[Music] We are right at 6 o'clock. So, I'll call the meeting to order. And Jolene, as acting I'm acting mayor, so Jolene, uh, and brace yourselves. This is the first time I've done this. Um, feel free to laugh. Um, Jolene, can we get a roll call? >> Council members Ericson, >> present. >> Larson, >> here. Miller >> present. >> Acting me acting mayor Valento >> here. >> Thank you. >> And if you are able to please stand for the pledge of >> allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> And next for item four, it is the agenda. So, we have the agenda in front of everyone. If there is a motion to approve, >> I'll make a motion to approve the agenda. >> There's a motion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> There's a second. Any discussion? Not hearing any. All those in favor? I I >> I >> Next there's awards and presentations which there's a planning commission appointment and I will just read the memo and it says the city of Forest Lakes Planning Commission currently has one vacancy due to the appointment of Kevin Miller to the city council. Mr. Andy Applic a Forest Lake resident has applied for and interviewed to fill the remaining vacancy on the commission. Planning Commission Chair Paul Gerard and Planning Commission Council Leazison Jeff Larson conducted an interview with Mr. Applicski on June 26 and have now moved forward a recommendation to appoint Mr. Applicski to the planning commission to fill the term vacated by Kevin Miller. So with a recommendation um by Chair Gerard and Council Member Larson, it is recommended that the council move to approve the appointment of Andy Applicski to the planning commission. >> Is there a motion? also move. >> I'll second it. >> Any discussion? All those in favor? >> I. >> And then next we are have the open forum. >> I'll apologize in advance if I pronounce someone's name wrong. And it looks like we have two. The first is Chuck Higgins. Please come up to the podium and then state your name and address. >> Hello, my name is Chuck Higgins. I live at 7673 Hyo Lane North. And today I'd like to talk to you a little bit about the condition of Hyo Lane in 216th Street. If you're familiar with that, it's an oval. And that street was put in in 1987. And about 1989, they came in. I don't know if it was the city or the township, and they ground off the top of the asphalt, sprayed it with tar, put down pebbles. Nothing has been done to it since. That street is all delaminating now, and big chunks are coming up. Uh there's loose gravel everywhere. It's it's around the entire street, and nothing's been done in almost 40 years to that street. And The thing that bothered my wife and I was that the fact that Pioneer Point got all new streets. And their streets went in seven years after our streets went in. So they got new streets. Their streets weren't nearly as bad as our streets. And yet here we sit and our streets are chunking out. You can actually go up and pick up chunks of it and it's all delaminated. Big chunks will lift right up. And nothing's been done. So I'd like to bring it to your attention at least. I have been up to the street department five years ago and they looked at an overhead view of it and said, "Yeah, it's falling apart. We'll be out. I'm still waiting for them to come out and fix the street." Nobody's done it. They did come out. Somebody came out and threw some cold asphalt down in a few spots which just made things worse. They haven't really fixed anything. So, uh, I'd like to see somebody come out. If any of you'd like to come out, I'll I'll walk you around the block. Be happy to do that. I'll even come pick you up. So, that's all I had to say. And I just hope some it would like to and Blake knows where I live because I live right across the street from his parents. So, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Next, we have Eugene Hurstl. >> Eugene Hurstell 10234 204 Street North. Uh, I would just like to make some comments about we um for pickle ball. We uh had a pickle ball pizza party and uh we had pizza and we had a real real great uh time and I'd like to thank the fire chief personally. Um Allan came out and so did Gavin Rice and they put on a training for us. It was awesome. We had 40 people show up. It was out at the courts and uh he did just an excellent job and it was free and so it was really really nice and I really appreciate the whole community uh pickle ball community was you know making all kinds of wonderful comments. And then also Leaf came out and uh played some pickle ball and it went it went pretty well until his wife started beating up on us and I mean she was covering everything back and forth and too but it went the whole night uh was really special. And Allan did say one time though that uh there was a gal there that we talked about CPR and was it just compression or mouthto mouth and he kind of explained that but he said that if she got in trouble and she needed mouth to mouth he would give her mouth to mouth but if it was you James that wouldn't be but anyway we had a lot of fun and we really appreciate it. Thanks, Al. >> And and next we have the consent agenda. There's items A through S. Madame Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to pull two items from the consent agenda, please. I would like to remove 7R uh so we can have more discussion and to supplement the names on the resolution