Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I am going to call the meeting of the Forest Lake Planning Commission to order. The date is April 8th, 2026, and the time is 6 p.m. If you're here for the public hearing and wish to speak, please add your address and your name to the sign-in sheet at the table at the rear of the room. Roll call of commissioners. Mike, could you call the role? >> Uh, Commissioner Applic >> here. >> Commissioner Goodwin >> here. >> Commissioner Steeler >> here. >> Commissioner Wagner >> here. >> Commissioner Young >> here. >> Vice Chair Cinder >> here. >> And Chair Gerard >> absent. >> Thank you. >> If you could please rise if you're able and join me in the pledge of allegiance. >> I pledge algiance to the flag of United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> First item is approval of the agenda. >> Mr. Vice Chair, I move to approve the agenda as stated. >> I have a motion to approve the agenda. Do I have a second? >> Uh Steeler will second. I have a a motion and a second. All in favor, please approve. >> I >> I. Anyone opposed? >> Motion passes. All right, we've hit open forum. Uh we will now open open forum. This is an opportunity for residents to speak on an item not on tonight's agenda. Please limit your comments to three minutes. Is there anybody that like to step up to the mic for the open forum this evening? just let them know that >> I'd like to propose that are the builders here. >> Are the builders of this? >> This is open forum. If you're here for one of the agenda items that are on the agenda, please wait till the agenda is the agenda is brought forward. The item is brought forward. This is for open forum for anybody any residents to speak on any topic other than the agenda items. Anyone to speak? Anyone to speak? Seeing no one, we'll close open forum for the evening and move on. The consent agenda consideration. The next item is the consent agenda. Does any of the commissioners wish to remove any items from the consent agenda for separate consideration this evening? Seeing none, if not, I would entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda. All those in favor signify by I. >> I think we need a motion. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Stealer will make a motion to motion the I have a motion. >> Young will second >> and a second. All in favor signify by I. >> I. >> Anyone opposed? >> Okay. The consent agenda is approved. All right, moving on to the regular agenda. On the regular agenda for tonight, we'll be hosting three public hearings uh to briefly outline the process. Staff will present their report and recommendations and response to questions from the commission. This is followed by applicant's opportunity to speak and respond to questions and then there'll be an open public hearing for testimony. If you wish to speak, please sign in on the sheet at the table near the door. When when called, please come to the podium, state your name, address for the record, limit your comments to about 3 minutes. Please direct your comments to the commissioners and keep them respectful. We understand there may be strong opinion, but comments should remain civil and focused on the application and the decision at hand. If your comments are simply to in agreement with the previous statement, you are welcome to state that briefly for the record rather than repeating the full statement. The first item on the regular agenda is 7A is a variance and pimity plat re uh related to the Forest View estate development. With that, I invite Stephen to begin your report this evening. One second. We're getting it loaded up. Okay, good. >> Good evening, chair and commissioners. Before we begin, I want to acknowledge that this proposal has generated a significant amount of interest and concern from nearby residents, particularly related to access, traffic, and public safety. Those are important considerations and they are important part of the record the commission will be weighing tonight. Ultimately, the commission's decision must be based on the variance criteria in city code section 152.035, which focus on property conditions and the required findings for approval. Staff's role is to evaluate the request against those standards that present the analysis to support your decision. As part of that review, the proposed layout was shared with both the fire chief and police chief. Neither identified significant concerns at this stage related to service provision. At the same time, residents have expressed concerns about how access may function in practice. Those perspectives are part of the record and appropriate for consideration. With that, I'll walk through the proposal and the key issues. There are two actions tonight for the proposed development. A preliminary plat, which is a recommendation to the city council, and a variance request for culde-sac length, which is a decision of this body. This is also a public hearing item. So after the presentation, the commission will take public testimony before any action is considered. The proposal includes 20 single family lots on a 15.85 acre site with a net density of approximately 1.66 units per acre. The development is consistent with the con comprehensive plan and zoning standards including lot size setbacks in use. The only standard that cannot be met is the maximum culde culde-sac length which requires a variance before you tonight. Because the recommendation on the preliminary plot is largely dependent on the outcome of the variance request, this presentation will primarily focus on the culde-sac length and the associated variance. This property has a long planning history and that context is important. Based on our research of township records, the site was originally proposed in 1978 as the third phase of the three-phase bittersweet subdivision. Development was delayed due to questions regarding sewer capacity in the township which required an update to the comprehensive plan. Phase one was approved in 1987 with phase two and three included as concepts. At that time, phase three was proposed as 35 lots. Phase two was approved in 1993 with phase three reflecting a refined concept of 31 lots. Here's a map showing the three phases of the bittersweet development. In 1997, phase three was proposed for development. This is the same parcel that had been identified as bittersweet suite 3 in the earlier proposals from 1978, 1987, and 1993. While the property itself remained unchanged, the proposed density was reduced from 35 lots in 1987 to 31 lots in the early 1990s down to 28 lots in 1997. At that time, as with today, the primary issue identified was the length of the culde-sac. A variance was required and concerns were raised related to access and public safety. Residents also expressed concerns about the single point of access and requested that a future connection be provided before additional development occurred. Those same issues, access, safety, and culde-sac length remain central to the discussion today. The current proposal reflects a continued reduction in intensity from earlier concepts of up to 35 lots down to 20 lots today. To help visualize why this issue has persisted over time, the graphic shows the physical constraints infecting the site. The property is bordered by Cooland Camp Park to the south and southeast with wetlands associate and associate buffer areas extending across portions of the souththeast and northeast sides of the site. Existing residential development is located to the west and undeveloped parcels lie to the north. There is a single existing point of access from the intersection of 231st and henna. Although the future connection to the north may occur with additional development, that connection is not available today and is outside the applicant's control. If I could get this start. Given these conditions, the street layout is driven by the site's physical Everybody's on their edge of their seat. Sites physical configuration surrounding land uses and environmental constraints. Under current conditions, a compliant culde-sac length cannot be achieved. Those constraints are what staff evaluated in applying the variance criteria. This slide summarizes the variance criteria. The commission must apply under 152035. Enacting on a variance. Enacting on a variance. I'll figure this out. Enacting on a variance. The city must consider the the nature of the proposed land use, the existing uses in the surrounding area, the number of people who will reside in the subdivision, and the probable effect of the subdivision on traffic conditions in the vicinity. The code also states that hardship relating to economic difficulties is not a basis for granting a variance. This slide connects the request directly to the required findings in 152035. The site has special circumstances and unique conditions including limited access surrounding parcel configuration, wetlands and adjacency to cooling camp park. Because of those conditions, strict application of the culde-sac length standard would deprive the property of reasonable use for permitted residential development. The requested variance results from a physical hardship tied to the configuration of the site and the lack of available access connections. The hardship is not created by the applicant, but instead results from the existing physical physical conditions of the property. Staff also evaluated whether granting the variance would be detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare are injurious to nearby property. Based on review by the city engineer, fire chief, and police chief, no such impacts were identified at this stage, subject to compliance with city standards and conditions. The request does not increase flood hazard or flood damage potential. And finally, the variance does not allow a use that is otherwise permitted uh otherwise not permitted by the zoning code. Approval of the variance does not constitute final construction approval. The project would still be subject to final plat review, engineering approval, and permitting. Conditions of approval must be satisfied before development can proceed. The variance decision specifically addresses the culde-sac length standard. This outlines a decision framework for the commission. The commission must determine whether each of the required findings in 152035 can be supported based on the record. This includes whether there are unique conditions affecting the property, whether strict application would deprive reasonable use, whether the request avoids harm to public health, safety, and surrounding property, whether there is no increase in flood risk, whether the hardship is physical and not self-created, and whether the re the request does not introduce a prohibited use. The evaluation is based on these findings, not whether the situation is ideal. I want to briefly summarize what the commission is being asked to consider. For the variance, the question is whether the request meets these required find the required findings in 152035, including whether exceptional undue hardship exists due to the property. This determination is based on whether those criteria can be met, not whether the condition is ideal. For the preliminary plat, the commission is being asked to consider whether the proposal is consistent with the city's adopted plans and development standards with the exception of the requested variance. If the project were to move forward, it would still be subject to conditions including engineering, drainage, and storm water requirements, as well as agency permits and final plat approval. Staff's recommendation is based on how the request aligns with the required findings in 152035 and the applicable development standards. After that, I'll stop. Uh the applicant is here uh if you have any questions. Do you have any questions for staff? >> Commissioners, any questions for staff? >> Since we have such a large audience, do you want to explain to everyone the the process regarding what we do whether it's approved or denied and the appeal process that is available after that. So essentially what you would be approving tonight what the decision that would be made tonight would be on the variance uh with that variance that decision is is the decision as we go forward if it wants to be appealed it could be appealed to the city council. Uh the recommendation for the preliminary plat is being uh is just a recommendation to the city council for their review. Um but the variance is the lynch pin uh related to this discussion >> and any interested party can appeal. >> Any interested party can