor and council. Hi. I just wanted to introduce myself formally since I haven't been introduced to all of you yet. Um, my name is Haley Headlum. I started in the planner position at the beginning of June. Um, I am presenting this on behalf of director Sharp since he's out tonight. Uh so before you you have um a application for a lakeshore setback variance for 547 Harrington Road. Just for brief context on the location of the project um it sits on the peninsula that is between Weisetta Bay and Browns Bay on the west side of her of Harrington Road um with the shoreline on Browns Bay. The guiding in land use for the property is estate single family and then the current property zoning is R1A which is low density single family estate. The property is also located in the shoreland overlay district um which is creates part of their variance request this evening. Um so the application details and request is uh for a lakeshore setback variance which will aid in the sale of the property. Um the applicant is seeking the variance uh required for the lakeshore setback as defined in city code chapter 9991 which is the uh shorland overlay district um chapter. The application does not include proposed building plans or specifics at this time. That is not a requirement of reviewing variance applications um as part of standard review. Those are usually supplemental materials provided. Um so you will not be seeing any building plans associated with this request tonight, but the application has been deemed complete. Um, the applicant is seeking to improve the buildable area on the lot in the event that a future property owner would desire to demolish the existing structure and construct a new home. So, this application was received and declared complete on July 25th uh of 2025 and staff preemptively provided the additional 60 days under the Minnesota State Statute 1599 um to allow for a 120day decision deadline. Um and that date lands on November 20th. The existing conditions of the lot is that this is a legal lot of record with a unique configuration and non-conforming minimum lot width of approximately 100 ft where 200 is required in the district. Um it's located on a prominent bend in the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka and due to the age of the structure um of the existing home the current setback of that structure is legally non-conforming to the requirement of the shoreland overlay district. Um that current setback is about it's 91.9 ft measured from the ordinary high water line which is essentially the s the shoreline on this property. Um, and the current ordinance requires 260.5 feet. This is a depiction of the current existing conditions, both topography and tree cover on the lot. Uh, staff required or requested that this be provided as part of the application to show kind of the topography and the restrictions that that may have or implications that that may have on the total buildable area. Um the underlying R1A zoning district requirements for the setback are met by this at this property. The setback that we're mainly discussing tonight is going to be that requirement in the shoreland overlay district. Um so this table shows that it's meeting the setbacks for R1A and that main um subject for the variance is going to be uh the setback which is a line drawn between the two closest repairarian principal structures on the other side of the lot which I will explain in the next slide. So, um, in trying to define this, uh, setback, the Shorland Overlay District requires that the setback from the ordinary high water high water line be the greatest of three different possibilities. Um, the least of which being 75 ft from the shoreline. um or a line drawn between the closest repairarian princ principal structures which is the setback that is applicable to this one or the average between um the two closest principal structures. So this chart shows the difference between those and then also how it applies on this site. I do have a drawing as well. So the purple is the least of which of these three setbacks. The green is the average setback between the two neighboring lots. And then the gold color is the setback that we are discussing tonight which is the closest point um between the a line drawn between the north and the south um principal structures. And that setback requirement is 260.5 ft from the ordinary high water line. So defining the variance request tonight, the property owner has submitted their application requesting a variance of 152.5 ft from the required lakeshore setback of 260.5 ft, which will allow an ultimate setback of 108 ft from the shoreline. This image depicts um that description. So the proposed setback tonight is 108 ft from the shoreline. The variance request is from the required setback of 260 ft. This is just showing another visual of the difference between what is required and then what is being proposed. This drawing shows the buildable area that is available in accordance with the current setback requirements which is the green and the red depicts the non-buildable area per the currently required setback. This drawing is the possible buildable area with the proposed variance. Um and the red areas that you see on the screen um have been proposed by the applicant um for restricting built restricting those areas um as non-buildable um with respect to the sightelines of neighboring properties. Those were not required by code, not required by staff in the um or the planning. Well, it was recommended by the planning commission. Um, but it wasn't proposed by the planning commission. It was offered by the applicant. Um, in terms of comments, the engineering department has no comments on the proposal. Um, neighborhood notification and public comments. Uh, public notice was provided um on August 7th and the city also sent a notification letter to residents within 500 ft of the application property. Um no neighborhood meeting is required for variances alone and to date um there have been 12 public comments received. Uh one came in after your packet was published on Friday and that is available on the dis this evening. >> Well I believe another one came in just yesterday which is also here. >> Yep. So that's the 12th. Um so the planning commission recommendation and the public process for this application um the planning commission uh held the public hearing for this item on August 18th and they determined that the request meets the shoreland overlay district variance requirements per per city ordinance. Um and they recommended approval 4 to one with the addition of two conditions on the application. Um those conditions are a requirement to submit a shor shoreland impact plan as outlined in city code chapter 9991 uh section 20D with any future building permit to be be to be reviewed administratively and then the adoption of those proposed non-buildable areas offered by the applicant. I just wanted to include a slide here about what a shoreline impact plan means. Um that is a condition in the code when submitting a variance request to anything in the shoreland overlay district. Um that plan consists of a development plan that sets forth proposed provisions for things like sediment control, water management, maintenance of different landscape features on the site and then any additional matters related to potential changes of the natural condition of the property. Um, and the purpose of the shoreland impact plan is to eliminate and minimize as much as possible the potential for pollution, erosion, and siltation. So, the standard review of applicant requests um or application requests for variances um include kind of the standard questions that council is used to when considering such requests. Um that is, is the proposal consistent with the comprehensive plan? Is the variance reasonable? Is the plight of the land owner due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner? Would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? And then it's noted in our ordinance that economic considerations alone shall not constitute a practical difficulty. Um, with the uniqueness of the Shorland Overlay District in this request, there are additional considerations um that the council should take into account um before making their ultimate decision on this matter. Um, for clarity, I'll read those out as well. Um, our code states that the required setback distance may be reduced by a variance if the following conditions are met. and that is the minimum setback of the ordinary high water line must be at least 75 ft. So it must meet at least the minimum requirement. Um the setback shall not adversely impact views of the shoreline or lake from adjacent neighboring principal structures. The reduction of setback requirements is based upon a specific need or circumstance which is unique to the property in question and which if approved will not set a precedent which is contrary to the intent of the city ordinance. However, any structure built as a result of an issued variance shall be considered in determining the proper setback of future construction on adjacent lots. Um and then D is the condition that a shorelam impact plan must be submitted and approved as required. Um and then condition E is that the conditions of chapter 905 are met which are the typical uh questions or considerations for a variance request that was in the last slide. So before you tonight, um the recommended motion from the planning commission and staff is to adopt the resolution 352025 approving a shoreland setback variance at 547 547 Harrington Road. Uh and with that, I'll stand for questions. >> Uh thank you for that presentation. Questions of staff at this time. >> Uh go ahead, Miss McDonald. >> Thank you, mayor. Um and um planner planner >> yeah planner >> planner headloom um thanks for your presentation and for stepping in last minute. So uh perhaps you'll know the answer to this question but a little clarity would be nice. Um you mentioned that the planning commission uh recommended approval of this variance 4 to one, but there were several comments after that vote was taken to um implore this body to consider some other factors. And I wondered if you would be so kind or if someone could give a quick summary of that for the public just to and remind us too of those requests. >> Sure. Mayor and council. Um there was significant discussion at the planning commission meeting regarding the fact that building plans were not submitted with this application um and a struggle to um define what um approval would mean without those plans. Um so I think that those are likely the comments that you're referring to. a city attorney was also at that meeting. So, I might defer to him if he has any other thoughts. Um, but again, building plans aren't required as um part of a standard variance request review. Um, so there was some hesitation from planning commission that night. Um, but once we explained that as staff, it kind of turned things. >> Yeah, it did. But there were also multiple comments afterwards um by Commissioner Severson, I believe, and maybe even Commissioner Planton. And um I wanted to write them down and I somehow missed it. And maybe um City Attorney Scholzel can reach back into his memory. >> Yes. Uh mayor and comm uh council member, I don't remember what those specific comments are, so I'd be hesitant to try to relay them now. >> Okay. Yeah, I'll >> look them up quick question. >> Yeah, that'd be fine. Mr. Pleus, I think you had a question, sir. >> Uh, yeah, I've got a few questions here, so I've written them down. Let me just go through. So, if the variance request establishing a 108 foot setback was granted as specified in the application, would it also include the modifications shown on the graphic with the wedges cut out, the red triangles, or could a builder simply go by the 108t line, and not consider those wedges? >> Maybe you could flash that up on the screen so um everyone in the public understands. There we go. Perfect. >> Yeah, those. So you the the red line nearest to the lake is the 108 foot setback, but the wedges are put in there because the applicant is saying uh we would offer that as a sighteline improvements, but what we're talking about is an 800 foot setback. So would a a builder down the road, whether it's a month or year or two years from now, would they be allowed to go ahead and build anything they wanted as long as it was behind that