and 7 Q uh for further discussion. >> There is a motion and is there a second? >> I'll second it. >> Any discussion? >> Hearing none. All those in favor? I >> and then we will discuss going to the regular agenda the first item that was pulled from the consent agenda which is the parallel parking and maintenance agreement for Pizza Pub for further discussion. >> So if I could I'd like the city to just give us a little bit more information as to where we're at exactly with this so that we all understand clearly what is trying to happen here. >> Sure. Um, let me just pull up a visual aid for us. And I forgive me for not remembering the exact date of the meeting, but this item came before the council as a means. Um, first was a code violation for installation of gravel in the rightway adjacent to 8241 Northshore Trail. in working with the adjacent land owner. The adjacent land owner made a request to the council to um That's okay. The adjacent land owner made a request to the council to permanently install improved spaces adjacent to the property, but that would be in the Northshore Trail Rightway. At the time, staff presented the city council with two different options. One would be a parallel option very similar to how the kind of pattern of parking has been uh for the last maybe 18 months or so and then also a parallel option. Staff had indicated that while there are less public spaces available in the parallel option that this would be a much safer scenario along Northshore Trail. At that time, the council did discuss their favorability towards the parallel parking option and directed staff to go forth and bring back an agreement that would solidify this. The landowner's request was twofold. One was, "Hey, can I do this? And two, um, would you pay for half?" And at the time, this council uh didn't direct staff to that you'd be favorable, but did make the suggestion that maybe the EDA would through its commercial improvement incentive program. Last week, the EDA did meet. They did consider the application from the landowner. Um they elected to table the request. The EDA did not want to take action on an item that was not formally approved by the council. Um, and there were some members of the EDA, it was hard to gauge consensus. Um, but definitely would if a vote came to probably a split vote of whether or not the EDA should be funding a portion of this given the fact that it is public parking in the public right of way was the argument for potential denial. EDA has not taken action. So tonight for your consideration is the parking installation and maintenance agreement which would solidify um the land owners request to put this in at their expense. It does not obligate the city or the EDA to pay for half. But that if he does this um or the landowner does this, they would do it to city standards and specifications which are included in the packet. um and they would end up having to get a rightaway permit and have a pre-construction meeting. As a reminder, this would be public parking available to anyone in the area, though we do acknowledge that it would probably predominantly be used by the restaurants um patrons. >> Does that help? >> It does. Uh it it threw me off because when I saw the packet information, it only showed the vertical parking. It didn't show the parallel parking. you know, the it only showed the cars as we see it in the sketch here. >> Um well, and that's where the the line is what the um would be the improvement, right? >> Understand the aerial still has those cars in there and it does make it a little confusing. >> What would happen with that additional space that's there? >> So, um even though it's showing the spaces kind of right up against the um fog line of the road, they actually would be pushed back a little bit farther. uh there wouldn't be as much green space between the existing head-in parking spaces on private property. There would be a little bit more of a buffer between the actual driving lane, the fog lane, and those parking spaces. >> So, like a small shoulder. >> Correct. >> And how would we enforce that parking so that it doesn't end up like I see in the sketch here with the cars parked par or vertically? Um, Chief uh Peterson isn't here tonight, but it would be a police enforcement matter. Um, I am don't know the specific uh citation that would be issued. Um, but my understanding is police would then when we have the designated parking, parallel parking only, they could site for a parking violation in that area. >> Just to be clear, we we've already put up signage that signs us for parallel parking only. So, the doesn't indicate that it's u parallel parking is the appropriate form of parking there at this point. >> But of course that's not happening. Um so my other question then is is there any other areas in the city where we have parking in our rightway? >> Um anywhere like along the highway 61 in the downtown. Now granted that's not our rightway that's state rightaway >> and it's much wider. Um, city streets, all of our city streets would have parking as well. >> They would. Okay. >> Yeah. And there's not a lot of room between the fog line and where you park. If you stop by Snap or, you know, park on the street there by Malards, it's >> Yeah. >> Or even in front of my office. It's pretty tight. >> And again, the city's not obligated to pay for any of this, right? >> Correct. >> The