appeal either side. Thank you. >> And the applicant is here. Please step forward. State your name and your address. >> The floor is yours, sir. >> Yeah. Jerem Johnson, 2170 For Bay Drive, Forest Lake. Um I'm the proposed developer. And uh I've known about the property for quite some time. Mr. Mike Musky and his family have owned the property for years. and uh brought to my attention years ago that I'd be a good fit for developing it. Um some of you know me, some of you don't. I own guidance homes builder in Forest Lake and I thought it'd be a good fit for the community to bring the homes that I build to the area. Um I'm not trying to slam in a project of higher density. Um what I'm proposing is what I think the best fit for that area. um be nice houses like I said lower density than what we could have applied for and uh you know just want to be friends with the neighborhood. So you know that's that's what I do building for 25 years my dad and I. So um yeah any other questions I guess go ahead and ask. >> When you purchased the property did you know that it had of the the history of the development attempts? I knew that. I'm learning that more. Um, but uh I I see the uh the anxiety out there with the neighbors, but I also know there's other areas in Forest Lake that have had the same issues and larger issues than this. There are developments have been approved that are longer called the Saxs um that were approved easily. Um, I I think the issue here is that people have been living here for a long time. So, it's a bigger issue than a new development around the corner. >> Could you give me an example of some that are longer than the stretch between Henna and the end of your proposed development? >> Well, Forest Hills Preserve, um, what's that development over there? The golf course. >> Can you speak into the microphone? They're having a hard time hearing. forest Hills preserve next to that that new development Eternity was in. Um that's one Itasa is another one that was years ago and that's I believe a longer road than than this opinion. Um but yeah, from the from the research I've done and and the people I've talked to that this isn't abnormal for Forest Lake and uh we don't see a reason to say no. and and it was approved years ago and I think there was a lot of people that just were really combative of it and they gave up unfortunately. So I'm doing the right thing I think than having someone down the road that would try to jam it through a different person than me a different builder that would succeed with higher density. Forest Lake wants development. I believe we need it and uh I'm trying to do the right thing by not getting maximum density, increase traffic and uh you know try and do the right thing. So >> any additional questions from the commissioners? >> What price point are you looking at for these houses? >> I'd like to say affordable housing, but that's doesn't exist for something like this. Um but realistically 700 to a million plus. >> Okay. for the for the, you know, lot and home. You know, we're not going to force $2 million houses in there, but I'm not going to come and try to do something that doesn't fit the area either. Um, for sales preserve, if you guys know my development, uh, you know, nice houses, that's that's working. Uh, we're not slamming out like LAR or PY would. Uh, but that's not my goal. So, want to bring nice houses community and it'll take a little time to do that. Um, but yeah, I don't want to underscore other builders and I'd also don't want to pretend that we're doing something that shouldn't be done in Forest Lake. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions from commissioners? >> Oh, from commissioners. Okay. Thank you, sir. >> Good. Thank you. Appreciate you being here tonight. All right. We will now hold a public hearing for the variance of polymer plat related to the forest view estate development. We will begin with those who have signed in to speak. I will call your name in order. When called please come forward to the microphone, state your name and address for the record and limit your comments to three minutes. After we've gone through the signin list, I will ask if anyone else wishes to speak. If if so, please come forward to the podium, state your name, address, and you will be given the same opportunity to comment. With that, I will now open the public hearing at 6:18. First person on the list tonight is Andrew and Rebecca Wolf. Please step forward, state your name, and you have the floor address. >> My name is Andrew Wolf. I live at 23073 Hearth Avenue North, Forest Lake. and my wife and I have lived in the neighborhood of Bittersweet 2 for 24 years and we've enjoyed the place. Um, before I start my prepared remarks, I'm going to address Stephen. Thank you very much for such a great synopsis and taking the notes from the previous meeting uh or the open forum. Um, as as I begin, I I do want to say that we do have a lot of concerns. Uh my concerns mainly are around the safety and the and the additional vehicle um increases, but I also want to point out that any development in this area is going to have an effect on the watershed whether guys want to admit it or not. There will be an effect on watershed and so flooding is also a concern. the increased vehicle um is the vehicle increase will be for 20 homes probably around 120 vehicles a day. Again, whether you guys want to admit a 20 home development is only 20 homes like the developer told us one other time, it's going to be increase of delivery vehicles, etc. I also would like to ask the uh building commission to um to consider not having any new assessments on the existing homes that are in the area. Whether or not there are assessments for infrastructure upgrades, infrastructure increases such as city water, sewer, or fire hydrants or repair of roads that will be damaged. I know the builder has previously stated that he will be taking the cost of uh increased roads. And then I would also like the commission to consider uh strongly consider especially after seeing the map of where the watershed effect is to uh build an access road rather than a culde-sac build an access road through the existing Cullen Camp Park. It does touch and there is a high area in there that a road could be developed and built right through to Cullen Camp and that would be the easiest path of resistance. And with that I'll conclude. Thank you. >> Thank you sir. Appreciate it. >> All right. Next on my list is Chad Bloomberg. Good evening everyone. I uh did prepare a a memorandum and I believe it was sent to each one of you. Uh is that correct? Do you have that in front of you? Perfect. Uh just for the record, my name is Chad Bloomberg. I reside at 7610 231 Street North. I've lived at this address since 1995 in which the Bittersweet 2 development was being constructed. As the city considers this similar variance in 2026, appears that Forest Lake is again is evaluating how far Culac may extend and still maintaining public safety. This re raises an important policy concern if development standards exist to guide safe and consistent growth. Under what circumstances should we be exceeding those? I respectfully ask the commission to consider the following conditions and data based on concerns before approving the variance. Street light and visibility. The street that we live on today, there's one street light at the corner of my property. Oh, I'm sorry, just offset my property. There is no other street lights. Often you will find that that street is completely dark. Increased traffic means additional safety concerns. Next is fire and emergency access. As we construct a longer culde-sac, that means a longer distance for emergency personnel. Um, with that, obviously, higher operational risk during peak uh occupancy hours is a concern. So, as a resident, a remote worker, I'm at my house all the time and all day long we have delivery trucks along with residents going in and out. I would assume based on the numbers that we saw earlier, that that would double. And that's unfortunate for not only the kids that play in the neighborhood, but those that walk in the neighborhood and those that enjoy the peaceful street. The third would be addressing the vehicle speed and traffic behavior. I would request that physical measures are such as speed humps to reduce average speeds more effectively than radar signage would be uh installed. And of course, all of this at the cost of the developer. Lastly, independent traffic study. A third party non-developer affiliated traffic study to conduct on what the daily traffic counts are, peak hour vehicle volumes, observe travel speeds, pedestrian bicycle activity, and nighttime visibility conditions. city sewer system capacity. I I I'm sorry I couldn't be at the original one. Can someone tell me are these plots going to have septic or will they be tapped into the sewer? >> They'll be they'll be tapped into the sewer. >> Does that current city sewer system have the capacity to take on additional houses? >> Any any cost required to ex expand capacities on the developer? >> Where does that city sewer currently um plumbed through? Is it the street that we all live on? >> Yes. >> So that would have to be possibly torn up to increase capacity. >> The piping size is sufficient to accommodate the additional homes on here. The existing infrastructure will not need to be um amended in any way. They'll just tie into the existing system that is stubbed off of the where it meets with Hilo or H Was there a study done? >> No, that is that we have the sur capacity that we do have that. >> Perfect. So, uh, lastly, just to conclude here, to ensure transparency, uh, to the public input, I respectfully ask you to look at other examples that were possibly, um, offered up tonight, uh, by Jiren Johnson, uh, to have real, um, data for those examples, feet measured, uh, number of homes served in those examples, uh, number of spacing and street lights in those examples, and speed limits. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. Uh, next on my list is David Coolingamp. David, the floor is yours. Hi there. I'm David Coolingamp. I live at 21 um 170 Hyo Avenue um which is couple houses away from this proposed development. Um I moved in about three years ago. Um came back to Forest Lake, used to fish all the time with my father. Um and David is one of my relatives um for Cooling Camp Park. Um my concerns and I want to just thank um the individual that went just before me. He he pretty much took everything that I had. So I'm not going to take the time to repeat that. One question I do have about the sewer system is you say that it's there and it's it's able to be tapped into, but that sewer system was put in, I'm assuming, back when this was first um initially proposed and it may have had the capacity then, but I know it were what 20 years later. Does it still have the ability to not crack, not you know be damaged underneath? We do we know that was there any studies or anything done to check on that? I think that's something that's very important. The other thing I wanted to bring up is the the watershed. Um I just want to let you know I used to live in White Bear Lake. Um and the development of Dellwood had a lake that's nestled in there and they have a lot of homes and they went to add two or three homes. It wasn't a big deal like this and they got the approval from the DNR and the watershed as the builder said and I'm not questioning him. I'm just bringing this up. And they started to build the homes and all of a sudden the lake started to drain and it went down by about four feet and they had to stop everything and get the DNR back involved. I would hate to have something like that happen here. You said that the flood was was taken care of and studied, but that also was the case in White Bear Lake. So, I I guess I would like assurance that that's not going to happen because I do have, you know, a swamp in the back of my my yard and I don't want to all of a sudden lose some of my land. And the last thing I wanted to to say is the original proposal did show that there was supposed to be another additional um entrance with those two blue roads. Thank you. Your presentation was awesome. We p c captured everything that we had talked about in the last meeting, but everybody seems to just be ignoring the fact that, you know, the culde-sac is the variance that we're going after, right, for public safety. And the original plan had that taken care of by having the additional exits. We don't have that now. as a contractor, if I was going into it, that would be something that I would I would look at and say, "Well, geez, I'm not if if I want this to pass and go through, then I should take the burden of that and figure out how to get that done." Um, I'm sure he looked into it and it sounds like it was it's it's not a possibility, but I certainly think um having lived there knowing the neighbors now, I've only been there for four years, but it is it it seems to me that a triple or quadruple length of culde-sac is just too long. And um it was voted down once before from my understanding because of that. And now we're asking to, you know, make it even longer. So um thank you for the time. I appreciate all your time. I You guys work very hard as public servants. We appreciate that. But please listen and understand that, you know, this comes from the heart and we really we really want safe places for our kids to move. So, if we could get another road in, we probably all would be okay with it. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Appreciate it. >> Next on the agenda is Jennifer. I believe it's Starky. Good evening. My name is Jennifer Vanderbash Starky. I'm here on behalf of my parents, Kate and Gary Vanderbach. They live at 23070 High Court North. I'm not a neighbor. Like I said, I'm on behalf of my parents who who live in the development. My purpose here tonight is to strictly go through the fact that this commission has to find all six of the elements in order to approve um the variance and I believe in my opinion that three fail. Only one is needed to fail but I I believe three fail. Number one, there are special circumstances or highly unique conditions affecting the property that the strict application of the provisions of the chapter would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of land. This property, as Mr. Gilmore um previously went through the history, has been owned by the Musky family for 48 to 50 years. The development began in bittersweet followed by bittersweet 2 leaving bittersweet three now Forest View Estates essentially limited to lesser number of homes due to the ordinance pertaining to the length of the culde-sac in 1978. This development was originally proposed by Bill Musky to the town of Forest Lake. 78 to 87 it was delayed due to a moratorium on Seward development. 86 the project was resubmitted. Um, and bittersweet one obviously started the project in 1997 a 26 and I think I my number may be off from from yours. Uh, Stephen I think you had said it was a 28 M plat for phase phase three. I have a 26. >> Okay. >> 27. We'll meet in the middle. >> Okay. And it only applies because I don't think it is a significant decrease in the lot size. Yes, it went from, you know, my uh bill's original 31 down to 26 down to 20. Um so 1997 26 lap plat for phase three was proposed but required a variance for for the overlength culde-sac 800 permitted by the township at that time 600 ft under the current city of forest lake standards. The board denied the variance on April 28th, 1997, citing concerns with traffic and public safety pending development of a connection to 235th. Per Mike Musky at that meeting on April 28th, 1997, he stated he would not begin construction until Hyo Avenue is completed to 235th, stating it does not make financial sense to develop only the first 800 ft with a dead end. He also stated at that meeting that Winberg Farms on 235th Street will not sell property to build an ideal avenue connection and Roger Vic is in no hurry to extend Hyo Avenue on his property. He said it wouldn't pay to install Hyo Avenue just to build 10 homes. At that time, board member Cheetah said the board has not prohibited the Musky Group from developing the property. He said Hyo Avenue construction would allow for 8 to 10 homes on 232nd. Mike said it would not be worthwhile to build such a small amount of homes. And this is all from the history of Mr. Gilmer's or staff report. Nothing other than the name of the proposed subdivision and the reduction of homes from 26 to 20 has changed since the original 1997 proposal. Land owners Vic and Windbergs have not developed their land. They have not agreed to sell the land to allow the extension of Hyo Avenue to 235th nor the extension of Ideal to 235th. Mr. Johnson submitted a ghost plat plat and relies on such to demonstrate the possible future layout of undeveloped land that neither he nor the current owner of the property, Mr. Oski have any guarantee will ever happen. The same ghost plaque could have been used in the original 1997 variance request as the use and nature of the adjacent properties are still the same. Vicks and Windbergs have not agreed to develop their land nor have they agreed to sell the land for the purpose of extending Hyo or Ideal to 235th. Page four of the staff report for tonight's meeting stated staff support the requested variance as a culde-sac link that's driven by site constraints and limited access opportunities. The lack of redundant access is anticipated to be temporary and is expected to be resolved with future development. What future development? If the Windbergs aren't going to sell and the VIX aren't going to sell, there's no future development. Since 1997, Mike Musky himself has stated that landowners Vic and Woodberg have no plans to sell to him to extend Hyo or Ideal. Nor have they committed to developing the properties that would guarantee access to the same to 235th Street. In 29 years, the land owners have not sold. They haven't developed. What is the what staff basing your anticipated access to be temporary and is expected to be resolved with future developments on? Nowhere in section 152.035 35. Does it set forth that the planning commission to rely on future development, especially when said land owners abiding the proposed property for 29 years have continuously refused to sell the land to accommodate the extension of either Hyo or of V ideal. Instead, section 152035 specifically states the planning commission shall take into account the nature of the proposed use of land and the existing use of land in the vicinity. Existing use, it's not developed and they're not selling. So on that which was number one in my opinion again there's a lot of evidence that it fails. Again, only one element has to fail and the variance can be granted. Another I'm going to skip two and go to five. The hardship is not a result of an action or actions by the owner, applicant, or any agent thereof. Page two of the proposed planning commission resolution, not self-created. Number five, the hardship is not created by the applicant but is inherent to the property and surrounding parcel configuration. The Muskies have owned the property for almost 50 years. They started with bittersweet one, bittersweet 2, bittersweet three. It is entirely within a reasonable person standard that the original two subdivisions could have been platted or developed differently to allow bittersweet 3 to conform to the ordinance and ordinances on record of the type sorry at the time of the development. The hardship complaint issue of the owner is a direct result of his actions of his development. And as a result of the owner's own actions, specifically how he developed bittersweet one and following with two, the owner essentially landlocked bittersweet three, now Forest Lake or Forest View Estates. Um the third so therefore again I believe that there's evidence that it fails. Um number two the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health safety or welfare or injurous to other property in the vicinity. In 1997 the town board denied the variance request citing concerns with traffic and public safety pending development of a commission or a connection to 235th. What has changed? Nothing that I can see. June 21, June 25th, Commissioner Young asked if the bittersweet owners have control over the properties, to which um Director Whitman replied, "They do not." Commissioner Young had a problem or had a concern with public safety as Hyo was the only way in and only way out and this would add additional homes. She stated the proposal would reach the point where she would be uncomfortable in terms of safety. What has changed since June 25th of 2025? same meeting, Commissioner Young commit commented there's adjacent farmland that is brushp prone and would have concerns with only one access in and out. She stated she'd feel more comfortable if there was a gravel access road to one the medium minute said access road to 135th. I believe it was 235th. Again, the property budding the proposed development is still owned by the same owners. They haven't agreed to sell and they haven't allowed a road to be developed to access 230 235th Street. It's been the history over the past 30 years. The Vixs and Windbergs have not agreed to sell. They haven't indicated or proposed they're going to develop the properties wherein the supposed future con sorry connection to the north as anticipated to improve improve circulation and emergency access. It's been quite the opposite actually. They said they have not said they're developing nor are they going to sell the land. Basically, those are the three things I think in my opinion it fails on even though again the commission only needs one to not grant the variance. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Next I have Todd Todd. >> My concerns have been >> Thanks Todd. Uh, Lori Null. >> Hi, >> good evening. >> Hi, my name is Lori Null. I live at 23053 Hannah Avenue. Um, we've been there since we moved in in 2002. We love the neighborhood. It's quiet. Um, my concerns are a couple of them have been addressed, so I'll skip that. But, um, how long is this building of 20 homes going to be? We drove by the other um guidance homes that he is developing on 97 and Northshore and they've been going on for several years. How many years are we going to watch these trucks drive by our homes to get back to the access? And how what is it going to do to our property taxes? My house isn't worth $600,000 and you're putting in twice as much as what we own there at Bittersweet One. So that's a concern as well. I mean, prices are going up for everybody. So, that's that's it and that's what I have. Thank you. >> Next, I have Kathy and Melissa. >> Kathy Jacqua, 23161 Hilo Avenue North. Melissa Feland, 23130 Hilo Avenue North. I am here primarily to re just to commend the people who've been here and and spoke about the safety concerns and I will draw your attention to an email that you should have received from my husband and myself outlining a huge safety concern that we experienced in our neighborhood and that you should really consider for our development as well as other developments. And I'll leave that to you to read that in that email. But it had to do with evacuation under an armed standoff situation. And another in-n-out that neighborhood would have been very welcome that day. And in today's society, I don't think those types of situations are going to go away. Please consider that as well as all the other safety concerns. We are we have lived in our home since the fall of 1994. I had the bittersweet 2 map on my entryway wall because my home was a model home and I remember being told Hilo Avenue will go through that that'll be a development too. Well, the Vic family did go on to develop the Forest Highlands, I believe. So, we had no understanding that that parcel would sit empty all those years, and it has. The in-n-out issue is real. It shouldn't be poo pooed, and just because it's been done in other developments doesn't mean it should be done in this one. Please consider that. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Next up, I have Brad Jacobson. Good evening. Good evening. Thanks for having us tonight. Um, I also sent a p a statement to your package. You should have that. Um, I'm not going to go through it here. You can read that. >> Brad, can I get you to state your name and address, please? >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Thank you. >> Brad Jacobson, 2323 0 Hilo Avenue North. Um we were attracted from St. Paul to Forest Lake. Uh we liked the community about 21 years ago. Uh when we were looking for our house, we found uh 23230 Hilo Avenue North and we fell in love with the neighborhood. Frankly, we liked the house, but we fell in love with the neighborhood. Uh the density planning was perfect. Uh, it was peaceful, low traffic, and that's what drew us to it. Um, I have a question for the for the developer, if that's allowed. Is that okay? Do you own the parcel? >> Yes. >> Okay. That that was a con I was confused when Commissioner Young asked about that. So, I think the owner of the parcel speculated years ago that at some point in the future, a planning commission was going to allow a variance, and that's what's been going on for years, that the council was or rather the commission was going to allow a variance for him to develop property. And I guess I'm just going to speak to rather than speak to safety, I'm just going to speak to the welfare of the neighborhood. Jamming in 20 homes to the area that they're proposing, uh, despite what I've heard the developers say is going to fundamentally change the entire neighborhood. You're going to have 50 to 90 people. You're going to have 60 to 80 vehicles. you're going to have more service vehicles and uh untold traffic in the area. Um I don't know what that's going to do to our roadways. I don't know what that's going to do to our sewers. That's been spoken to earlier. Um as far as the safety aspects go, the last thing I want are more roads jammed in there. Um, seems like the fire and police departments have already said that they don't need more roads. I don't know how that weighs in on your decision. Um, but I can tell you this. I know you guys and gals are appointed. Um but your recommendation to the city council um that group is political and if the development is built I can guarantee you that um >> please keep it to the point sir. >> The point is that your recommendation is going to carry a political overtone. So >> I appreciate your time. >> Have a good night. Next I have Jay Jensen. >> Jennon, sorry. >> Sorry. I guess I can wait till I get here to say my name. Thank you for this uh time. Uh Jay Jennen, 2303 Henna Avenue North. And I was just going to come up here and talk about kind of my experience, but I'm glad you gave that list because it kind of triggered a few things and being an engineer, I know you have to bind your decision based on the actual rules that you do it. So, uh it's great to have that framework. Um, one thing I noticed they talked about um, talked about traffic and I think I wanted to talk a little bit more in detail what I'm seeing when I have my kids. I have some kids just went to college but I also have some little kids in family so wide range and they like to play out on the street and you know you can't tell them to always stay in the driveway. And what I'm seeing is happening in the last few years it used to be like one car would go by and they would see the kid and they would stop. Now, what I'm seeing is there's two or three cars often come together on Hen Avenue. And uh the first guard knows what's going on. The next two don't. So, uh when they say they're doubling the housing, if you count the houses down that route, they literally are doubling it. I haven't counted it, but I've sold uh wreaths with my kids when they were in Cub Scout age, and there isn't that many houses to start with. So, that's kind of interesting. Um but as far as where it goes into your uh rules, there's a I mean, I think uh Commissioner Young pointed out really well. Did you know um did you know that uh when you started this that there it was rejected a few times and yeah I know I don't mean to pick on you but yeah but I thought it'd be easier this time to me that's not something where you can say no I had nothing to do with my hardship I'm getting into something I know there's a problem um and of course all the stuff with the older um uh ownership or maybe the ownership is the same I didn't quite follow that uh questioning uh the other thing is the I think it was health welfare and safety right three that has no effect on it. And to me, it isn't that the uh that the uh fire department says they can get there. Yeah, they can get there. It's going to take longer than than it is. But when I heard you say that the problem is there's people that have been here for a long time, that tells me that there's maybe something about the uh welfare of the of the uh community. Welfare isn't just do you live well, it's do you you affect the life of the uh community that was in there and I think somebody said that'll severely change the dynamics. It may and we say you say you can't guarantee that it's not and that's really I think the more of the question but all of this is on a false premise as Commissioner Young asked or asked about there it's been rejected before it was a plan at one point with all these roads I think we pointed out there was a road in the plan and now we're saying oh you know we just don't uh think that we uh can get that so let's let's get a variance let's not follow code. Let's figure out a way to get not get around it, but let's figure out can we get around it by saying it's good enough. The false premise is that this is still an active plan from the beginning. No, the plan had differences and it's been rejected I think somebody said twice. I think it was three times, right? 78 I don't remember 96 was the last one and there's one in between 80s. So, I don't know there I've heard some people say maybe not no no no more roads, but like if we can do it the right way, we can follow the statutes. We don't need a variance. Okay, that's what we're looking for. We're looking for you have the right amount of roads there. There's a reason all they're on there. Um I, you know, I might I'm wrong, I'm sure, because you said where you can have a variance. I'm thinking of a variance like this person bought this lot and they need to have uh some like shed or something and they can't because they're six inches short of clearance or something. Yeah. And maybe there's a couple more variances I think later today. Hopefully there's something like that. But when you're saying somebody speculated as you well said they want to make some money and they think they can get it through this time. To me you got to think a lot more about okay can we do it right or maybe not. So, I don't uh don't mean to lecture. Don't you got you're the experts in this, but just from the observation I'm seeing tonight and the few uh conversations I've had, it seems like we're not ready. So, thank you. >> Thank you, sir. Next up, I have Mike Anderson. >> Good evening, Mike. >> Good evening, Mike Anderson, 7570 231st Street North. So, um, I have kids. I I'm a really angry person. >> Sorry to hear that. >> Oh, well. >> As as Chad and Jay and >> and he would can attest, I've I've I've been out there telling people to slow down for years. I've lived there for 13 years and I've tried to get people to slow down. If the it took me one one kid that was racing down our street. I pulled on his car one time and he stopped. That was the last time that kid ever came racing down my street. Now he drives by nice and slow, waves, says hi. So, and a lot of you, I may not know your names, but a lot of you probably see me out there telling people to slow the [ __ ] down. >> He's watching. And I can say that because I have what's called the First Amendment. Like you tried to correct him and tell him to calm down or stay on point. This is the point. We're pissed off. You're trying to break rules so you can jam more house in there. Build the road. If you're going to build the road, then do it. Build a sewer. Don't Don't say, "Yeah, it'll work." Because when it doesn't work, who's got the [ __ ] in their yards? We do. Who's Who's How many people here they're facing floods? Who's flooding basement? Okay, I get flooding basement and I I have a great sump pump. I I put a second one in and it's still and that's going to raise the water table. Things like that are they're going to adjust. Oh, they have to put in one pond. And I'm I'm sorry. I know you're a builder. I'm all for building, construction, making things, but build the road first and build the sewer first, step by step. You don't you don't go, "Hey, we're going to go right here and just build some houses." No, you build the road because if one of my kids I have one on the way, I have a one-year-old and I have a 13-year-old and a 16-y old. So, I've got 15 more years of me behind cars in the streets. I'm gonna start playing baseball with my son every day from now on. Especially when those when those fence with those contractors drive like [ __ ] I know I was one. So, um you have to make sure if if you guys are dead set on putting this in, put put speed limit signs and put speed bumps in. Put like let people know it's not 30 miles an hour, it's 25. People think it's 30 on our street on 231st, so they go 40. And I tell them, "Hey, it's 25." And they're like, "Oh, well, okay, guess I'll go and do 35." No, they can't. They should do 25 or under. I I don't even do I have a very fast motorcycle. I have two of them. And I don't rip it down the road. How many? Nobody hears it. You might have seen me maybe one or two times. Little little tun. The thing is, don't hurt my kids. Don't hurt my kids. And the thing is, they're not going to be coming around Hannah. >> Mark, we understand your concerns with the kids and the speed limit. >> Okay. I'm telling you about about this. You said they're going to be coming down Hannah. They're going to come down Hannah to 231st to go down that that spot. They're not going to. They're going to go 233rd around because they want to avoid dead man's corner. They want to avoid those big corners in the trees that are like right there. If you have if you have stuff in the back of your truck like when I carry lifts for for Blake Dollbeck like you you can't drive around that that that corner. So they're going to hit 233rd. So those people should have been notified too about that. Like you you >> we hear you sir. >> Yeah. >> Like this is >> no just please say no. No offense. >> I don't want to go to jail for manslaughter because some guy hit my kid or any other kid. I would do the same thing for if they hit anybody else, too. >> All right. Thank you. Uh, next up is Luke. >> Yeah, my name's Luke Milanovich. I live at 23090 Hyo Court North. And um so he talked about watershed and potential problems. Um I believe in May of 2023, we did have a problem. I think the projects in the city would would probably argue I'm correct that there was a project and there was a um a group of construction workers that were attempting to fix the the street and the street is uh there's a pipe that runs under the street the sewer between 231st and Hyo Court North and there you know there was a project the water was not shedding correctly or what's to the acceptance criteria that I believe the city engineer and so um so bittersweet two appears to have problems there's faults in it and so uh you know we're moving on into uh the decision you guys are going to make with there's going to be a three but we already have problems we do have problems we have the sinking of the street it's you know there's there's water problems you hear people here today discuss that. So, it's a it's an incident. It's happened. It's happening. Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Last, I have Victoria McNeel. >> Victoria McNeel. I live on 210th Street and I don't live in the section where everyone lives. I live um just right down the road from the variance that is going in on on Clear Lake. >> So this is my first time here and uh >> next hearing. >> That's the next hearing. >> Pardon me. Yeah. Right. So that's why >> you can wait till >> Oh, well you call my you call my name. >> Sorry. So we've we've hit the end of the first Forest Lake Estates. Is there anybody else in the Okay. Is there anybody else that wish wishes to speak tonight for the Forest View Estates? >> I just want to um make sure that my wife did send in something and was that recorded to all of you? >> I I I didn't receive anything. Maria? >> Yeah, Maria. >> I I haven't received an email from Okay. Unless it was sent and it was in the packet that for the staff report. >> Um I believe it was she sent it this afternoon. So you didn't >> Oh yeah. And it may may not be but we'll make sure it gets entered into >> so it can be added in as an addendum. >> Yes. And we'll also include it in the city council packet. >> Okay. Great. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Seeing no one further. >> Yes sir. Hi, my name's uh Tim Sari 7370 233rd. Uh just moved to Forest Lake this year. So happy to be here. >> Thank you. >> Um and I guess uh I oppose this development and specifically for the reason that there's not a road out to 235. Um on 233rd, we pick up a lot of traffic that comes down from that area. And if we add these 20 houses and any of the people want to head north, go out to Highway 8, go north, uh they'll go past 233rd. So, we're just going to pick up that additional traffic from there since there is no other way out. If you're going to go to the north, or that's the fastest way to go to the north. Uh I did go to the public meeting and uh that was veryformational. Thank you for that. Um the uh owner of the property I know when we brought up kind of asked the question about uh the possible road out to 235 um his comment was I could buy the land. I don't know it was kind of weird but since I'm not developing it but uh and and we said that both of the farms on the north side so it's kind of landlocked and apparently you know met the one farmer super nice guy. Um but uh so I was just kind of curious uh if if the developer or you know wants to do the building if they thought at all about uh possibly moving that road to 235 a little farther north uh sorry east and uh actually go on the e the easement of the two properties and then uh see if they could talk to the two uh owners to give up 50 feet on each side um or not give up but uh purchase 50 ft on each side, make an easement and then maybe a special assessment to those 20 new houses uh for their property taxes and they could pay for it. So then that would be a way that because he said he didn't want to pay for that or so maybe they could get it paid for by those uh 20 new million-doll homes. Anyway, just a thought there. But I would support it if there was a road out to 235. Um, I think that would be uh give me another way to go out um and give everyone up in that area another way to go uh to the north instead of coming back down through 233rd. Um, also I just wanted to mention I did uh turn in a petition and several of my neighbors signed it and I get you should have that. I just wanted to put my face to that. Hi. And uh I did also turn in one individual just from me um just stating how I felt about the traffic and and uh I did almost get struck by a car going to my mailbox. Uh but there is some people that uh I'm going to get this guy here to help me out with that. I think so. I'm supporting you 100% there. Anyway, that's all I got. Thank you very much. >> All right. I one more. >> Yeah, come on up. >> Um I am Marie Bloomberg and I did uh send something but I >> Oh, you've got Okay. Oh, perfect. Um so will this be something that you would read after or do you want me to address some of the main points or >> you can address the main points right now? >> Okay. I just have it here on my phone. I didn't expect to be here in time. So, um, but I >> would you like to use mine? >> Oh, I have one right here for you now. >> I hate reading off of my phone. I'm too old. Um, so I think my main concerns, so we live right at the intersection of Henna and 231st. Um, so I think two of our big concerns are seeing the traffic kind of speed by and come around that corner. Um, the home on the corner has uh very large pine trees and I have called in the past um the bus company. Um, I've reached out to FedEx, UPS, Amazon just because drivers fly through. Um, we have a lot of, you know, kids and families walking right now. And if if this ordinance or the variance was to be approved, I would hope that there would be some type of traffic study to something done to help slow down traffic. Um, but I think the main one of the things I did was I did some research. Um, and I found that our typical culde-sac uh code, I guess, is approximately 500 ft. Um, so I looked up other cities close to us and far. Um, and you know, Lakeville has a 600 foot code. Austin 500, Little Falls 500, Roseville 500, Wyoming 600, Andover 500, Woodbury 500. Antanti 500, Hastings 500, uh, Scandia's 500 with a 750 foot uh, code for rural properties. Um, if we get to the 6 to 800 ft, New Wall is 750, Rosemont is 700. Uh, Chanhassen goes up to 800 ft. And the only exception I found was for St. Roy Beach, which has a 1,32 foot uh code, but they require 2.5 acre lots. And if I'm understanding correct that we already have a 1,800 foot culde-sac and adding this development would put another,000 feet approximately or 1,200 um which would be significant um and so I don't feel that that would be in the best interest of our town, our city to um you know to I just don't feel like it would be responsible um compared to what other cities and towns do. Um it's kind of outlined in my document. Um, and then the other point is I'm assuming I'm not sure when the property owner purchased the land, but I'm assuming it's been since the township was in existence. Um, and he has attempted is this the third time I believe for to get a variance and it was obviously denied at some point, you know, two times prior. Um, so when he purchased it, the farmer did own the land that would have required an exit. Land would have to be sold. So he purchased it with, I'm assuming, that scenario in place. and to you know to try to get this variance without that exit access point. um he purchased the land knowing that that was a potential hindrance and so I don't feel that and he may not be claiming this as a hardship but if that is the case um as I wrote I'm going to find this because I think I did a good job of stating it. Um >> you did a nice job with your research. >> Yeah. Um Let's see. Oh, where did I Oh, I would argue that it's a self-created hardship resulting from the applicant's decision to acquire property that was landlocked at the time of purchase. Uh, so this would be a matter of prior knowledge and investment risk as evidenced by previous variance denials rather than a unique physical constraint inherent to the land itself. Um, so I guess those are my main points and everything. There's more details in what I wrote. So, >> thank you. >> Yeah. >> Any last statements this evening? >> Any last statements? With that, >> I'd like to >> to the mic so we can hear you. >> My property 23090 Court North. Um, I mentioned the um the project that was um uh it was started. Not sure if it's uh totally completed, but I do have soil erosion at 23090 Hyo Court North. Um, and there's a wetland there on the south end of the street and my soil is eroding. So, look it up and see what's the next step. >> Thanks, interview. >> Okay. Thanks. Thank you. All right. With no further statements at this time, I will be closing the public hearing at 7:08. Seeing uh no further discussion, I'm going to bring it back to the commissioners for discussion. Any discussion for the commissioners this evening? Questions, concerns? Vice Chair, could I just address a few of the comments that were Yes, please do. Um, there was an inquiry about citywide or the the sewer. >> It is an 8 inch sewer line. I don't know the age of it. I don't know the material, but the city does uh do a citywide sewer study. Um, and we do that based on all of the potential capacity in the urban service area for the decade. So, the property has been analyzed or the property's density has been analyzed for the city's ability to add this in and not have a capacity issue. Um, I do >> um the city does its uh sewer capacity study every 10 years, but that's also based on the open developable land area in that decade. So, we haven't at all u met or in any way exceeded the land area that was anticipated to be developed in the urban service area. So, this isn't just that upper corner, it's the entire city. Um there's a lot of capacity still for sewer in the city. Um the other one I just wanted to address was um wetlands and storm water. Um this will require storm water and wetland delineation review by both the wershed and the city. Um two separate standards. The Cumberford Lake Forest Lake wershed district does have some um highly protective standards that even exceed those of the city. So we do work in conjunction with both of those bodies. We understand that a lot of our neighborhoods do have uh water issues because we are a very wet community in a lot of places. Um but our standards are much greater than I would say when these two prior neighborhoods or the neighborhoods in the vicinity or a lot of our neighborhoods in Forest Lake were developed. So we are looking out for those um uh things. The very last one I just wanted to note, I know traffic calming techniques were brought up in several of the comments and also tonight and it is not the city's policy to use um traffic calming devices as speed bumps because it damages the winter infrastructure snow plowing. So that is one of the offsets of living in our um great fine wintry state. staff is here if you have any additional questions, but I wanted to at least state those for the folks that had commented on them and for the commission. >> Thank you, Abby. >> So, so I can sit out there on my lawn chair with my radar gun and I've got spike strips home and all your go 35 and over Well, >> thank you for your comment. >> I've went to the cops about the neighborhood. >> Mike, this is a planning commission. I know if you're going to make threats about what you're going to do when it concerns speed bumps, this is not the time or the place for those type of statements. So, we're trying to have a meeting and I'd appreciate if you kept it civil, but stating that you're going to throw spike strips in the street, that is concerning. So, thank you for that statement, but we want to keep it on topic tonight. >> I was pretty concerned when >> I I understand that >> we all want to have safe communities and we're taking that into consideration. It's been brought up several times. >> We do. I do. What would you do if you >> sir? >> Thank you for your comments tonight. We're going to keep it on track and we're going to get back to it. At this time, commissioners, any followup, any questions, any concerns? >> I have question for the city. The um one member uh public brought up the possibility of connecting in a different way through Colon Camp Park. Has that been discussed or all I've seen on on this was that street B that connects to this north property that apparently is has no intention of being developed. >> Um city that isn't something that city staff has looked into um predominantly because of the environmental conditions there. There are some topographical changes and it is pretty wet. I'm just going to plug in really quick so you can see some of the conditions. Um, oops. Oh, well, whoops. Something went there. Give me just a second. I'll get my mapping back up. Um, but the area that is just the western side of Cooling Camp Park is a extremely wet area and then also sloped. We have not explored whatsoever the potential for an alternative roadway through there. It does surprise me that all of the discussions have been going to the north. Um it is a shorter route. Yes, there are some engineering and topographical challenges. Um but it might be wise depending on how we decide this evening um for the developer to consider the shorter distance and um perhaps a more obtainable property um by going to the south. Um I understand that neighborhoods change and and and that's tough and it's difficult. I live on a dirt road and u am constantly asking folks to slow down um because when they're fish tailing down our dirt road I don't feel particularly safe dealing with neighbors that that's an issue. I and I understand that Forest Lake is old glacial topography and probably 40% of our of our folks have wet basement that that that is what it is. So I understand those concerns. I I absolutely do. I also and the folks who know that I've been on on I was on the township planning commission for a long time and have been on on city planning commissions here. The length of the culde-sac is of huge concern to me because it is not just the length from of this particular development. That culde-sac essentially starts at what is it? Henna that comes off of Northshore. >> Um Hilo that comes off of Northshore. 