line? >> Sure. Mayor and uh Council Member Pleish, that's a great question. The the um subject of the variance request is to allow that 108 foot setback. It is also included at the recommendation of our planning commission that these areas are deemed non-buildable and included in your resolution tonight. >> So, city attorney, does that have legal weight? >> Um mayor and council member, yes. I mean a specific condition of the resolution that's before you is that we have a complete legal description and depiction of that shoreland setback that shows the 108 line but also those those uh they're called existing house sight lines on this depiction. So to answer your question the setback would be what you're seeing there with those triangles. >> Okay, just want to be clear on that. Another question is, is there a way a builder could build inside the red triangles if they so desired in any case down the road? Just a different way of asking the same question, I guess. Um, mayor and council member, uh, not the principal structure, not anything that can't go in the setback. There are certain things that can go in that setback, but it wouldn't be the house. >> Okay. Another question here. I realize that the 543 property to the north was built far back on the lot due to the swampy area nearer to the lake, but has anyone looked at what the setback might have looked like if the home had been built at a more conventional location closer to the lake. >> Mayor and council member, we did look at that. However, we're restricted to reviewing the application as it stands with the current conditions. Um, so in looking at that, it's just a hypothetical situation. It would still have to meet the setback requirements per code. Um, and that would change where those three different setback option lines would go, but it's difficult to say how that may impact um, a variance request without knowing where that potential building to the north could have been. >> Yeah. I kind of expected that answer, but I thought I'd ask it anyway. And uh has there been a shoreland impact plan submitted? I I maybe I missed it, but I didn't see one. >> So, that's a condition of the resolution um as recommended by planning commission. It's difficult to submit something that would um address things that the shoreland impact plan needs to address without building plans. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh, other questions of staff. Mr. Park Hill. >> Yeah. I'm wondering if I'm wondering if you can tell me I I don't know on these red sections how much farther that sends the set back. So, obviously the the red part of the the the left part of the triangle is 108, right? Um, the right part of the where the right part of the triangle meets the lot line. Do we know where that is? What that is? Mayor and council member. I don't have that specific measurement. No. >> Other questions of staff. >> I do have another one. If >> Go ahead, Miss McDonald. >> Council member Sson doesn't while this slide is up. Um planner, I I'm hoping you can give me a little more context um of the size of this lot. So, if we're just looking at, you know, the the setback as as the ordinance states, um maybe subtracting the two 20 foot sideyard setbacks, could you just give me an a pretty good estimate of how long how wide that that one line is? >> Mayor and council member, I don't have that um measurement, but I can look it up quick. >> Yeah. I would I would like that a lot too to look that one up and then I would just >> maybe from I'm trying to get an idea of the scale and the reasonleness of this. So I think it's a pretty crucial um measurement. So perhaps that also if you took kind of in between of what's being requested and what's required and and drew me a straight line across. How much width would a builder be working with? >> Maybe >> I'm trying to point. Am I but obviously you can't see that. So >> would you be okay if we give her a couple minutes to to and we come back to it. So, she she probably takes a couple minutes to do a calculation. I don't want to put too much pressure on her to do it on the fly. >> Yeah, that's if you're more comfortable that way, that would be great. We can circle back, but I really >> Mayor, I appreciate that. I'm going to have Mike look up the the width questions for me on the lot. >> Fine. So, you take your time with that. >> Um, are you uh council member McDonald, are you referring to is this graph up on the screen helpful? Are you referring to the the distance between the required setback and the proposed setback? So the variance request, >> yeah, I mean this is a helpful in my mind. I want to know the opposite. So if I turned that 152.5, to me that probably gets you from side setback to side setback. I think that feels essentially the the width of the lot in that area, the widest width or at least within the buildable. >> That helps me a lot for scale. I live in the R3A district. My lot is 60 ft wide. So, um I think sometimes when you live in a smaller neighborhood than the estate district, these um areas look really small and difficult, but if you have numbers showing how wide the actual lots are, I think it's it's very important for the way I think of and judge reasonable. So that's what I that's what I'm trying to get at is how much width is there to work with. >> So we'll give her a moment to to look at that and then are there other questions um at this time from anyone else. Okay. So I'm going to give them a minute to do that. Um just in terms of process um if you want to make a comment, you need to fill out a card. Um so so what we're going to do next is we're going to hear from the applicant. Not just yet, though. Going to give our staff a pause to allow them to factually answer Miss McDonald's question. So, if there was a Jeopardy buzzer, I'd let it go for right now, but we'll we won't put that pressure on our planner. So, take your time. Uh, and we'll just pause. >> Appreciate it. >> Do you want to? >> Yeah. Mayor and Council, I may want to ask if the applicant has that measurement. >> Yeah. So, so this is getting a little bit outside of um putting pressure on all all sides on a hypothetical. So, if you wouldn't mind if you could try to restate your question so that everyone understands specifically what you're seeking guidance on so that they can do their best to respond. >> Yeah, I'll I'll I'll be I'll try to be even more clear. So, >> there's an existing ordinance that has a setback and you know it's it's a straight line and I'm curious what the width is from that from from sideyard setback to sideyard setback. So, how wide how wide is the buildable area? And then now move the if you let's say you were asking for a straight line instead of this situation and it you know went straight up as opposed to this like how how many feet width are you working with on this lot? >> Mr. Hunt I'm going to suggest that we have the presentation first. This question is noted to staff. This question is noted to the applicant and we will have it answered in the context of the presentation or thereafter. So are there any other further questions of staff at this time? >> Mayor, we did find a an approximate estimate for that distance. >> That's all I want is an approximate to give me some idea of the scale >> approximately between um >> the other graphic. >> Yes. >> Yeah. From the from this graphic, Mr. Mayor and Council, the right edge of the triangles where it meets the property line inside the setback is approximately 330 ft. If you wanted to measure the dimension of the green line between the triangles is approximately 95 ft. The full setback or the full length across property line to property line at the 100 foot 108 foot setback is about 440 ft. >> Okay. So the the first number you gave me the 300 is that >> from the point of the triangles on the right hand of the screen back. >> So give me direction. So would that be the southoutheast point to southeast point? >> Yes. is 300 feet wide. Estimating >> it's 331 approximately from property line to property line. Your question was within the setback. So subtract 40 would be about 291. >> You'll be given a chance to address if you have a a any other context on that. So just hold tight. >> That's really very helpful. I appreciate it and I appreciate everyone bearing with me because I can't point. So it was a very helpful answer. >> Okay. Thanks. Any other questions of staff at this time? Okay. So now uh I will give the applicant their opportunity to present uh their application. I believe that's Mr. Hunt. Uh please approach the dis. And then um you you are welcome to offer any additional context or commentary to to the hypothetical that was discussed just now. Mr. Hunt just name and address and who you represent. >> Yeah, it's Kyle Hunt. Um Kyle Hunt and Partners. I'm acting as a consultant for the Swanson family. My address is 18324 Minnotonka Boulevard in Deep Haven. >> Um, is that any better? >> Okay. Um, mayor and council members, thank you so much for allowing us to uh present this evening. Um, I have my slideshow. So, how is Okay, >> maybe to answer um Mr. Kelly, I think you were describing, if I heard you correct, I think your answer and her question were two different things. I I and I may I may be wrong, but I I think there were two different things. I think um one of the other questions uh about that about the red triangles um was asked and that might be I don't know if you can go back to that. >> Yeah, here's what I suggest we do. >> Um we were going to pull up your PowerPoint. Let's go back to the same slide that was used for for staff's response. >> Yeah. And then you certainly are welcome to offer your uh assessment of it and then and then after that we'll move forward to your formal presentation. >> Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Hunt. >> Yes. as I understood uh the question from uh council member McDonald uh was that at the what is the setback ordinance right now that and the most restrictive if you had that slide that was the buildable yeah am I correct in saying you wanted to know the dimension at the where the green and the purple on this slide meet okay that's a different number than I think Mr. Kelly answered. >> I asked for two numbers. >> Okay. >> And I believe the second number was also the the number to the second question. >> It wasn't if if he gave an answer to the triangles, not >> right. So So let me see if I can solve this. I actually did hear two numbers. So I'm going to ask you to state the two numbers again. I'm going to give you an opportunity to affirm them or challenge them. All right. So just hold tight. Yep. >> Offer the two numbers again and let's make sure we're all on the same page. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Because my original scale was off. So, I am just redrawing my line to make sure that we have the proper scale from the inside of the two red triangles to the east side of the lot. It's approximately 188 ft along this line between to go back one slide between that line of the buildable and non-buildable within the setback there is approximately it's a hair over 160 ft that red and green border line within the setbacks. >> Okay. >> So then less the 40 foot side yard. >> No, that >> that calculation that I just gave you was >> within the setback line. >> Very good. So that second number, not this one. The other one. Yep. >> Was one. >> They're both with Yes. This one is approximately 160. slightly over 160 along that red green border within the setbacks. >> Okay. And Mike, that's at the angle it shows here. >> Correct. >> It's not more of a perpendicular. It's not that line. It's that line. >> I got it. >> All right. >> Angled like that. Yes. >> Yep. >> Thank you everyone for bearing with me. But that is is incredibly helpful. >> So, Mr. Mr. Hunt, is that clear? And do you do you agree with that assessment or would you offer any additional uh commentary? >> He's got the scale. I would I would defer to him. >> Okay. I would recommend that you go on with your your presentation. >> Okay. Let's see if I can remember how this remote works, >> but we can help you if it if if we have any trouble. >> Um I know that everyone has probably seen this PowerPoint in your packet. You've also seen it um as it was presented to the planning commission. Um so I don't want to bore you with the details. I want to go through these rather quickly um to help I guess give uh the scenario of of um speed to this. Um this slide uh has already been used uh once. It just basically gives you the depiction of um much of the three different lines. There staff's uh pointing them out in colorization was probably an easier piece to read. Um here gives those similar scenarios. You have the yellow line at 75 ft. You have our proposed uh setback at 108 which is that 152 and 1/2 ft that is between the 108 and the code stated setback uh at the middle of that portion. Um because that line is at a skewed angle. It will be shorter on the south and and greater on the north. Again, it shows a depiction between uh the lines being drawn from um 549 to 543 to the north. Uh ju again just showing um the situation uh that shows this site under distress as far as where the buildable and non-buildable area is noting that where the house position is currently. Um it was noted in uh staff's presentation too there's this lowland area uh at the Levvenworth pro property at 543 and um that's an anomaly uh when you look at that on the shoreline along uh all of this and so it really puts the subject property 547 the Swanson's in a in a state of most of their lot not being buildable. Um, this uh slide helps present an understanding as if you were to take the situation and the two neighboring properties, the repairarian uh properties. If you drew a line from one to the other on each one of the properties, you would end up with this sort of a pattern um that has happened. And you can see um the significant bend in the shoreline uh between 547 and 549 really being a point. It may not be as pronounced as lookout point, but it still is a point um that causes uh you know a different aspect of how setbacks and about how sight lines might be uh looked at. Um, we put this slide together just to show because Lookout Point went through a similar variance, um, very similar variance and, uh, just a handful of years ago and was approved, um, at that point in time. This is just a little bit of a honing in on on that particular situation. It does does show that the neighboring properties are non-conforming and yet they um participated in helping this variance go through for those folks. Uh this um again just shows our proposed line of uh the 108 with the 152 foot uh variance request which happens the number of the 152 again is in the middle of that portion. Um here there's um there is a video. Let's see how do I get to that with this? I don't know if I can. Um, >> thank you. There you go. >> So, this video shows um just kind of a an idea of this right there. If we could stop it maybe for a second. Um Whoops. Yeah. If you can back it right to maybe it won't stop. Yeah. Um, so this is giving you some sense of the if you look to the left side of the line from if you look at the corner of the house where the two stories is closest to the lake that is the from the left of that where that larger maple tree is and coming forward all the way to uh 549's property is that area that we would be depicting as one of the red triangles. This would be the red triangle to the south. Um that would show there. Um this uh was up at the second story. Um if you can let it go just a little further. We're just trying to give you a sense where this this uh drone shot was in alignment. Whoops. I don't know if you can go back to the very end and hold it there. Um when it once it gets to the end. I'm sorry. There we go. Um, this is this drone shot is showing a line. Basically, we're peekab-booing around the corner to to draw a line between uh those of you that were there at the site. There was stakes in the ground. Showing the line between 549's corner where their sideyard meets their lakeyard set back leading back to this corner. Just giving you some sense of what does that look like two stories up. So this um depiction I think is probably the most uh telling for us to to talk about. Um the reason why we introduced the idea of the red triangles was to honor and uh take into consideration the neighboring properties. uh when they when you look through the lens of um sight lines from their structures to the lake and from the interior of their homes looking lakeside or lake setback side. Um in both cases we've tried to look at that triangulation um and offered that uh under free will. Um I think the practical difficulties uh are well apparent. They're not all economic. Are there some economic aspects? There certainly would be, but it's not predicated solely on economics. These were a couple of different slides where we just showed different houses that could be placed, but it's just giving ideas of what could possibly fit there and why we would look through the lens of allowing someone to predicate, what would be their final idea, knowing that they have to stay out of the red triangles and out of and back the 108 um from ordinary high water. So, there were a couple of different ideas that were thrown there, and none of these are as big as uh the home that is currently at 549. Um, this just shows this drone shot, I believe, shows um just the aspect from um where the where the point just is and where the bend takes place. So, the 549 is right there on your right. And as you can see, the shoreline wraps back around uh to the north. And then we'll get kind of a little bit of a peekaboo here down to 547. And 543 is off to your right, but hidden in the woods. Let's see. The one slide I thought you might add was that slide that had the topo. Was that in here? I don't think I saw it. Let me go back. I know you have it in your presentation. It has the topography and the trees. >> Yeah, I can pull it up from >> Yeah, that'd be great. I know I submitted that separately. Um, bear with me. I'm just going to look through my notes. Um, there's one more that's just the survey. Yeah. Um, I'm sure a question could come in the idea of, well, couldn't the house be moved back even further? And I think there's a reason why whoever chose this location for the home originally really look through the I mean, whenever this was, it sounds like it was 1902 when the original smaller structure was placed there. and Henipin County has a record of uh 1929, but that was a year of an addition. Uh in any event, um you can see these topography lines are one foot contours. Uh I believe can Can you see close enough to to say that? No, >> that's okay. >> Those are two-foot contours on that one. But if you can go back, if you move as as you continue to move the house further and further away from the lake, we can all see you start to squeeze yourself north to south, but you also have more significant topography to try to work around. Um, and you're going to get into significant tree removal. Right now, where the home is and where the parking area is, both in front of the lower garage and up on top have allowed for um if you're if you're in those areas, there's not much tree coverage. But as soon as you get beyond those areas, you have lots of tree coverage that would be interrupted uh under construction. And I think it was well apparent in the slide that showed buildable and non-buildable if we were held to the line that is um in question tonight. Uh it would almost make the lot unbuildable. It certainly whatever home would be placed there would be very out of character. Um, a couple of things to note. Um, in the presentation packet that I received on page 466 through 470 and then including 472. Um they are they are diagrams uh provided by 549 and um yeah when you get to these you look at them and there's a a portion on here the yellow area that is on their key it says adverse impact on views of the shoreline or lake um for adjacent recent neighboring property structures. I have to say, um, in my over 35 years of looking at these sorts of things, I've never seen it where someone uses the sideyard and the sideyard setback as a as a demonstration of of what we're talking about in this ordinance. And so I just wanted to note that that um that's the side of the house that there are four air conditioning units, a generator, and it's really been closed off from a landscaping standpoint. And I just want to remind everyone about the letters that we have seen come in from neighbors. Um I did not see the 12th letter, but that's okay. I assume it's a positive one, but I don't know the answer to that. Um any questions about my slide presentation? I'm happy to. >> Yeah. So we will give a chance for council to ask any questions of the applicant at this time. I will ask. >> Okay. Mr. Park Hill, >> so do you know what the setback is at the bottom right corner of the red um triangle? The the closest to uh 549's house. >> So, I just want to make sure I'm understanding. So, that point Yeah, let's use that if we can as a pointer. Um Whoops. >> Well, the problem is we can't see the pointer, but >> Oh, you can't? No, but I mean, >> well, at least if we can get it there, I might have you stand and look, actually. Um, >> yeah, you should be able to provide it in context right here. We can look behind us if we choose to. >> Okay. Can you use the Can you use your No, you can't you can't use your mouse to point to the corner. He's >> the cursor. The cursor doesn't show up on the screen. >> Do you see the 135.4 drop down from that to where the red hits the sideyard setback line? I see that >> or actually the um the lot line. >> So the the southerntherly triangle and it would be the southoutheasterly corner of that triangle. >> Yes. >> How and you're you're asking how far away that is from ordinary high water. >> Yes. Do we know? >> I think Mr. Kelly is going to have to try to give us an answer to that. Um >> well I'm I guess my question is is this reasonable to think that um >> one of those because you draw a straight line from 549 and you go straight kind of northwest a little bit. I know 549 is set back 188. Would that be 188 where it hits the lot line? >> Mr. Mayor and council if I could interject. Uh I have scaled it off again approximations from the ordinary high on the survey that was presented earlier with the various uh setback lines. That triangle where it intersects with the property line is approximately 186 ft from the lake shore. Okay. where it intersects with the setback line is approximately 172 ft. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, I I would encourage us to keep our hypotheticals to what's specifically referenced in our ordinance and and how these hypotheticals apply to it. I appreciate all the questions. Any further questions of the applicant? Okay. So, we're going to take public comment on this, but before before I do open that up, um I want to offer a couple of comments of context, right? Uh we did receive letters uh affirming or supporting this. We see received letters and feedback uh opposing this. We also received guidance from the property owner directly adjacent uh I guess it would be along the point and their adviserss. It's all in our packet. We've read everything. We've received it via email. We've received it in the packet. We've studied it all. With that comment, I'm now going to turn it over. There's three cards that have been submitted for comment. The general rule of thumb is 3 minutes. I'll give a little latitude um to to one of the two people representing uh 549 Harrington given some of the I guess technical references that were offered in today's hearing, but not much latitude and that is my discretion. And so I first will call to the diswab please. >> Yes. >> Hold on. Just wait. Wait till you get to the dis. You have a vast viewing audience that wants to hear your comments. Miss Schwabach. >> Sue Schwabach. I live on Ferndale Road and I was here for an earlier item. I didn't even know this was on the agenda. So I'm saying hello to Dick and Elaine and Joanne. >> Please annunciate. >> Okay. I'm just saying hello. I didn't know that this was on the agenda. I just was here for an earlier item. And so my question was, how did these red triangles even get determined? And what I figured out here is that you drew a line from the corner of the houses on each side of sorts and you went to the corner of your houses and those are the those are sight lines. Is that correct? And so my question would be I get that now. Um I think that uh Mr. Pleesh asked a good question about whether that is really a legal sort of a of a of a a binding sort of a rule. And so I guess that's the answer. And I don't really have another question except just recollection of kind of a messy thing we got into off a bushway road a while ago with a setback phenomenon that was a topic. I don't even recall the minutia, but it's I just came to hear the rest of it. So thank you for explaining the triangles. I get it. >> Uh, thank you for your comments. Uh, next I'd like to call uh, Mr. Jack Perry, please. >> No. >> If you if you just state your name and your address and who you're representing, please. Yeah, it's Jack Perry from the Taff Law Firm and I'm here on behalf of Tracy and Dan Costentino who are the residents at at 549 uh Harrington Road. I I have >> I said welcome. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I have four comments. I I think I can stay within the the three minutes. >> Sure. And I I'll give you a little latitude as I as I uh indicated. The first comment is is that that um having done land use law for the last 35 years is is you have very specific uh criteria under 991.19 excuse me 991.09D2 which is how you your requirements for for determining where the setback is lakes shore setbacks and then 99 1.09D3 09D3, you have very specific criteria for how you get a variance from that. And and that's important in this one because it's clear from my reading of this and having spent a lot of time with your code on other matters that city-wise edit did this in this case and other areas to get away from subjective um sentiments and instead focus on objective criteria. The second point I want to make is that that the whatever sympathies you have towards 547 which I understand it. Everyone wants to say yes. We're motans. That's what we do. It will not help 547 in any way, shape or form if you say yes to this tonight. Conversely, it will help them immensely if you accept the proposal that we have submitted. And the reason I say that is not as a a a offensive lawyer. It is the reality is is that that 108 ft versus 175 ft is a major major major change, a major blockage of the lake for 549. And 549 is going to assert that's why I'm here. We're going to assert those rights. And so if you say yes, that will cause litigation. Litigation will hold this thing up for 12 months at a minimum, which no buyer is going to pay the extra amount because of this this setback until that's resolved. Also, I think I'm going to win. You know, this there's five different things that 547 has to prove. It's their burden and the plan. I know the city has a city lawyer has a different view of it. It's a present tense requirement. and says R. The third the fourth point then gets to okay if you want to do something and and we want you to do something the the clients coent have worked super hard with someone who I know the mayor thinks is reasonable the mayor's personal counsel I believe Chris Pearson to find out what is reasonable and what he did was what he proposed to the coatinos and they accepted is is because the outlier lot 543 is the outlier lot. This is the one technical thing and then I'll I'll sit down. 543 is an outlier. And so the two formulas you have under 991.09D to B and C don't work because 543 is set back. And so what Chris came up with was Chris Pearson was let's remove that and let's run that same formula but remove that and go to the next house. 543. I get the numbers, but you get the next house north. And he did that. And you'll see on on our proposal, it's number figure number four on the the uh >> 30 seconds. >> You'll see that that we did it under the two different lines. And what Chris proposed and what we proposed to the applicant on August 24th, repeated again uh uh on 29th is we are almost as close to the to the lake as possible of the of the two even though your code says you go to the greater. We went to the lesser almost a letter. It's 175 ft and the only additional request was it's 45 foot 40 foot setback instead of the 20 foot setback. That's it. That is what we proposed. We sent a certified letter last week. I did to get them to talk to us so we can figure this out. We don't want to litigate. We don't want to have any fight on this thing. We want to find a reasonable solution. It's 13 ft in front of us. There will be an impact. It's just not going to be right smack in the middle. If they want to keep it where it is, they can use non-conforming uses, but they can't expand. >> Thank you for your comments, sir. Um, next I'd like to call to the DAS, Mr. Cosantino, please. Uh, welcome, sir. >> Thank you. Good evening, mayor and city council members. Um, my name is Dan Costantino. My wife Tracy and I live at 549 Harrington Road, the property adjacent 547. Um, I know it's late. I'll keep my comments brief. >> You have a few minutes and I'll give you a little letter. >> Okay. I I also know that you've uh most of you have looked at the property and um have read the detailed materials we provided. Um when I was first informed that 547 uh Harrington had filed the variance uh requesting the 108 foot lakeshore setback shaped kind of like a half a hexagon with no building plans, no architectural plans, no lakeshore impact assessment. I was a little surprised. So, I did contact uh one of the most reputable individuals that I know in Weisetta, Chris Pearson, and I asked Chris to come out and walk the property and give us his unbiased opinion of the validity of the uh variance proposal. His recommendation was to hire Moheaggan Hansen. They're really good um architectural firms and they did 3D modeling. They took the actual uh proposed structures from Kyle Hunt and they put those into the model to determine the view impact. Um the result of that was Chris's original letter and Chris's letter found that there was an impact to the lake shore uh to our view an adverse impact our view for the shoreline and lake. When he determined that I said to Chris, let's try to find a reasonable alternative for 547. Okay, that was my direct order to him. And just for the record, he was your attorney. >> He is my attorney. Correct. I said, "Let's find a reasonable alternative, something that's fair." And what we did is we took uh on that page 466 that was shown by Kyle Hunt. We took that greenhouse and we moved it into uh the setback that you see there. So we we took the greenhouse from Kyle Hunt and we moved it in and we were able to fit it into a proposed setback that we sent to 547 that's 175 ft by 40 ft 175 ft from the lake shore by 40t from the sideyard setback and that even though there's some view impact it minimized the view impact and that's what we had offered later on after the initial planning council meeting where um we did not have the planning council members come over and visit our property and look from our property out. I decided to hire Jack. And what we did is we then took some of the trees down between 549 and 547 so we could see if their building envelope is expanded. What would that look like? That's also in your package. And that's part of the letter that you see on September 22nd. I don't know what page that is. I think it would be helpful if that was brought up on the on the screen just so the council could make sure that they see it and understand it. >> Sure. We we will take that into consideration during our deliberate. >> Thank you. So the two the two reputable firms that I hired both came up with an independent assessment that the our views are adversely impact adversely impacted from various locations inside the home outside the home. Um, so in summary, what I'm asking for here tonight, I'm asking you to look carefully at the data that we presented, at the 3D models that we presented, at the uh, letters from the two uh, groups that we hired because they both unanimously reach the same exact conclusion. And so that's why I'm here asking for um the denial of the 547 variance. I'm also wanting to make sure that gets into this record is the offer that we've made of 175 ft back even though our home is 188t back. So, we're offering a very generous uh variance proposal to 547. >> Sure. Thank you. Noted for the record. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Thanks for your consideration. Appreciate >> it. So, I'll bring it back to the council for uh deliberation. Before I do that, I just want to address since my name was noted by Mr. Perry. Um just for the record, uh Mr. Cosantino hired an attorney by the name of Chris Pearson. Chris Pearson advised him to a certain degree. Um, and then you you chose a different attorney to to go to the second half of the process. I also would like to note that Mr. Perry is a frequent uh uh person that we uh have the privilege of engaging with on a number of different matters uh currently and in the past. And I'll note that for the record. Um with that, I'll bring it back uh to the council for uh deliberations. Um and uh I would welcome someone to begin our process of Go ahead, Mr. Pleish. So, uh, I I'd like to lead on this because I've given this one heck of a lot of of thought. Let me get closer to my mic here. And if, uh, the audience would bear with me. I did a lot of notetaking and typing to get my thoughts complete on this. So, uh, if you bear with me, I'm just going to read it. uh after having met with the applicant and the neighbor who would mo be most impacted by the variance, having also walked both properties and in studying the packet in depth, not to mention listening to what was presented tonight, the following questions come to mind. What does the code require? I.e. what is the letter of the law? What was the intent of the code? Is the variance request reasonable? Is the variance requested due to circumstances not created by the owner? What impact would this variance have on the neighborhood and particularly the neighbors immediately on either side? And lastly, is there any economic interest and aspect of this request? I'd like to reiterate something I've said many times in the past, which is that I greatly value the work of the planning commission for most everything that comes before the council. However, I spent a lot of time pondering this situation and found myself disagreeing with the planning commission to a degree on a few points. As I reviewed their deliberations, I felt that like some of the commissioners were making a case to vote against the variance when in the end they voted for it, which seemed a bit perplexing. Let me start by stating that there are indeed some practical difficulties associated with this property. The fact that the residence to the north was built so far back creates a setback requirement that is skewed and untenable in my opinion. I think everyone agrees on that. Ordinances like this just can't address every situation, which is why we have variances. As it is, an appropriatelysized house would be unbuildable within the constraints delineated and begs for a variance. Applying the setback code as written would be unreasonable. Accordingly, I find that the variance request is reasonable, unique to the property, and was due to circumstances not created by the land owner. The question then becomes, what impact would granting this variance have on the immediate neighbors and the neighborhood in general? Also, what if any precedent would be set for future such requests if we were to grant the variance tonight? I believe the intent of the lakeshore setback zoning code was to provide optimum placement of homes along the lake shore and safeguard homers homeowners views of the lake which is not only a real blessing to lakeshore homeowners but a treasure to be protected by the city. Codes have been established to preserve that treasure by minimizing visual obstructions from structures on adjacent properties. That can be quite tricky considering that shoreland outlines can wrap around in odd ways and it's why variance requests are inevitable. It seems clear to me that the intent of the setback ordinance is to even out the placement of homes along the shoreline. Someone can certainly choose to build a home further back on a lake shore lot, but when a home begins to impinge on views from adjacent lots, we need to be very careful in granting variances. One item in the shoreland overlay district's lakeshore setback standards states that a setback shall not adversely impact the views of the shoreline or lake for adjacent neighboring principal structures. Having walked the properties, it is my assessment that the views from the adjacent residents to the south at 549 Harrington would indeed be adversely impacted if a home were to be built within