city's not obligated to pay for any of this. No, that is correct. >> That's all I have. >> Any other discussion? >> Well, I'll just make a note um that I wasn't for this from the start of it of parking in the rightway, whether it was horizontal or diagon diagonal or otherwise due to the rightway. I don't think there should be parking on a rightaway. Um whether they improved it or not. And as far as EDA choosing to if they want to donate their funds to this, I don't think it's a it's correcting a a wrong to start with. I would just share that. Yeah. Just speak from the EDA's perspective. It was a a split discussion. That's ultimately why we decided to table it. I mean, there's certainly some that want to see this come to fruition, are willing to put a few bucks behind it to um, you know, make sure that this business because there's been, you know, a lot of turnover out there. Um, and I think if I recall based on the number of current parking spots, this adds about 10% more parking just based on the current number of parking spots by adding six more, you know, which at the end of the day is is what it is. But I would like to make a motion that we approve the agreement as brought forth by staff based on our last conversation to enter into the agreement um as it's written in the um packet. >> There's a motion. Is there a second? >> I'll second. Any discussion? >> Hearing no discussion. All those in favor? >> I. >> All those opposed? I >> I >> and it is a tie. >> So >> I believe fails for lack of approval. >> Okay. >> Fails for lack of approval. And moving on to the next item that was pulled from the consent agenda, which is resolution 07142508, nomination of watershed board member candidates. Madam acting mayor, um the resolution in your packet did not contain the names of candidates. We at the time of publication, we did not have full u confirmation that these folks were um ready to put their name forward. But we now have three names that we'd like to put uh forward. State statute requires um that if the city puts forward a list, they put forward a list of at least three people. Um and the reason there is that the statute kind of imagines the idea of wershed district appointments being made in conjunction uh between the city and the county. So um as folks know wershed districts are um have a ability to levy but there's no one to vote in or out. It's um vote by proxy. So you're voting for city council members and county commissioners that appoint these members. And so um in order to have a direct line to both of those bodies because water should affect both the town the city and the county um in general um the statute I believe was written in a way that allowed cities to put forward a list and then the counties must uh choose from that list. So um we've received a notification from the county that they're seeking nominations for this board and um if the city wishes uh we have three names to put in front of you. Those names are Robert Kevin Monroe, M A R O I S. I believe that's how you pronounce Maro. Um Cameron Clark and and uh Jim Shot Mueller. And um those three folks um again have we've been in communication with and have agreed to u be put forward as candidates. And um again, if uh the city puts that list forward, the must choose from that list. Um the the candidate um this this member of the board will come from Washington County. Um and so u these three folks live in the watershed district and in Washington County and with actually within Forest Lake as well. So we believe we have a an applicable list to put forward. That is uh the update to the resolution and I would take any other questions on the issue. >> Any discussion? >> Have you have you vetted them Mark? Do you know uh a little bit about them? What is their background regarding anything to do with wershed or >> Yeah, I know that uh at least uh one of them um you know lives on the lake and has been an active member of the watershed uh excuse me the lake owners association. Um, quite honestly, these are names that the mayor has been in communication with a bit more than me. Um, and I think he is um comfortable with their um ability to perform the job. Um, I I would say like much like any other commission or uh committee, the most important thing is is the idea that a person is an engaged citizen. Not necessarily any expertise is necessary. Um, whether it's being on the airport commission and not a lot about airplanes or being on planning commission and not knowing a whole lot about real estate or whatever it may be. Um, if we get good honest folks that are ready to make informed decisions, those are those are good candidates. So, >> thank you. >> Any other discussion? Otherwise, I'm looking for a motion. >> Also move a second. >> Any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? >> I >> I. >> And then moving to the regular agenda. Um I would like to ask if it's possible to discuss the Veterans Memorial first because the representative from the Legion just has um another meeting to go to. So if we could skip to that one. >> Sure. >> Sure. >> Okay. Ryan, >> uh city council, >> sorry. Uh tonight we bring forward the agenda item uh to approve plans, inspects and authorized ad for bid for the Veterans Memorial Lakeside Park project. Uh that project we did plan on previously bringing earlier. Uh then there was just some additional