23rd. >> No, the road that comes off of Northshore. >> Hannah, that's the one I thought it was. >> I I drove out there today. Yes, I saw the basketball hoops on on the road. Um and I I saw the curves and I and I understand that concern. But one of the the issues with public safety and why all cities have restriction on the length of culde-sac is not only the difficulty in snow removal on culde-sacs and snow placement on culde-sacs for public works but getting into a very long culde-sac or a very long straight along um when when there's a situation And uh I've I've I've been in public works and emergency management long enough to know that it's not if, it's when something will happen. Um I understand the way that staff wrote their recommendation that it is um something that is absolutely exceptionally unique to the property. Um, but I disagree with that particular analysis of the staff recommendation. Um, and I've got a lot of paperwork here and I'm I'm trying to find exactly where where we are. Um these special circumstances they are not unique physical characteristics including narrow limited access points which restrict design operates. This is a self-created situation. Um they call it speculative development for a reason. Um I understand from a developers and a a contractor's perspective um wanting wanting to deal with this with this now. Yes, we we have a lot of development happening in Forest Lake right now. Um, but I do not believe that it is a special circumstance of this property that was purchased a long time ago that has had the same recurring issue over and over again that is well known. I'd like thoughts of some of the other commissioners, >> but I will >> talk about a motion. >> Steeler, >> I will uh chime in. Um the hardship we've for those who aren't usually here at these meetings, you probably heard more about hardship than um you have usually. Um this is I don't I think it's my fourth or fifth year on this commission, maybe sixth, and I was on other commissions of prior cities for for eight years. and hardship has a a very high bar in in in the world I came from before and and coming here. And so along the lines that uh Miss Young mentioned with the um um the hardship of of usage, um it's not as though this hardship came about after the property was acquired. You know, when I when in my previous um city where I was on uh planning commission, hardships would come about for septic systems all the time because your septic system goes out and you can't live in your house unless you put in a new septic system and the only location you can put that septic system is within the setback, your sideyard setback or rear yard setback. And that's the kind of variance that that um would deem acceptable for that reason because it's a hardship. If if you can't put that new septic system, if you can't make that variance to put that septic system in that sideyard setback or rear yard setback, then the property is now unusable. And that that change or that condition came about after you purchase the property. So that um that's when um I would find an acceptance of a hardship. But as Miss Young brings about, there's nothing new that has changed here. Um, so I find it very hard to to allow. I mean, they give this nice ghost plat, but boy, from everything I've heard, this if it's not developed, if they don't have the right to put that road through and connect, and there's no um set time that that's going to happen, then it's really not there. So, um I am on on the side of of denying the variance um based on that that the hardship uh threshold isn't met in my opinion. >> Any other Yes. >> Um one I think the the design of the neighborhood is great. I it's it's finally a lot that we're not having to shrink the width and going underneath our thing. That's great. >> Truth. >> Yes. Um, unfortunately it's in the wrong space. Um, I think planning on existing land owners to sell and have their land redeveloped to eliminate the need for the variance is wishful thinking. Um, I would hate to be that person where everyone's waiting for me to sell my land so that they can do something. I think that's a negative pressure that we' be coming from. Um, I think I also would question if this neighborhood was redesigned with smaller lots and the road loop through, >> would that still be a culde-sac? >> Yes. Because it just has that it's the one way in, one way out. >> Okay. Okay. Um, again, I I like the design, but I just think with the variance, it just is a no for me, too. >> Thank you, commissioner. Any other discussion from the commissioners? Okay. At this time, the commission will consider resolution number 04-08-26-01 approving the variance for construction of the overlength culdesac on the property located at PID 03- 032-21-43-00001. I would entertain a motion. I am not going to make that particular motion to approve the plat. >> Perfect. >> To approve the variance. So could I bum your >> sheet for a second? >> Thank you. Um at instead I am going to move to deny resolution 0408-2601 and deny the variance for construction of an overlength culde-sac on the property uh located at P 03 032143001 and the the findings that I have to deny that Hold on a second. I have a motion. Do I have a second for denial? >> No. >> I have to include Sorry. I have to include my reasons as part of the motion. >> My >> correct. >> Correct. >> It it is good record for it. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. >> Um I find that that there are not unique physical characteristics that are that are prohibiting a reasonable use. reasonable use such as agriculture is still possible for the poss for the possible for the par parcel. Um it is that is still a reasonable use. Um the the physical hardship related to the property shape and lack of feasible through street connections is a concern but could be mitigated either to the north or to the south. The hardship is created by the applicant because the applicant is asking to have the longer um than prudent um culdeac um and for those reasons and I I move denial of the variance request. >> Thank you, Commissioner. Y >> I second. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion on the motion on the floor? >> Yeah. Do you have any concerns with the motion as as it was >> marbled? >> Um, no. But maybe you would like to consider amending the motion um to ask draft staff to draft a new resolution memorializing that to be brought back at a later commission meeting. >> I would consider that a friendly amendment to my motion. if it's a friendly. >> What was the >> um to bring back a new resolution memorializing the planning commission's denial of the variance uh for formal you know approval at the next meeting. You've taken the action the variance would if the motion passes the variance would be denied. We should bring back a resolution memorializing that action at the next meeting. >> Okay. Yeah, I'm fine with that. >> Okay. I have a motion and a second of denial. All in favor signify by I. >> I >> I oppose. Motion passes unanimously. >> We'll do that. >> All right. Next. Moving on. Next action is >> You might want to let them escape if they wish. >> Well, we still have to one more thing. Next action is recommendation to the city for the preliminary plat. I would enter entertain a motion to recommend approval or denial of the preliminary plat. >> Mr. Chair, I'm going to make a motion to deny the preliminary plat because that plat is contingent upon approval of the culdeac which we have denied. >> Thank you, commissioner. Do I have a second? >> I will second that. Jesse, >> I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? >> Um, just that it's a recommendation to deny. >> That is a recommendation. >> Thank you. >> Yep. >> All in favor of the motion signify by I. >> I. >> I. >> Anyone opposed? Motion passes. Planning commission denies PLA to the city council. All right. Thank you for everyone who came out tonight and sharing your input. uh and the applicant for being here as well. Uh we appreciate your time and your patience as we work through the business. We will take a minute to clear the room. If you are done this evening, have a wonderful evening. Enjoy the night. >> But we've got two more exciting variances for our evening. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. Have a good night. You're good. >> Yeah, >> you're good. >> But you're right. I guess >> Whoa. >> This motion had to be really long. >> Stephen might be able to answer that. >> No. Here's what I'm going to suggest. The agendas for the council are published ahead of time. >> Look at the agenda on the city's website. Look at the agenda. >> Generally, this will be scheduled for the 20th. >> But don't do check the agenda. >> For instance, >> we denied um a variance at Tim's Marina two weeks ago. >> That appeal is going to be on the 13th. >> I think he handled it well. >> Yes. So just watch the agendas and that that assumes that they appeal. They may not appeal. >> Thank you. All right. >> It always gets easier after the first. >> Not necessarily. Fewer people out there. So it's less intimidating. How >> about the first meeting you got to sit in this chair. >> Well said, Amy, because I appreciate that that they did have sizable lots that they were conforming to the code. It just it was an >> nice to see 80 foot lot. Yeah, it was. >> It's unfortunate they didn't have a way out. >> I'll try. >> Oh, thank you. >> All right, we're going to get back at it. Next item is 7B is a variance request >> is a variance request for a 53 foot rear setback at the property located at 20703 K Watton Avenue North. This item will include a public hearing. If you wish to speak, please make sure you signed in. Um and at this time I'll invite Michael to begin his staff report. Good evening. Uh before you tonight is a variance request for a porch edition at 20703 Kiwatan Avenue North. The applicant is Bill Witrock. Mr. Witrock owns the property and it is in the rural residential zoning district and the shoreland overlay district. It is currently meeting the it is below our requirement for maximum imperous surface coverage and would continue to be if this variance is approved. Lake Kiwatan is classified as a recreational development lake and in our shorland uh ordinance. There is an increased setback of 100 ft from the ordinary high water level on this property. That 100 foot setback essentially covers most of the property. As a result, the applicant is requesting to add a uh the applicant is requesting to add a porch to the existing home and as a result of that is requesting a variance uh for that setback. He is requesting a 47 foot setback. So it's essentially 53 ft variance. A little bit about the existing conditions on the site. Uh there is an existing house on the property. Uh it has been at the current location since at least 1959 and there's been a structure there even longer before that. The site has also received variances in the past. In 1991, the township granted a variance allowing a second level. And in 2003, the city granted a variance allowing a detached garage in addition and the same porch requests before you tonight. At the time, only the detached garage was built. Our code then and now has a time limit of one year to complete the variance before it expires. And so the proposed variance tonight is just for the porch. Our code again requires a 100 foot setback from the ordinary high water level. The existing house and the proposed porch are at uh 47 ft. And so the variance would be for 53 feet and the porch is it's a little hard to see is the highlighted yellow area in the picture there. Staff evaluated this request against the city's variance criteria in determining that there are unique conditions on the site. We do recognize that the lot is non-conforming. The lot depth on this property varies from about 130 ft to 150 ft. And between the 40ft required front setback and the 100 foot rear setback, it is essentially impossible to develop on the site and meet setback requirements. This was also the basis of the approval of the variance in 2003. We also find that the proposed use is reasonable and consistent uh for a single family dwelling in the rural residential zoning district. We also recognize that this was not created by the property owner. The lot configuration and the house predate his ownership of the lot. And we also find that the change would not likely result in any harm to nearby properties or alter the neighborhood characteristics and that it overall maintains the intent of the code. Based on that, staff recommends approval of resolution 04082602 authorizing a 53 ft variance which would allow a 47 foot setback for the porch. We do recommend uh conditions of approval with this request. uh including a standard condition requiring that the porch meet all requirements of the Comfort Lake Forest Lake wershed district and again establishing that one-year time frame for them to develop the porch. The applicant is here to answer any questions and we can also answer any questions you have for staff. Thank you. >> Okay, as previously outlined, uh this is a public hearing. So, at this time, we will open a public hearing for anybody else here that would like to speak. We'll open the public hearing at 7:33. Is there anyone who has signed in that wishes to speak to this evening? Is there anyone here that wishes to speak? >> Okay. Seeing >> Oh, come on. >> Good evening. Goodil Whitrock. I am the property owner. >> Good evening, Bill. >> At 