the suggested buildable area. Of course, the location of the existing house at 547 impedes the view even more, but what we have to consider is the impact of what is almost certainly going to be a new home on that property and how it would comply with code. However, we don't have an established plan to consider, just concepts. Another item in the standard states in part if a variance were approved that it would not set a precedent which is contrary to the intent of the zoning ordinance. In this case, I feel that it would, unless I'm mistaken, variances such as this are usually, perhaps even exclusively, although not required, done in conjunction with actual plans, whereas what is being requested tonight is to grant a variance in a vacuum. That would be precedent setting and a not so insignificant consideration. Planning Commission Chair Blake Cameron eloquently stated the same concerns I have during the planning commission discussion on this issue. Although the intent of the proposed footprint of the buildable area by the applicant is well thought out, noble, and offered in a neighborly way, future such customized outlines could become problematic in my view. Also, I am not sure we have a way to constrain a new owner to not extend a new home's footprint into what has been depicted as red triangles, and that too could be a real problem down the road. Although, I think my concerns on that have been allayed tonight. As stated in the code, any structure built as a result of an issued variance shall be considered, not may be considered, but shall be considered in determining setbacks of future construction on adjacent lots, which would certainly have an effect on the lot to the north. Yet another code provision states that a variance shall only be permitted when it is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. As I stated moments ago, I don't feel this variance, as laid out, is in harmony with the intent of the zoning coordinates, even as thoughtful and reasonable as it may seem. Lastly, I do believe there is a material economic aspect of this variance request, which should be addressed. The value of this property and its attractiveness to a future owner is clearly impacted by the dimensions of a buildable area, which will be determined by this variance. I understand why the applicant would applicant would want a variance in order to improve or even maximize the value of the property for a potential buyer as the proposed variance certainly would. But that cannot be considered in granting the variance. Our decision tonight could have a many decadesl long impact. So I think we have to be careful here. We can debate home placements, sightelines, and various setback options. But tonight, our decision is to either approve the variance as requested or deny it. I do believe a setback variance is needed, just not this one. The letter of the law on a setback requirement for this property is draconian, but the requested variance goes too far. I think approving the variance will cause constonnation with some while denying it will cause constonnation among others. However, I feel a better compromised solution can be found with some dialogue between the applicant and his neighbor to the south since it is clear that both parties want to see the property developed and likely could not be without the setback dictated by the current code. I am certain a more reasonable setback line can be agreed agreed upon without unrealistically constraining an architect or builder. The bottom line is that for all the reasons stated, I will be voting to deny the variance tonight, but with the optimistic expectation that another more acceptable variance request will come before. I would encourage my fellow council members to follow me. >> Thank you, Mr. Pleish. Uh, who would like to wade into the waters next? >> I'd love to go next if I if I may. >> Um, Council Member Plekish, thank you for that. Um, great. Um, explanation. I I have similar feelings to you. So, I I'm going to let you kind of handle all that technicality cuz I I agreed with so much that I don't feel um that I need to restate all of that. But one thing that I think keeps um being left out of the conversation um at the planning commission level and and maybe even at the at the this level which is um we're not even considering preservation and our comp plan does value a diverse housing stock and neighborhood charm. And I I I reflected back on residential variances that I have voted in favor of it and we're just it's my memory but it's 5 years most of those have been about preserving older homes. Um maybe it's an addition but the idea is to preserve the whole and I think preservation is getting a little bit lost in this conversation. Um, if if someone wants to live in a house in in that buildable area, I'd see it and say, "Great news. There's one right there available to you." Um, I just don't think that should be lost. That maybe someone would appreciate a beautiful 100-year-old well-built home to not be just thrown away. But with that said, I know your neighborhood and I know the majority of people do choose to tear these homes down. Um I do believe just like my colleague council member Plekish that a variance is a reasonable request with um that sort of setback house to the north. Um, but what's being asked I don't think is reasonable. I I I see it as sort of like a we know we're going to need a variance. How could anyone disagree that a variance is needed? So, let's just shoot for the moon, per se. and and I I believe there is a better a better way to find a compromise or find a more reasonable variance request. Um I have no doubts that the topography could be managed especially in 160 feet across. Um, that's a lot of space and and just looking at the drone photos or videos, pardon me. Um, I think you're going to be looking at significant true removal either way. If you build in the buildable area that's allowed by code, you're going to lose a lot of trees, but there's a lot of trees around that existing home. And so I I I just I don't see that this is in any sort of way to preserve trees. Um like I said, I think preservation's kind of being tossed out the window and that's everyone's right, but I would love for it to be a little bit more considered. Um, and lastly, I do believe that the proposed variance would adversely impact the views of the shoreline. So, um, with all of that said, I will not be voting to support this variance request. >> Uh, thank you, Miss McDonald. Who would like to go next? >> Uh, Mr. Mayor, I would go next, if Mr. Sorenson. U well it's kind of interesting when uh we're hearing arguments um you say very good arguments on both sides saying hey we're just trying to be reasonable right um and um you know I uh I think I don't want to reiterate a lot that was said but it's clear um this is a bit of an anomaly because um 547 and 543 are both situated where they are because of topography and practical difficulty. So, it kind of puts us in this unusual spot and like someone said, it's hard to come up with a ordinances that deal with every issue. You know, there've been a lot of issues raised um including like a 60-day issue and we don't have complete plans and the shoreline setback hasn't been resolved, but we can uh prove something subject to. So, I think the real issue comes down to trying to balance the shoreline overlay district requirements with the practical difficulties of pushing this property back off the lake and the challenges you have with uh trees and the topography. So, what you know what's a reasonable thing there? Um, and like Mr. Perry suggested, I think you have to go right to the standards. Um, I'm not going to go through all of them. I'm going to mention a lot of them. Um you know first one on the shoreline diffic setback variance is at at least 75 ft off the lake which this is the next one which I think is the predominant issue here is the setback shall not adversely affect or adversely impact views of the shoreline or lake or adjacent neighboring principal structures. So, um I've been out there four times. Twice before, uh no shrubbery was removed and twice after. Um I think it was helpful. The plan commission did not have the benefit of seeing this without >> sure that was our choice though. >> I mean just just as a as a side note. So, you know, adverse being I think someone gave us the definition of adverse um but um you know when you pull this house to the 108t level and you're in the you're in the house at 549 yeah you may be able to see if you crank your head around and look kind of par parallel to the house between the outside column and the house you probably can see a little bit of the house. Um, to me it didn't I mean it it was reasonable to me to think that's not adverse, it's not significant, but yeah, you have to acknowledge if you really try, you can see some of the house. Um, so I struggle with that one a bit. The other part of this issue is um impacting views of the shoreline or lake of the shoreline or lake. um you know seeing a bit of a house in itself isn't the issue. I think what I when I looked at it and hasn't this hasn't been talked about much but um when you look at and maybe um city manager if could you pull up one of the topos? This shows it somewhat. Actually, the video showed it the best. And even um the last submitt from Taft had a view without the house there. But on the on the on the north side of this lot along the shoreline, those are significant trees. They're mature. A lot of them are tall pines. And I was out there looking at this. If you push that, if you push 547 back and you you're from the 549 house looking that direction, you certainly don't see the shoreline and you don't even see the lake. So even though the house, you know, might infringe somewhat on the view, if the house wasn't there, you still don't see the shoreline or lake. So, um I'm not sure it I'm not sure, you know, in this case that the uh proposal is being made by the applicant um is is um yeah, I I think it passes the the test actually. Um the other significant issue though is really and it shows it here pretty well. um but pushing this house back. What we haven't talked about much, we talk about buildable area per setbacks, but on the north side with that steep ravine, that ravine is not buildable for a home. It's just not. I mean, you can build maybe on top of the driveway and then go south and um yeah, this shows it the best. So if you push his house back, you know, it's not a reasonable think you can build a house practically over that ravine on the north side where the topos are close together. And Molly was trying to get at, you know, what dimension do we have here. But if you take that out and then run that line to the to the setback line uh on the south side, I you know, just getting through some numbers, you're 120 ft, maybe 140 the most. Can you build a house in that? Yeah. But not the type of house that I mean be challen it would be challenging I think. So so you know to the point of uh the standard pertaining to is there a uh a setback based on a specific need. U I think clearly there's a practical difficulty here in pushing this house back. not to mention uh trees and that it pushes house closer to the um setback line on the south. So I think there's there's an issue here how far you can push that house back. Um that was my main point. You know some of the conditions under the zoning ordinance um is it in harmony um with the general intent of the zoning ordinance? I think it is. Is it consistent with the comprehensive plan? I think it is. Um are there practical difficulties? Yes. Um and you know economic considerations, you know, everything has a bit of an economic consideration, but I think this is more of a of a of a practical difficulty issue. You know, is it reasonable? Does it affect essential character? Uh I think it I think it I think it passes those issues. It's not solely economic. Um, so those are the most of my of my comments. I guess I also I thought it was interesting that I saw nine letters in our packet of addresses on Harrington that supported this variance. Someone said we may have more. I'm not sure I've seen them. Um, you know, I don't I don't think we should make decision based on the threat of litigation um in in any case. Um, so I I'm inclined to uh want to approve this variance. I think it could be pulled back and be buildable. Um, but I