discussion we wanted to have with the veterans committee to make sure we had the scope of work in line with what they were expecting. I think that was has been resolved at the June June meeting. And tonight we bring forward the plans and specs that they're all in approval and support of. Uh anticipated schedule is on the cover memo. So tonight we're looking for the approval of plans, inspects, and authorized ad for bid with anticipated bid opening August 6. Uh we'd bring back to the city council meeting August 11th for consider contract award and construction would start uh September through November. Uh with the earliest start date, Tuesday, September 2nd. So we're after the holiday weekend. And when all the activities are going on in the park and the work would include all the utility work, pouring the concrete footings, construction of the concrete modular block walls, completing all the concrete and unit brick paver surfacing and attaching this century structures with medallions. This center sculpture attachment will be completed at a later date. So project will be shovel ready with all the work completed other than the center sculpture that would be coming at a later date. So, if there's any other questions, let me know. Otherwise, we're just looking for formal approval from the city council here tonight uh to approve plans inspects and authorize at forbid. >> And I will allow if anyone from the Legion wants to come up and discuss it further, feel free. It's good. >> Okay. Anything? We we worked on this really hard and there's been a lot of >> tinkering with the plans and uh Bolton has done a great job of um working with with that group and picking colors and picking uh different pavers and colors of granite and all this stuff. So, it was supposed to be to here in June. Uh we pushed back a few weeks just to make sure that um they were fine with what we're doing. The last thing we want to do is put this together with them not being 100% sure. So, that group here is in in support of it. I think we're all in support of it. >> Awesome. Any further discussion from city council? Then I'm looking for a motion. >> I'll make a motion to accept uh approve the plans and specifications to authorize ad for bid. >> There's a motion. Is there a second? >> Second. Any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? >> I I >> And moving not hearing any opposed. Moving to item 8A, interim use permit at 508 Lake Street South Beeswax Dispensary. And we'll I'll hand it to Abby. Um thank you. Um so Beeswax Dispens has proposed or requested an IUP, so an interim use permit for a retail cannabis shop located at 508 Lake Street South. This would be in the MU2 zoning district and it is a zoning district that would allow for retail adult cannabis sales. Um, we've checked it against all of our buffer requirements and it is a site that is eligible for this type of use in the future. Um, just as a heads up to some of the counselors that may not remember, an IUP is an interim use permit. So, very much like a conditional use permit. Um, it allows the use, we can put conditions on it, but then an interim use permit also has kind of a time frame. Um the reason that we approve we initiated the code language as an interim use permit is because um we're suspect that the state may change its regulations and we didn't want to necessarily lock in any uses without the ability to monitor them or maybe change them if the state regulations changed in the future. So, um, this would be a completely internal change to the multi-tenant building, a completely separate unit space, not accessible from the rest of the retail space. It'll have its own entryway. It'll have um security up at the front of the entrance and um pre right into the building. It conforms to all the standards that we've set. Um, and the police chief has reviewed the the build the business's plan and doesn't find any problems with um has no concern with the use. Um, they do meet all of the requirements for security, setbacks, parking, landscaping, security, lighting, and odor mitigation. Um, you know, the big question with use permits is generally does this fit and would there be a public nuisance or detriment? And it wouldn't. It's retail uh use right now and it would be a retail use in the future. On June 28th, the planning commission did review this. They had some questions just about the spacing between the different retail uses. Um they had some questions about security, but overall the planning commission found that it conformed to the intent in the code and did recommend approval uh with the 12 conditions. So tonight for your consideration um oh I should note the planning commission did um want the IUT the IU the IUP to be valid for three years instead of five. It's your resolution in front of you tonight is for fiveyear consideration. I did get an email while I was talking from our legal council. Um so she might need to pop in about whether or not this is a we need to tweak a piece of language in here. Um, but generally speaking, staff would recommend you move to approve resolution 07142507 for adult cannabis IUP at 508 Lake Street South um with the 12 conditions as potentially modified by the discussion we have tonight. >> Any discussion? >> We curious what Amanda >> Yeah. >> is >> Thank you, your honor council. It it looks like it's okay. The thing I just wanted to make sure was that it does expire automatically on the 30th. There isn't any additional action that council has to take. That's just the end date. And it also automatically terminates upon the expiration of any licensing. So if they lose the state license for some reason, this automatically expires. I think that's important for the council because then there isn't this sort of awkward having to bring it back to the council to decide what they're going to do with it. It's just we're starting over and you'll have to reapply if you want an IUP. And of course, if they've lost their license, there's probably some sort of reason behind that. And so then we have the ability to to deny that application at that time. So I am good with the language that's in it. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Maybe one thing to just clarify and maybe legal counsel can differ from a conditional use permit. An interimm use permit as I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong, runs with the owner and not just with the land. Is that fair to say or is it could the ownership change and that kind of thing? >> So that great question and your honor council that is why we put this um in here this or planned for it in in the code to set them up as IUPs is because technically they are a land use but because it is tied to that specific license you can't exchange licenses or registrations. Um actually that's not entirely true. There are some licenses that the state can exchange, but you cannot swap registrations. So, in other words, if I come in as Amanda Johnson and I get a registration for beeswax, I can't then transfer that registration over to John for that. He has to come in and get his own. And so, that is an the way that this is written is essentially my revoca or my registration, you know, is is terminated when I'm done and then this IUP would automatically terminate. So any new entity would need to come in and get a new IUP. That's not necessarily always true for IUPs, but that is true in how these this particular IUP is structured. >> Thanks for that clarification, >> Amanda. What's the main purpose like the commission was looking at three versus five? Is there that much of a difference or what would change that if we went with the five versus the three year? >> If you don't mind if I can hop in. I think um our planning commission was just concerned this is a new type of use in the community and whether or not we would grant an entitlement to something so new um and just concern of whether or not we'd want to pull that in a little bit just to see how things go. Um staff did mention in the meeting and would state again here um this will be a significant capital investment for this land owner for this business owner not only um the internal changes to the building but just the product the products themselves all of the state licensing requirements. All of this is a pretty heavy lift. And so to only grant approval for um one year, three years, anything kind of that or less just makes a little bit um less desirable for a business owner. Five years gives them good solid opportunity to um run that business and show us they can run that business lawfully. and um staff would still maintain that we wouldn't change it, but the planning commission would would like to make that recommendation. >> And if I may, I I noticed that difference. Um your the planning commission agenda staff recommended five years and came to us as three years. I mean, it is a significant investment. Um I I would like to give them a little bit longer runway. I mean, this body and the previous council spent a lot of time wrestling with the policy that we came up with. We have multiple meetings and workshops on it. And I think the IUP was the right route to go because it does give us as a body, you know, some control, some um pathway to to shut things down if we want to or need to. But as we start thinking about these businesses coming into our community and and you know, just the fact that it's an IUP versus a cup is in and of itself a little bit probably concerning for a business owner who's making that capital investment. I guess I'd like to has to consider that fiveyear runway. Um, just to give that that that those businesses that are making that capital investment more runway to recoup their investment, assuming that they're running it well. >> I'd agree. I think we have pretty good control of it. Even at a fiveyear versus a threeyear, there's problems that the city will make the recommendation. >> I agree. And I think with um the fact that they also have have to have state licensing, so there's like an extra layer of um another governmental entity looking at that business. Um I'd be comfortable with five years as well. Any other discussion? Then I'll be looking for a motion. I'd like to make a motion to approve resolution 714-25-07 with the following 12 conditions uh under that permit special in use permit. >> A friendly amendment to make that five years versus three years. >> Yes, I'm sorry. And to make that a fiveyear versus a threeyear on the amended charge. >> There is a motion. Is there a second? >> I'll second that. Any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? >> I >> I >> and not hearing any opposed. We can move to um item nine discussion. And the first one is the concept plan for Bittersweet subdivision. And Abby, >> thank