20703 Key Waten Avenue. And um I must say working with Michael was a joy. I'm a retired architect and I've worked in many in front of many planning commissions and city councils worked with many staff and this is one of the most seamless and uh helpful conversations. >> They're very fortunate. >> So thank you very much. Um uh he he had asked me to come on up and just give you a brief history of the property. Um the original property was platted in 1928 and in your package is included the one of a copy of the original plat. And uh it was very historically uh you get uh titles and uh two of the two of the parcels have an abstract title which was fascinating to read again and it goes all the way back to when it was undevelop undeveloped land and highway 97 was just listed as a trail. Um so um very interesting. And then uh shortly after it was platted in 24, a cabin was built in 1928. And I found that out when I did the second when I did the second floor edition by demoing some of the floor and I found some papers crinkled up dated from 1928 and they were used for insulation. So, very interesting historic piece of property. And in 1959, the cabin was uh was extended. Uh the owner at that time added a whole front half and made it into a fourseason home. And uh we were out having a barbecue one day and this car came up and two young women came down and they presented us with photographs from their grandfather who had built that. So I have those and very interesting very interesting. So, and as an architect, uh just the different construction methods from 1928 to 1959 to when I did the work and then uh again it's a story and only three minutes won't take care of it. So, >> um, but we purchased the property in 1989 and we went through the process of, uh, going through a variance to get a second level on and that was with the township and at that time we also had to present to Washington County >> who had jurisdiction. >> So, we went through that and then came back to the Forest Lake Township for final approval. So it was a very uh interesting learning process about how I was a young architect at that time and it's very interesting process to learn how government bodies work. In uh 19 or in 2003 we came before Forest Lake City Council and planning commission to add a separate garage. of current property did not the property at that time did not have a garage only a parking pad on the road and uh Councilman Young I believe you were on the council at that time when I came before we were not able to build the porch at that time various circumstances um and obviously recognizing the year um timeline that's one of the reasons why I'm back here over the history of the property that I have owned it. I have tried to uh uh improve the property to stay with the intent of the lake uh which is a beautiful lake. It's one of the clearest lakes around and it's it's just a wonderful wonderful p wonderful addition. I have removed impervious uh surfaces and replaced them with uh pvious pavers and you have photographs of that in your package. And I and I'm intending to continue with that with pvious papavers um as a entrance to the uh porch and a change from 2003. I got a little smarter. I have designed the porch to fit uh up against the house and not remove any trees. And I believe on page four there's a photograph that shows where that porch would fit. And I've made the porch smaller uh from the 2003 variance. Pulling the the edge of the uh porch back from the lake. So uh just trying to stay with the intent of the uh the lake. That's the history and that's the the the intent of uh the request and uh I am here for any other questions. >> Thank you, Mr. Woodrock. All right, any questions? >> There are a couple of you on that street that have the permeable pavers. >> Yes. And I have I have a friend who lives there and um yes, I understand that the the challenges and the difficulties and I very much appreciate that you in your design work and and and in the application have worked very very hard to deal with your existing condition that you were kind of stuck with. Um, but that you've made every attempt to come as close as you could to not needing further variance. Okay. Well, I think I still need to close the public hearing. So, at uh we're going to close the public hearing at 7:40 with no one else to speak uh and bring it back to the commission for discussion. Any discussion from the commissioners this evening on the variance? See none. All right. I'm looking for a motion. >> I'm not going to hear the motion. >> I already did one tonight. >> I I'll make the motion, handy, here. I'll make the motion to approve the variance for the 50 foot 53 foot rear setback for the construction of an attached porch at the property of 20703 Kiwat Avenue North. Thank you, Andy. I have a motion. Do I have a second? >> I'll second it. >> I have a second. Any any further discussion on the motion at hand? >> Seeing none, all in favor signify by I. >> I. >> I. >> Anyone opposed? >> Opposed. >> Uh motion passes. Five to one. >> Steeler opposed. >> Just for the record. >> All right. Motion passes. Thank you this evening. Have a good night. >> One other just to make clear this is the final decision there does not need to go back to city council. >> Okay. >> No, you you would just have to go through the building permit process already. Thank you very much. Have a good evening, Mr. All right. All right. Moving on to item 7 C. is a request for two variants. A one- foot side setback variance and a 5% imper impervious surface coverage variance for the property located at 4844 210th Street North. This item will include a public hearing. If anyone wishes to speak, please make sure you've signed in. Uh and first we'll uh let Mike give your report. The theme of the night is variances. >> Yeah. >> Uh before you tonight is a variance request for a new home at 4844 210th Street North. The applicant is Jim Larson. This property is in our single family residential zoning district and is also in the shoreland overlay district. It previously had a house on the property which was demolished and is currently vacant. The applicant is now requesting to build a new home on the property. As part of that, based on the house that they're proposing, they're requesting a reduced side setback to 9 feet and an imperous surface coverage uh maximum impervious surface coverage from 30% to 35%. Which was on this slide. I have also included specifically the impervious surface calculations on how they've gotten to that 35%. The total lot is 12,550T and they're proposing a 20 uh 2252 foot home with a porch, patio, sidewalk, driveway, and a detached garage. We do consider essentially any surface that prevents the flow of water to count towards that maximum surface coverage. and our code does not currently permit any sort of calculation for pvious pavers to reduce that requirement. This would put them at 35% impervious service coverage or 4393 uh square feet. We evaluated the sideyard setback variance and the impervious surface coverage variance uh standard separately in determining whether the sideyard setback met the variance criteria. We do find again that there are unique um conditions on the property. Particularly this lot is significantly non-conforming in regards to the lot width for the single family zoning district. And we do find that a single family home on the property is a permitted use and a reasonable use in the single family zoning district. Again, that lot configuration uh was not created by the current owner. Uh and it predates them. And based on uh discussion and work with our wershed district and our city engineer, we do not expect the sideyard setback to harm nearby properties or alter the neighborhood character uh or impact drainage. And overall, we find that it maintains again the intent of the code and allows them to uh bring a property into compliance recognizing that there are non-conformities on the lot. When considering the impervious surface coverage against our variance criteria, we again recognize that the lot is non-conforming, but the zoning code does already have a way out for these non-conforming lots. A conforming lot would be required to meet a 25% maximum coverage. Our code allows non-conforming lots to be 30%. Additionally, again, we find the single family home to be a reasonable use, but we do believe it would be possible to revise the proposed site plan uh to reduce square footages, uh relocate buildings closer to the street, to reduce driveway lengths, um to meet that 30% requirement while still meeting all minimum requirements for general development for a single family home. We do recognize that the lot configuration was not created by the property owner. Uh but the proposed plan and site design were presented by the property owner. And in terminating uh how it impacts uh public welfare, we do recognize that the amount of maximum coverage may impact drainage. We recognize that our shoreland overlay ordinance is designed to help handle drainage on shoreland property and so overall we find that the impervious surface coverage variance does not align with the intent of the code. Based on that we have two resolutions before you tonight. Staff would recommend approval of re resolution 04082603 which would approve the one-foot side setback variance allowing them to have a 9- foot setback uh with certain conditions of approval. Staff would also recommend approval of resolution 04082604 which would deny the 5% maximum impervious uh surface coverage. The applicant is also here tonight to answer any questions and staff is here to answer any questions as well. Okay. At this time, if you'd like to step forward to the mic. >> Can we ask questions of staff first? >> Yes, you can. I'm sorry. If you'd like to ask questions of staff, please go ahead, Michael. I understand setback variances when we've got, you know, we're trying to rebuild a house on an existing foundation and the existing foundation was was not complex. and and we've had those situations and and we have reluctantly approved those. They're starting from absolute scratch. Um could you help me understand why when they are designing the home from scratch on a vacant lot, they are not creating the issue requiring the variance. It Yes, it's a lot. But they are they are designing maybe they didn't know what the rules are before they started their design. I you know usually architects know that but could you help me understand since they are designing this from scratch and building an entirely new home how they are not creating themselves the problem? Right. We discussed the layout of the home as it's proposed with the applicant and I think he can also discuss that at length. Arfine, his suggestion is that if he were to reduce the house in length any uh in width any further, he would need to provide an outdoor sidewalk to connect to a side entrance, which would create essentially the same challenges. Um, and would also not help him uh move away from that 35% maximum surface coverage. >> So, you found that the two a two entrances were absolutely necessary. or at the very least that they didn't reduce they didn't increase his proposal is not increasing the nonconformity any more than other proposed designs specifically as it relates to setbacks >> thank you >> uh for city staff and and commissioners uh this is a neighbor of mine and I think there could be an appearance of bias for me to participate. I'm going to recuse myself from this item on the agenda. Uh this is Don Steeler just for the the notetaker. Um so I I just wanted to let everybody know from the beginning. >> Thank you, Don. Appreciate that. >> You are a true and honorable person. >> All right. Any other questions from the commission for staff this evening before we open the hearing? All right. Seeing none, we will open the hearing, the public hearing at 7:50. Anybody would like to speak to the motion at hand. >> Thank you. My name's Jim Larson. Um, we uh when we were talking about the the plans for the >> state your name and address, please. >> I'm sorry. Um, James Larson, 1979 Faulk Avenue North, Forest Lake. Thank you. 55025. Um, we uh in designing the home, I mean, we were very aware of the the 10- foot setbacks and the 30 ft. We're also aware of what you're allowed. Um, we could have bumpouts, uh, can levered areas, and we're for foregoing those. We could add two feet to each side of the house uh can lever then put another three feet of sidewalk to a side entrance because when you get it's amazing what happens from 30 to 32 feet. We can do a front entrance with a