don't think, you know, I don't think there's a sighteline issue. I don't think because um of where the uh of the 108 foot issue and then I don't think you're blocking the views of the lake because house there or not, you can't see the lake or shoreline. So, I'm I'm inclined to uh I'm inclined to approve the variance. I think my uh peers up here have made some very strong rational arguments also. >> Yes, >> Mr. Parkhill. >> Okay. Um thank you all. Thanks to the planning commission for all their work. It was difficult for them to go through this process and they brought up some very very good questions. Um let it be known that uh both of these parties in this variance request our friends and neighbors. Um they both have beautiful homes and deserve to maintain their values. Um I wish the parties had come to a compromise on their own, but here we are. Um so um given that situation, I I'm just going to be as objective and and as straightforward as I can be. Um, I've been to both properties twice. I've listened to both parties present their views. Um, you know, I think both Swanson's and Cas Constantinos are right. I think 547 and 549, they're both right. Swanson's deserve a variance and Constantinos deserve to have um no adverse effect on the view of their from of the lake or lake shore. Um, I believe Swanson's have a significant burden given the topography of their property. Um, if the setback were moved back farther from the lake, it would impinge on the ability to build as, uh, Councilman Sorenson mentioned. Uh, there's a severe drop off. Um, the code as it relates to setbacks obviously doesn't work. Puts an insurmountable burden on the current owners. Uh, it doesn't apply as a tendant. And I think um Councilman Plechish said that most elegant elegant eloquently. Um so I think the conclusion that Swanson's deserve a variance is is is pretty clear that that's I think we can all agree to that. So this brings up the question of what what is the adverse effect on Constantino's the 549 Harrington's view? um pretty much a subjective call. I think the code is fairly vague on it. Um but it does say if you affect the view of the lake or lake shore. Um many I felt many of the diagrams um originating from the side or angle from the Constantino's house. I'm wondering if this is the intent of the code to have the side view of the house uh considered part of the view the view corridor. Um um and to note which I think one other person mentioned the views of the new house are only relevant if it causes an adverse effect on the view of the lake and lake shore. Um, what's unique about this situation is Constantino's house is kind of set at an angle to the southwest a little bit. Could we pull up the one with the uh red triangles? That might be the easiest one to talk about this. And um that um the um if you cons well actually not you have to look at one of the other other ones that shows both houses. Sorry, I lost my train of thought. Yeah. Okay. So because of the lay of the land, uh, Constantino's house is a little bit more southwest than this land is facing, which is facing a little bit northeast because of that point there. Um, we kind of determined that the setback that well, I want to say that the Swanson's approach to maximizing the neighbor's view with a U-shaped setback is, I think, creative and considerate. Um uh let's see. Um I stood at both properties several times and envisioned the viewscapes. There may be minor and inconvenient and distant view obstructions of the lake, but not something that I believe to have a significant significant adverse effect on the incredible lake views that 549 Harrington already has. So I'm inclined to be in favor of this variance. I um I'm worried that the the lot does not become buildable. I believe that the setbacks maybe aren't um are going to be too draconian. Um I believe there is a practical difficulty here. Um you know, we have one neighbor that's to the to the north that is completely supportive of this. We have another neighbor who's vehemently opposed. It's it's a difficult situation. And um as I said before, I really wish they had come together and worked this out on their own, but sometimes that doesn't work out. So um I'm inclined to support this variance because I think it's reasonable and I think there are um difficulties that are going to be insurmountable if we have to move back. And I don't think we can sit here and negotiate that. um set back here tonight to you know that has to be done outside of here. So those are my thoughts. >> Uh thank you Mr. Parkill. Um if you could go back a planner to the slide that lays out the reasoning for approving or denying a variance. So where yeah right so so I first have a question for our city attorney um that kind of draws into the line of question or statements that you made Mr. Parkill. We don't have the authority to, you know, come up with a different lat line and and rule on it, right? I mean, that's that's not within our purview. Correct. >> That's correct, mayor. >> So, what that would require is the parties to, you know, try to work it out and then come back, uh, you know, and certainly there's no requirement for them to do that. It's at their discretion. So, um, you know, this boy, the 17 years I've been doing this, the these are sticky wickets for a lot of reasons. um uh you're forced when you're sitting up here to apply subjective and objective criteria. And when you get into the subjective, it gets gray. And subjective criteria is the hardest thing to rule on. Objective criteria tends to be easier because it's like, oh, it's more black and white, I guess, in my view. Um uh I guess I'd go back to uh page um uh f uh 383 of our packet which uh outlines the findings of fact that the planning commission came up on a 4 to1 vote um you know supporting this variance. So so I'm just going to paraphrase but but the setback is greater than 75 ft from the ordinary high water mark on the property. The setback will not adversely impact views of the shoreline or the lake. doesn't say grass or you know whatever it talks about the shoreline and the lake right the adjacent neighboring principal structures as noted below the reduction of the setback requirements associated with the shoreline setback variances based on a specific need and circumstances which is unique to the property in the shape and orientation of the lot at a bend in the shoreline pause there for a second go back to the schematic that Mr. Park Hill had um looking at the the you know sort of the shoreline right so where you had the green uh box showing okay so so I don't know I look at this and I see a bend right it clearly has a bend in it that is a consideration that we need to take into account um also then if you can um move back to the schematic that shows the the lines the trees, uh, the slope. So, uh, the submission and approval of a shoreline impact as required and set forth in section 991.19 of the zoning ordinance shall be a condition of approval. So, uh, if this was to move forward, you know, uh, they're recommending and I would support um, you know, having that shoreline impact plan to run with the land. Um, so then the conditions of this would then have to be met. go back to the slide that that lays out you know the rationale right so the rationale that we have to consider all right so is is the proposed consistent with the comp plan I believe it is um is the variance reasonable I believe it is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property yes and not created by the landowner yes would the variance alter the essential character of the locality economic considerations alone shall not constitute a practical difficulty So where you get into subjective is you know the viewscape of the shoreline and the lake and then you know the essential character of the locality right those are subjective criteria which are hard to figure out. Last economic considerations alone shall not constitute practical difficulty that goes both ways uh you know it cannot be solely considered to approve it. We can't say that financial harm is a sole sole consideration to not approve it right because that's not within our purview. It's it's it's a guideline. Um so so I'm leaning on approving this variance uh for all the reasons I've stated. Um you know litigation unfortunately it's uh part of uh the due course of business in Wisetta recently um which is really sad in a lot of ways. I don't judge anyone who pursues their rights. I'm a very prrop rights individual. That doesn't mean I'm prodevelopment. it means I'm pro property rights and the stakes are high uh on both sides. Um if wherever we go tonight, you know, both parties are going to walk out of here, uh you know, could be disappointed, right? So, um you know, I'm leaning in support of this. Um and so, uh I guess where we go now is it's it's sort of hard for me to read one vote. >> Can I make one more comment? Absolutely. When you're ready. Yeah. No, for sure. So, so absolutely we can have further comments. Um, I'm very open to that. Um, it's not like I get the last word by any means. Um, so I'm I'm having some difficulty reading. Obviously, we're going to have to go through a a process of, you know, for or against and see if it prevails, but I still welcome additional comments. Miss McDonald. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um I I appreciate your comments about subjective and objective and it I I agree that is a difficult part of this role but I would I would like to make two comments on the idea of something being reasonable and I think that's somewhat subjective as well and I watch the planning commission really grapple with that question. Is this reasonable? And I I think there was even I read I went back and found the the comment for Commissioner Severson that there sure >> it didn't feel reasonable. And I I just want to remind this body and and the planning commission that >> if we think the applicant can do better, then we only have one option and that is to vote no. and they they have every right to come back to us with something that we would deem reasonable because clearly I think even heming and hawing is showing that we're not some of us aren't sure of of that reasonleness. So, I I just I I always like to remind because I think people forget that this isn't anyone's last chance and um >> that they can come back. >> Sure. Mr. Sorenson, >> I'm assuming you wanted to say something. You you sort of raise your hand. You don't have to. >> Um no, I'm fine. Okay. >> I'd like to. >> Mr. could you pull up the slide that's an aerial view that shows the homes both to the south and along the north that shows the shoreline. >> Yeah, that there. So, you know, we get I think we get caught up in lines and lot lines and setbacks and things like that in the abstract, but if you look at the the reality of what's there, if you look at the the just just take a look at the three 549, 553, 557, maybe 559, they kind of line pretty much straight across. And there's no problem with that. If you look at 547, you've suddenly made a turn along the shoreline and it's kind of a different line. So, if you took 547 and a 543 that would have been more reasonably located if the if the uh lot had allowed it and looked at uh the next uh the next two homes up, you'd see that they kind of line up would line up in another different way. Okay? and and that would be reasonable if you were uh living there or if you're boating by that kind of lineup would be reasonable. So if you if you look at 547 and essentially what they're proposing is where that house is right now, you can see that it really doesn't line up very well. Whereas if you pushed it back just a bit to what I think I really believe that the parties would come to this agreement, they would sit down. I am sure they would sit down and say, "Yeah, that actually makes sense." and uh and push it back a little bit further and you'd have a a neighborhood that was more aligned evenly. And that I think is the point of the ordinance in the first place. I truly believe if we denied this, it's not an end. It's the beginning of a dialogue which will come back to us in short order with both parties saying that's a pretty good plan. I'm convinced of that. So for those that you're tending toward but not quite sure, Ken, I would argue in your direction. Thank you. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Puckish. I'll just offer one other comment from my perspective uh on this slide. Uh and it sort of echoes some comments that uh council member Sorenson made. If you if you look to the rear of the property, there's this little thin line which I think is a retaining wall or or a slope. And so I I I guess this is a question to staff and also to the to the city attorney. Okay, trees are an implication, but also if you push it back and you can't put on the pad, you have to put significant fill in. And I'm quite certain that that fill would be more than 2 feet, which is the standard that we would have to require an additional I don't know what you call it, Mr. City attorney condition consideration. Uh, mayor. Yeah, I I think uh >> and we're talking hypothetical because it's not even before us to move it back, >> right? Just to answer your question, I think city council's approval when is required when the grade changes by more than what, Mike? >> An average two feet over the entirety of the lot. >> Yeah. So, if the change is required that an additional approval would be needed, but that's pretty speculative as to whether >> No, for sure. And and we're all being a little speculative here on hypotheticals that are not even before us. So, so I I I don't think it's, you know, I think your argument is very sound and and I I do uh I think the argument on the other side of it is equally sound and it comes down to a judgment call to the best of our ability to make a judgment call and a finding of facts. Um meaning up or down with a finding of facts to support up or down and you know that's our job and I know we'll do it tonight. >> Um so with that I'd offer any other comments before I I >> Yes. Uh, manager Kelly, when we approved that grading request at Minnotonka Boulevard and 101. >> Yeah, Minnitankka Avenue. >> Minnitanka Avenue and 101. No, excuse me. Boulevard. Yeah. >> Um, >> do you recall how many feet that was? I I was amazed as someone who walks by that every day that you could fill in that kind of >> which really opened my eyes to what can be done. >> My recollection, Council Member uh McDonald, Mayor Council, uh one lot was approximately five or six feet and one was eight or nine feet. Yeah, >> smaller lots in comparison to these, but average over the lot was approximately six on one and we'll say eight or nine on the other. >> Yeah. And and you know, just to clarify my point, I'm not saying it's not possible. I'm saying it's an additional consideration as is uh cutting down trees, which we have a fairly restrictive tree ordinance. And so again, they're all hypotheticals because what is before us tonight, >> right, >> is what the variance shows, not the hypothetical. And I understand your point, Mr. P. They're saying if we deny it, it likely will come back. I don't know if it will or not. >> I think it just nods to the the reasonableness that that's why I'm not a builder. I'm not an engineer. I don't go out to these properties and try to judge. Um that's a thing that I feel more comfortable with than going to um people's homes as as a woman to be honest. So I don't I don't go out to people's homes. So, so let's just uh keep the audience comments, please. Um, >> so go ahead. I wanted to cut off the audience. >> I appreciate that. So, I I just think um none of us are professionals or maybe one of us has been one, but um >> yeah, >> to me that >> fair enough, >> Mr. Swornson. >> Well, that's a steep enough hill. I don't think it's a you know, Phil is going to get you is a reasonable solution. I am a builder and an engineer and I I think building over there it's just it's not feasible and that's part of the rationale of pushing this back. I think you know creates a lot situation that um that would be problematic to someone buying this lot. I mean there's arguments on all sides here and there's good arguments on all sides and I would like to even think no matter where we came down on this there might be some rationale for the parties to get together because if we approve this I think it'll work fine. Um and if we if we approve this and that line got a little farther back I think it still work fine. Um, but I'm kind of just going by the conditions and the standards and the criteria we're given and trying to apply it and um, you know, I'm inclined to vote to approve this. So, okay. So, I think we've had a very good deliberation uh on all sides of this issue. Um, where we need to go now is, you know, someone needs to make an emotion approving or denying. Um, and I would I would uh respectfully request that they do their best to articulate uh the findings of fact that support uh support that rationale one way or the other and then we can we can then vote on that and I'm going to force a roll call vote either way. Um and we go from there. Um >> uh not without filling out a card. Um yeah. Well, I I'm I'm I'm You kind of missed your chance in the process there. there was a chance to fill out a card early. Um, more or less it is too late at this time, sir. Um, so I I respectfully, you know, want to follow our process and we have due process and, you know, I'm trying to follow it. So, so I would bring it back, Mr. Mr. City Attorney. >> Yeah, Mr. Mayor, just a few thoughts on process. So, I I appreciate your comments about findings of fact that support your decision. That's super important. Um, this is teed up right now with findings in the planning commission report that that support approval of the variance. So, you know, just in terms of procedure, it might be good to entertain that recommended motion before you, which is based on the planning commission's finding. If that doesn't, if that motion fails and uh I might ask for a motion to direct staff to come back with an alternative resolution where we can prepare the findings based on the >> uh deliberations. >> Exactly. Exactly. I just want you to have a good legal foundation either way. >> Fair enough. I I uh I'm very open to that. So, uh, based on city attorney's guidance, I would accept a motion approving, uh, the adoption of resolution 352025, approving a shoreline setback variance at 478547 Harrington Road, making reference to the section 3 in the planning commission report uh, 31 A B C D E sub.1 2 3 4 5 6, which I read into the record previously. If you'd like me to read those findings of fact into the record again, I'm happy to. >> No, Mr. Mayor, that's unnecessary. We do have reference in the resolution to the findings of the planning commission. So, I think you're covered there. Thanks. >> I would accept a motion um approving uh the the resolution approving uh the variance. >> I have a question. >> Yes, sir. >> Does that include the uh restrictions that planning commission recommended? The shoreline setback and the >> Yes, it would. the um the shoreline setback and the >> the triangles. Yes. The the way the the resolution defines a setback includes those triangles. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Does that answer your question? >> Yes. Okay. So moved. >> So okay, so moved. I need a second. >> Second. >> Further discussion. Hearing none. I'll ask the city manager to call a roll call vote, please. >> I'm randomizing this alphabetically today. >> Council member McDonald. >> Nay. Council member Parkhill, >> I. >> Council member Pleish, >> no. >> Council member Sorenson, >> I. >> Mayor Mullen, >> I. Uh, that motion prevails. Um, so we've been here since 4:30 uh this afternoon. Um, we have another media issue. I'm going to request a two to three minute one break to return and then Jeff, I'll ask you to come back so I can talk about that matter and then you're going to recuse yourself. >> Okay. So uh I would uh adjourn the meeting for two to three minutes. If you're going to have conversations, please have it in the hallway, not in this room. Please respect that. Um yep. So sorry. Thank you, Mr. Pish. We will recess for two to three minutes for one function break. Thank you, sir. Okay, we're coming back after a short recess. Um, next on our agenda is item E, uh, considering the appointment of a new, uh, member to fill the vacancy, uh, expiring, uh, December 31st, 2026. M for Mr. Parkhill. Um due to our charter, I'm going to ask Mr. Park to recuse himself from these conversations. You're welcome to sit in the chamber, but not at the dis for this next item. Um I'm going to do my best to tee this up and then uh allow uh both uh city manager and city attorney to offer any additional guidance based on where we're at. So, uh Mr. Parkhill um is vacating his seat. Um his he noticed his resignation some time ago. uh we met uh in a workshop earlier this year to determine what process we would uh proceed with to appoint uh you know someone to to assume the remainder of Mr. Parkhill's term. Uh the consensus reached at that workshop was we were going to open up the process, notice it and allow for all eligible applicants to put forward their name to be considered. Uh there was a notice period, it went out. Um, we received five applications which I I know Mike you'll go through, but I just want to step forward to kind of how we're going to go through this tonight. Um, once uh we get a presentation from city manager and any further comments from city attorney, the process we're going to use tonight is is a ballot system, which means uh we will first uh offer uh any commentary that uh anyone would like to make based on reviewing the applications and the interviews um that were conducted earlier this evening. So we received five applications with very detailed uh specifics to our specification of what was in those applications. We entered for interviewed formally four out of the five candidates this evening and then now we're bringing it back for formal action this evening. Um each each uh uh person will receive a ballot with all five names on it. The council person's name is at the top of the ballot. Um and those will be uh provided to our city manager and will be read with the council member's indication without uh specifying who voted. The reason for that is this is a uh decision uh that is uh you know about personnel etc. Um but I will note that these ballots are in the public record. Uh they will be noted with everyone's uh preference for each round of voting if it requires more than one round. that is available to the public at any time and can be requested via our city clerk. With that said, um again, we're going to have a presentation from city manager, any comments from uh our city attorney. Uh then we will move it back to the dis for a discernment process where we can make comments about candidates if we wish to. We're not forced to. And then we'll move to to to the ballot process that I just outlined. Mr. City Manager. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council. Uh Mr. Mayor has covered most of the things that we had in our presentation. I'm going to just cover them very briefly to make sure we all understand how we're moving forward. Council member Parkhill did submit his intent to uh resign on August 4th, effective following this meeting this evening. Uh his term is set to expire at the end of 2026. Our charter lays out a process on the replacement. As Mr. mayor uh had explained the council chose to move forward with an open uh application process. You followed through with that application process tonight with interviews at our workshop of five candidates. Those five candidates included Adam Elg, Bonnie Schwabby, Dr. Charles Yansy, Dan Cook, and Clauddio Hoffetter were the five applicants. We interviewed four of them. Mr. Hoffetter unfortunately is out of town. Next slide, please. As Mr. Mayor has already suggested and has done to start this process, Council Member Parkhill has recused himself from the vote via our the requirements of our charter. We're going to move forward with those balloted votes. If a two tie occurs after three rounds of voting, the mayor has the final determination per our charter. Again, this term will begin as soon as some training and October 7th and swearing in um and will expire on December 31st of 2026. Just for reference, the appointee is not obligated to run for office as we move forward. We will move forward to votes. We will ask for once those votes are and a consensus is determined. Last slide. We will ask for a motion to appoint said consensus. >> Okay. Mr. City Attorney, any further commentary? >> Yeah, if I Oh, sorry. >> Yeah, I just one more thing. Oh, I thought you were >> I thought of it as a just at last second. As Mr. Mayor mentioned, you have ballots in front of you. We have enough ballots in front of you should there need to be multiple votes. Um, I will ask that you when when called make your vote pass them to our city attorney who will pass them to me and I will read them. Okay. Uh, any questions of staff or city attorney at this time? Okay. So, I'll bring it back to the council for discernment process. Uh, you don't are required to say anything. Again, we we reviewed five applications. We had four interviews. Uh, everyone can offer commentary if they wish to. You can remain silent if you wish to. I'm going to just say uh a couple things. One, I'm grateful that we had five uh citizens step forward. All of them had tremendous uh qualities and attributes that that that made them both eligible and worthy of serving. Um and um if if your name does not get called tonight, I I would strongly encourage you to continue to be involved in our process. There will be appointments at your end for for several positions uh planning commission h other places that you can serve and uh all of us have served on multiple boards um over the years and and here uh on council with that um again I'll give an opportunity anyone else to make any comments before we move to a to a voting ballot process. >> Yeah, go ahead, Miss McDonald. Uh I I enjoyed listening and reading applications from the applicants and and chatting with them briefly this a this afternoon or early evening. Um, I just wanted to tell this group up here that I am weighing heavy heavily on the person who best understands what the role is and that in my opinion is to represent the residents of Voiceetta. So, I'm looking at experience, but I'm also looking at applicants who really emphasized listening. >> Thank you, Miss McDonald. Any other comments? Okay. So, basically, we'll give you time to write down, fold your piece of paper, pass it to the right, uh, and then, um, then the city attorney will take those. Thank you. Mr. Mayor C, Mayor and Council, we have a consensus for Dan Cook with three votes and Dr. Charles Yansy with one vote. >> Thank you. So, with that, um, I would accept a motion to appoint, uh, Dan Cook to fill the council vacancy expiring December 31st, 2026. >> Would like to make that motion? >> I would make that motion, Mr. Mayor. >> Thank you. Could I have a second? Thank you. Any further discussion? All in favor say I. >> I. >> Those opposed? Um, hearing none. So, so, uh, Mr. Cook is now appointed to begin his term again. and returning to the council um October 7th if everything falls into place. With that, I would invite Mr. Parkill to return to the dis as we conclude our meeting with um city manager report and discussion items. We'll just give one second here, Mike, for him to get back up here. >> Weird out there. >> Welcome back. >> Welcome back. Welcome back. >> Welcome back. Okay. So, so the next item is on the city manager report. Before you um do that, Mike, I have a couple items that I want to talk about. Uh and then I'll let you comment on those if they're not already included in your city manager report. Um one thing that uh was uh communicated in our city newsletter this week and it was relayed actually from county commissioner Eden at the county. Um, you know, as we uh noted tonight, our preliminary levy was set at 7 and a half% which accounts for 19% of every tax dollar. 39% of every tax dollar collected in Weisetta relates to the county. Their preliminary lever levy was uh I'm sorry, 34% of your bill. I I misstated that. Uh they their preliminary levy was 7.79%. The remaining portion is made up of the school district at 39% which uh has a prelim prelim preliminary levy of 4% with an anticipated referendum coming though on on top of that. So it's a little bit misleading that that it's 4% but a likely referendum next year. Um and then the other tax authorities are 8%. Uh the other key factor in in determining your property tax is the value of your home which determines your prata share in tax burden. Weisetta experienced the highest residential property value increase in our district. Uh residential property values in district 6 by city. Weisetta was at 14.3%. Minnitanka Beach 12.8, Greenland at 12 12%, Deep Haven at 8.3 and the other cities in the county district increased at 4% or less with Hopkins, Mound, Tonka Bay, and Woodland remaining flat. This increase in Weisetta is happening while the commercial values on the eastern side of the county are dropping off precipitously pushing the PR rata burden our way. So why am I bringing this up? One for disclosure but second I was not aware of this and Commissioner Eden encouraged us to to promote this. Um so with regard to this um there's a tax credit that may apply to you. Uh Minnesota's special property tax refund, often called the targeting refund, is available for homeowners whose property taxes increased by more than 12%. And by at least $100 compared to the previous year. Many NYATA will likely be eligible in pay 26. Um so the details of the refund, it equals 60% of the tax increased above the 12% threshold and the maximum refund is 1,000 per household. Here was the thing that I didn't understand. For this particular tax credit, income is not a factor. Any homeowner that uh meets the criteria I outlined um can apply for that uh uh refund. So, homeowners can apply using form M1PR, which stands for property tax refund, which is available through the Minnesota Department of Revenue. Applications for payable 26 are typically due by August 15, 2026. Residents can apply by filing online or by mail. Uh I'm not going to state the URL. Um we can put it in the record and it is in the city newsletter. Um so just wanted to make that statement because I think it's going to be really important. And the thing that um the last comment I'll make is the 34% of your bill on average is going to increase your taxes by 22%. So again, these two levers are um when I say uh for the 34% of your bill. So the two levers are valuation and absolute dollar spent. And on average, that will be a 22% bond for your county portion of your bill. So I'm just trying to be uh transparent. Uh that's it. Uh the two questions that I had um Mr. City attorney relate to the Clapri Park project that I hope you can include in your remarks. Uh some of us here uh pressed uh you on uh the fire suppression overage and pressing uh our contractors to recoup the dollars associated with that error. And then second, um, we have an ongoing stream of feedback from from folks on Park Street with regard to landscaping. And, um, you know, the landscaping I I don't know if it's fully complete. It's close to fully complete. And um I just wanted to to relay some of the concerns that uh the arbravita that were added in the change order some some I'm not saying all don't find that arbravita to be sufficient to screen and they would prefer a larger uh tree as is further to the west. I'm just relaying that feedback with that. I will be quiet and I will let you do your report. >> Thank you Mr. Mayor. I'll start by responding to your two questions regarding the fire suppression and the landscaping fire suppression. Uh we have begun the process uh in concert with our city attorney's office uh in preparing a letter and reviewing the contracts. We have with the uh architect that prepared the drawings for the warming house. Uh we intend to send that letter out shortly. The reason I say it hasn't been sent out yet. Um, we're still evaluating as the building is under construction whether or not there are any other items that may need to be included in the letter. Uh, so that we're covering all of our basis. Uh, that being said, I will let you know that we received this morning some change orders regarding the warming house, primarily related to the foundation as they were preparing the ground for the foundation of the um the new walls. uh poor soil conditions. Uh so they're looking to enhance those soil conditions. I haven't evaluated um the dollar amounts yet. I will say that time is of the essence. I would like direction if that's at all possible to move forward with the work that needs to happen as we evaluate not only the costs uh but the funding sources for those. So want to make you aware that there are some changes. I need to understand the magnitude and whether or not some may be included back with this letter that you stated regarding fire suppression. Okay. >> Secondly, regarding landscaping, the majority of the spaded trees that council had authorized uh as part of our option two uh landscaping at the top of the hill to assist with the screening that was lost with the dead spruces. Uh the that that landscaping is complete. Um, as the mayor had mentioned, not everyone is completely pleased with it. They are newer plantings. They will grow over time. Um, I know that that's an expectation not only from the council, but from some of our residents, and it's tough to see them initially planted. Um, I do believe that there are some gaps that we could address. Not only uh the mayor but um parks and environment planner Kezer have also commented to the residents along Park Street that as we feel that that is more complete, we will evaluate it and consider some additional landscaping to try to address some of those pockets that still may have opportunities for closure. Is that enough to answer those questions? Okay. Um I only have three quick things. Uh, I not only want to remind the council but remind the public um that this Friday we will be having interviews of three city manager recruitment firms that will be held by our uh city council uh to determine the firm that will best represent the city of Weisetta in searching for a permanent city manager replacement. The goal following those interviews would be to narrow it down to one or two for discussion at likely the October 7th council meeting and a consideration of a selection. Uh second item I have on my list is a reminder of our neighborhood engagement meeting that we have on October 6th. Uh that will be held in Margaret Circle Park. Uh we have several staff members that will be attending as well as the mayor and the any council members that are interested. Uh it is primarily the neighborhood that's located north of Highway 12, Ridgeview Drive, Margaret Circle, Harmony Circle, and that northern area. Uh lastly, I do want to remind you of the uh October 9th chamber person of the the year lunchon. Uh if you would like to attend and haven't already informed myself or Kathy Lervig, please let me know. We'd be happy to sign you up for that. And with that, that's all I've got. >> What's the date on that again? >> October 9th, Thursday. >> Okay. Any questions of uh city manager? Um I just have one last comment and uh you know, I want to uh thank my colleague Jeff Parkill again for his uh you know, excellent service to the city of Weisetta. Um, you know, we're going to miss you, pal, and uh we wish you and your family well. Um, as you stated in your open house, it's the season of losing Jeff's. Um, and um, you know, as as Mike uh, city manager stated, you know, we will be selecting a firm. We will encourage internal and external candidates to apply for for the permanent position. We anticipate that formally to be posted, you know, sometime after or near to the October 7th next council meeting where we'll select a recruitment firm and begin that process. And so, you know, I I know uh I don't speak for everyone up here, but I will amplify that everyone up here, you know, in in decisions of replacing uh this Jeff and the other Jeff, we take it very seriously. Um we we will look uh to to try to breast bring in the best city manager whether it be an internal candidate or external candidate to be our next city manager. And um with that uh I guess we can uh go home. Uh and I would accept Well, no. First of all, are there any uh on teams for the uh public commentary? >> There is not. >> So I would next accept a motion to adjourn tonight's meeting. Maybe Mr. Parkhill, you you you deserve that one. No, we can't a jury. >> Are you going to filibuster? >> Filibuster. I'm going to start reading Charles Dickens or something. >> All right. >> No. Uh, I would like to make that motion. Mayor, >> thank you, sir. Can I have a second? >> I'll second. >> Thank you, Mr. Pleish. Any further discussion? All in favor say I. The meeting's adjourned.