you. Jiren Johnson Development has submitted an application for concept plan review of the next phase of Bittersweet. So, this would be a new single family residential subdivision located up the kind of northern northeast side of the lake, uh, a forest lake in the single family zoning district. Um, for folks that might not be familiar, there have already been three different sub bittersweet subdivisions. So, we assume that this will be subdivision four or bittersweet fourth edition. Um what the proposal includes would be um the subdivision into 20 detached lots each about a half of an acre accessed off of Hilo Avenue. Right now um the property is just under 16 acres but we know that some of it is undevelopable. Um things like steep slopes, wetlands would be removed from that acreage to help determine what that um minimum density requirement is. We do have a minimum density requirement of 1.5 units per acre and with that we think that the development will probably meet those requirements. Right now we're just under that. Probably pull out some of those land areas and it'll be just fine. Um in the uh 2040 comprehensive plan, this is not an area that is that the city is contemplating parkland dedication. This does back up to Cooling Camp Park. So staff has made some recommendations for connectivity through the site. Even though there are not pedestrian facilities on Hilo Avenue, staff would propose is proposing that the city consider a sidewalk along 30 232nd Street North. We'd like that move to the north side and then sidewalk extensions on street A and street B. And those are going to be future roadway connections that will go all the way up to 235th 235th in in the long run. Um the other thing we'd like to see and which is a little non-traditional, but moving that bringing that sidewalk all the way through to the culde-sac and extending a trail from the culde-sac up to the northeast corner of the site. And that really gets us into that development to the north where we can continue those trail connectivities, but also that connectivity into Cooling Camp Park that we'd want to see. They are proposing a trail right now. Um just kind of cutting through to the south of the property, but we believe those topographical changes in that uh there's topographical changes in that area that is really a great spot for that trail connectivity. Um, a couple things that have been brought up is the 600 foot maximum culde-sac length. As a reminder, we're going to extend or this property is going to be accessed off of Hilo. Hilo last connects with 230 um first street north, 1,600 ft away. So, this is a pretty long deadend culdeac. Now, we create these where we've got that urban expansion going on, right? We're creating them over in the southwest corner right now with the Hidden Creek neighborhood. We know that future urban development is going to extend those and there will be multiple ways out in the future. One of the reasons that the city has that 600 foot concern is for public safety requirements. I have talked with um we have talked with Chief Newman who's reviewed the development and isn't concerned with that 600 foot requirement for a couple reasons. one um equipment is kept on every vehicle and apparatus now to be able to get through if there are blockages on a on a roadway. The other thing is that uh with limited water uh capacity in the area because there is no public water system out here. Um the region has explored and has been implementing new firefighting techniques that um make it a little bit less of a concern when we have um a fire or something out in a remote area like this. Planning Commission brought that up as a concern. Um but we've talked it through and public safety is not as concerned anymore with that six as much with that 600 foot requirement. Um there's future things that we still have to vet through. Storm water, landscaping, tree preservation, all of those things would come in time, but tonight before you is the concept plan and an opportunity to provide highlevel non-binding feedback for the developer. As I mentioned, the planning commission expressed the concern for the length of road and possibly the installation of all these new well systems. However, this is the land pattern that we had guided for in our comprehensive plan. Um, new wells were contemplated in this area and would not pose any sort of um risk or issue contamination, any of that sort of stuff to the public water system. So, um, from a staff perspective, we think the developments, you know, right where it kind of needs to be right now. Almost conforms with all of our city standards. We're going to need tweaks definitely need more information. Um, but tonight is just any further comments you might have to offer to the developer. I don't believe a developer representative is here though this evening. >> Any questions for me? >> No, I read through it. I mean, look, it's very thorough analysis and I mean looks like a a good opportunity, a good expansion. >> I agree. >> I'd agree. Uh, like I said with the uh the planning commission at first had some questions and concerns, but I think they've been addressed and thought through and talked about, so I don't see a problem with it. >> Yep. No, I don't see anything. The trail, I guess, would be the only thing. Making sure that like Abby said, bringing out to tie in eventually with cooling camp