twocar garage and um and we get this long hallway is on the inside instead of on the outside. If we if we literally if we take it to 30 feet, we can't have a hallway there because everything gets narrow. Um we're trying to build a very modest home. It's not a big house. Um but it's something that we want to live in for the rest of our lives. Um or at least until they haul us out of there. Um, we're trying to get fit everything onto one level, living, one bedroom, one, you know, a master bathroom, uh, a family room area, great room, and laundry room. So, we can live on one level and we can be there for a long time. Um, if we squeeze it anymore, we have to go outside of the the envelope, uh, at least on one side to get into the building. So, ordinance, we could be at 37 feet, um, which is encroaching more on our neighbors than 32 feet as we're as our design sets. Um, and then, you know, I I've read the ordinance um over and over and it says reasonable use and you know, we're trying to put a second garage on and that's where most of the additional impervious is coming in. Um, it is a lake home. Uh, I do like to work in the garage and and it's hard to um do that without some extra space. Um, you know, we'll have other things, uh, equipment and and lawn equipment and snow removal and boats and things like that. And that's kind of what we're hoping for to get the additional um, uh, impervious coverage. Um we would make sure that um whether it takes drainage systems or whatever it takes to make sure that it doesn't uh cause issues with our neighbors. Um we'll we'll make sure that we get that. We have w worked with the watershed district. We do have a plan from them um uh for water uh drainage and we are working with them on a landscape plan that they will start once the build once the building place then they'll formulate um rain gardens and different things like that. So we are we are working with them uh to do that and so it is 5% um but we think we can mitigate any of the water issues um with uh with drainage systems and rain gardens and and whatever it takes. >> Does anybody have any questions? >> Any questions >> about the house the design the what we're trying to do. >> Yes. >> Is it possible I think the staff mentioned moving things closer to the road to reduce the driveway. Is that something that is possible on the site? >> It is. We can do that. But what happens is then because we've got the the second garages closer to the street and so then we start losing some of that. Um, we we also have some issues with our neighboring lots. Um, on the left they brought in a bunch of dirt and they it's high and on the right they did nothing. Um, it's really low. So, we're going to have to deal with that. Um, and so it's it's kind of where the garage goes on the lot. We have a 30 foot setback for that garage according to ordinance and we're trying to maintain that. Uh even though if you went right down that street um on 210th there are countless garages that are maybe 5 10 feet off of the street. Um, and we're trying to keep it in an ordinance uh approved uh 30 ft. I mean, if we could put it on, you know, real close to the street, we would do that and just go directly into the garage there instead of having um, you know, but but there are other issues that might that might cause some other issues as well. So um we you know after reading the report um from the uh the city planners and the engineers um we have looked at okay what if we just add some length to the garage that the attached garage and move that closer to the street we can get it down to 30 uh% Um because as we take away as we add garage, we take away driveway and if we move it, so we're looking at moving it about 12 feet back and then adding about 8 feet to the garage as a you know, it's not what we'd love to see, but we'd really like to have two garages on the property, but any questions from the commission? All right, seeing none. Any other public comment this evening? >> Okay, thank you. >> Question. >> Yeah, please step up. >> I've never I've never been to one of these. Victoria McNeel and I'm four houses down from the new build. I'm very happy that they're doing this. So, I'm here just out of curiosity and getting to know what goes on. Um, we built our house in 2009, 100 ft, so we had plenty of room. My question is, I got a notice and thinking, "Oh, this is interesting. I mean, I'm just going to go and see what my new neighbor is up to, and you know, good for them." So then that means that their neighbors on each side of them probably got a letter as well. So my question is because it is narrow. I'm very familiar with the their lot. Um if they had any issue with the variance like a little bit further closer to them, they should be here. >> And if you approved it, the variance then and if they didn't say anything before it was built, then too bad. So sad. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Right. Yes, ma'am. >> By the way, what's your address, please? >> 48.88. Blue house, white white trim. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. So, and my my husband and I when we built it, um he's not here any longer, unfortunately. But, um yeah, we we love it there. It's it's a really nice nice area. But, yeah, I just was curious what what uh I mean because it there is I mean Oh, one more question or one more remark. So, we brought in I don't know how many tons of dirt and we raised our property up because it was very low lot of water sitting there and our neighbor um Brandon whatever their name is uh low and then Pavlex is higher. So it just um you have to take care of your own lot and because it is very low there. I mean, I have a crawl space and I've got a sump pump that's crazy going right now, but yeah. But yeah, so it's probably bring in Phil, right? >> The city's rules are that you cannot change the elevation on your property in in a way that would affect the drainage, right, >> to another property. >> Yes. Yes, I understand that. So that that didn't affect the their property, right? So Okay. Thanks for the info. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, I've seen them on their property like, "Hey, >> what a bonding moment for you guys, too, with those. Is that a first hearing?" >> City letters work. >> All right. All right. Well, I see no more comments from from the audience. So, we are going to close public comments at 7:59 and uh move forward. Any more discussion from the commission? Any more questions? Seeing none, looking for some motions. Okay. Okay. At this time, the commission would consider resolution number 04-08-26-03 approving a 1-T uh side setback variance for the construction of a single family dwelling at the property located at 4844 210th Street North. With the conditions the conditions >> with >> with the conditions >> with the conditions >> A through C >> A through C. >> Second. >> I have a motion and a second. I can't make a motion. I need someone to make it. >> No, you you can make a motion. >> Okay, I'll make the motion. >> The chair doesn't, but I'll make the motion. >> And I second it, Susan. >> All right. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion signify by I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> Motion passes unanimously. With one abstension. >> One of Steeler abstains. >> Obstains. >> Mr. Chair, I would make a motion to approve resolution number 0408-26-04 denying the um the variance for the 5% impervious surface coverage. >> I have a motion. Do I have a second? I will second that. >> I have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion on the motion at hand? >> Seeing none, all in favor of denial signify by I. >> I. >> I. >> Anyone oppose? Motion. Motion passes. One, two, three, four to one. All right. >> Steeler abstains again. >> All right. Thank you. You got one out of two. >> That's pretty good. You got >> You're adding 500. >> I I would like to add Mr. Larson has been an absolute joy to work with through this entire and you may notice him. He's been here at a number of the variance meetings to understand what was what was being asked of him and and probably one of the one of the uh many bright lights in this city. Uh so didn't work out totally for you this time, but uh I can't wait to work with you again. >> Go figure. >> Yeah, >> we just have a few more procedural things to close out the meeting. >> You you can leave though. >> You can stay if you want. >> You don't have to stay for for them. You can absolutely hang out. >> Okay. >> Okay. Well, we're going to move on. Any updates? Were there any updates from the staff tonight? >> Uh the only update that I have is uh for commissioners who did not know this was the first time Commissioner Stender uh chaired a planning commission meeting and um he didn't know he was going to chair until 10 minutes before the meeting. So, you did a marvelous job to >> I would have come earlier or called you today at some point to have >> You did a great job. We Sorry we sprang that on you, but uh no, none the wiser. I didn't even need to call it out. So, we'll get better. Thank you. >> Um you did a great job. But this is also why I always encourage people when we do our annual appointments to consider running for one of these positions because um or putting your name in a hat even as a vice chair. Sometimes you get that early practice and it's good. Eventually Paul's going to leave us. I don't want to think about it, but um other than that, no, I don't have any updates, but I'm available to answer any questions you might have. >> Okay, Stephen, anything for you? >> I would like to just follow on and just say fantastic job, and I think it had a lot to do with the fact we did surprise it. You weren't mulling it, thinking about it for two weeks, >> getting nervous, trying to figure out how things were working. You just just nailed it. You handled a very, very tough uh uh public hearing. Uh we have uh two weeks from now we have a couple more public hearings. So uh uh enjoy it. These are are more about developments, the developments that we're looking at. And so uh as the calendar lays out, we have a planning commission. That following Monday, we'll have a follow-on council meeting for uh these developments uh coming forward. Uh but that is uh the end of the month and then as we get into May, we'll start looking at uh more of our code changes and anything else that may come up. So looking forward to that and continuing this. Maybe we could uh like get out here before 8:05 the the next next few times, but you know, not not a not a big deal. But I really appreciate the dialogue tonight and another example of uh the the great people of the city coming and being uh mostly courteous of the the the board here. >> Thank you, Stephen. Michael, >> I think everything's been said tonight. Thank you. >> All right, with that, I'd entertain a motion to to adjurnn. I have one question of staff, please. >> Yes. Sorry. >> Could do you know why the entrance to uh >> to the airport road? >> Yes. >> I don't know. >> Yes, I do because I was at the airport commission meeting. >> Um number one, there was with the detours and 97 being closed. Uh making a left turn out of there apparently. Um well, I know making a left turn out of there can be always bad. >> It's always bad. But now there's so much more traffic on 61, it makes it that much worse. And in fact, the first day that that road was closed, I came up 61. There was a a pretty bad accident right there. So anyway, the city out of the health, safety, and welfare, they decided to just barricade that intersection off so that those of us that go to the airport, as I do, it's very inconvenient now, but that that's what we have to do. And it's even more convenient inconvenient for the interstate companies and the other commercial businesses down in that area. But >> going to the Y going to >> Oh, the Y. Yeah. If you're on that side of the city and you're going to the Y or where anywhere like that. So, but that is why it's there. It's a safety uh because of because of the uh construction on 97. So, that's your your answer. >> Thank you, Commissioner Cer. I knew exactly what you meant when you were saying. >> Any other follow-up questions from commissioners this evening? All good. >> All good. All right. Then I am looking for that motion. >> Motion to adjurnn. Steeler. >> Motion. Do I have a second? >> I'll second it. >> And a second. That is a undebatable motion. All in favor signify by I. >> I. >> I. >> All right. Anyone opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Thank you everyone. Have a wonderful evening.