would be a real plus. >> It definitely would. And we also acknowledge that this hasn't gone to the parks commission. Um, we have a few different concept plans that we haven't been intentionally keeping from our parks commission, but our parks commission has been so new, we kind of wanted to kind of let them get their feet underneath them. We'll be bringing this and some other ones uh before them in the coming months to get their feedback to make sure we're on track with what we've shared with you already. So, great. I can relay those comments to the development team. >> Awesome. Thanks, Abby. >> Thank you. Moving to the next one is sketch plan for Tim's Marina and Abby again. >> Thank you. Um Tim's Marina is located at 9080 Jewel Lane North and tonight for your discussion is a sketch plan. Slightly different than a concept plan. A sketch plan is again still highlevel non-binding comments but this is usually used as a pre-application tool. The developer or the landowner knows that they'll need to move forward with applications in the future and really wants to kind of gauge the sentiment of the planning commission and council before application submittals are made. Um, so just to give you I'll give you a high level of what the site is, what the proposed development scenario is. I know the landowner is here does have some drone footage to show you of the existing conditions of the property. Um, and then I would say it's just to help provide some feedback. So Tim's Marina is a seasonal RV site and marina that's been in existence since at least 1974. We don't actually have the original conditional use permit here on file. We just have township minutes. Um we also do have some minutes and at least one conditional use permit amendment from the township. Uh so we've kind of pieced together, we know it's been around for a while. It's been amended a few times, but really the city's permission kind of solidified. We we it was brought into the city when the it was annexed into the city that became a legal nonconforming use. Legal non-conforming uses are allowed to be maintained in the city. Um, but in 2002, I believe it was, the DNR issued them a public waters permit and that really kind of solidified the use here for 66 watercraft. Um, the changes that are being proposed would be the replacement of two homes on the property, a garage, and the addition of two docks for up to 78 more boats on the property. So, this is the current conf configuration. This is oops a wintertime leaf off photo just so you know or a springtime leaf off. All of the white dots that you see here, those are the boats that are brought in and stored on site in the um winter time. This kind of gives you a better idea of the current conditions. The pink are the seasonal RV slips and then um green being some open space and parking and then the dark gray being the boat slips themselves. We have one long finger dock, some RV dock um spaces both along the shoreline and in each of the two bays or lagoons. Um along the east bay where they do the boat launching, there is um seasonal mooring slips through here. So, it's I don't have a current or a springtime photo in this planet, but know that that is on the um drone footage you'll see today. Um there wouldn't be several land Oh, so what's being proposed would be oops would be um adding in two more of those finger docks or dock systems. um keeping the configuration of the other docks on site. There might be some rem there would be some removal of those seasonal RV spaces and some of those seasonal slips uh boat docks as well. So um this project would require several different land review processes. All marinas in the state of Minnesota are required to have an EAW before they can expand. An EAW is an environmental assessment worksheet and that is a cityled process that is a city application or a city process where a document the EW is created. Um it gets sent out to the public including public agencies and other interested individuals and anybody can comment and the idea of the EAW is what are the impacts to the environment and how will this either mitigate or not that there won't be any sort of adverse impacts. Um, an EAW is also used to determine if an environmental impact statement is needed. Um, if the EAW and and is approved and an EIS is not needed, then the applicant could move forward with um the applicant could move forward with an application for a conditional use permit and associate any associated variances with the U development at hand. If that application process was approved by the city, then they can apply to the DNR to amend the public waters permit for additional docking. Lots of lots of steps to get through. Um and so um yeah, so uh the slip addition to today on site there's 96 slips and this would increase to 172 slips. Well, those inwater impacts might be a less concerning. Um, their planning commission did bring things up like turbidity and there's been concern about maybe bumblebees and blandings turtles. Um, it's been more the concern of staff as well as the draft EAW review of the ancillary onland impacts that adding in this many slips could create. And so just for um reference, you know, anything from that seasonal storage, those where do those boats go in the off season to sanitary capacity, emergency shelter. Um but mostly a lot of the conversation in house um with planning commission has been parking. Uh where do the trailers get parked and where do the users park? if we now have twice as many boats on the water. Um, currently the city code indicates that we need one parking space for every boat slip. Um, plus we need to have employee parking and some trailer spaces. Currently, for the 66 permitted um spaces, they would need slips. They would need 99 parking spaces. There's 91 on site. So, they're slightly less than conforming with the code. Um the code requires that 1.5 spaces. They're at 1.37. So, they're just slightly under the city code requirement for the permitted amount of slips. However, there is actually 96 slips and watercraft on the site. And that means that they're at a parking ratio of just over one parking space per boat slip. Uh staff did include in the packet just how our code relates to other agencies that have similar parking requirements. We did look into I don't know half dozen or so cities. Uh not all cities have parking space per boat slip requirements. But on average uh it comes out to about 73.73 spaces per slip between White Bear Excelsier and Tonka Bay who did have posted regulations. That is the exact kind of number that the applicant would be at with the proposed parking plan that they have and the proposed boat slips. One of the challenges that we've identified with the propo proposed parking plan is the applicant would like to keep the same surfacing material that's there today or not improve the spaces. So on the eastern property um I don't know if my shows up there. We showing the parking spaces kind of in that angled fashion. Getting pretty close to the shoreline here. That wouldn't be permitted by code, but they would just keep that grass scenario. Can everyone see that? All right. Probably can't quite see where my my cursor is. Little crosshatch, but in this um area east of the East Bay, essentially just leaving that grass strip. And the planning commission did review this. There was concerns over that surfacing material. There were some members that did think this should be improved parking um that would trigger watershed district most likely trigger watershed district requirements. But the concern wasn't just about the wear and tear on the grass and maintaining that grass, but also just the impacts you could have for erosion and and sediment or um automobile fluids getting into the water in this location without having that improved surfacing there. Um question has been raised by the planning commission for traffic study needed. I will say in my staff report to the planning commission and I can't remember if I changed it. Um there is a a small bypass lane and there is a right-hand turn lane for eastbound traffic. So there is opportunity for vehicles to get out of those driving lanes to get into the site. Um question was raised about just the increase for gasoline sales and whether or not there'd be changes to the gasoline system there. uh need for storm shelters. Planning commission also raised charges about uh concerns or questions about sack charges and sewer feeds and how that was addressed on a seasonal RV site like this. And then the increased accessory structures with those RV uses. I think overall the planning commission was kind of just concerned about all that's happening there, not necessarily just with the boat slip expansion. Um lastly, the other part of the application would be the removal and replacement of the two residences on the property and a garage that's associated with one of the residences. The proposal would be to replace them in kind generally speaking. But what would end up happening would be to move them further back from the uh from the right of ways particularly for Highway 97 which does push them closer to the water. um which would also need a variance in the future. The because the applicant is going to have to go through this environmental process and the conditional use permit and the variance process. We've asked them to identify all the things with the future development so that we can address all of the develop future development scenario at one time um to assess whether or not all those cumulative impacts is is maybe too much. Um, generally speaking, when it comes to variances, and we can't, we're not acting on a variance. We're not making formal findings. Um, we generally want to stay away from our environmental, you know, resources, but in this circumstance, because we do have that state highway, it might be appropriate to move that that building further away from the roadway just for public safety. Um, keeping it out of future rightway needs, those sorts of things. Um overall uh the again your your the intent tonight is to provide nonfinding feedback to the land owner about their potential development scenario. Um the landowner will use this information to determine whether or not they want to move forward with their land use uh applications in the future. Um I'm going to stop. I do have this drone video that I'm happy to show you. I do know the landowner is also here if you have specific questions. Landowner also does have some just um photos from the 4th of July to share with you if you'd like to see any of that questions for me right now. >> Start. >> Where to start? >> Can we see the drone video and then come back to questions? >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> I mean if that's Yep. Hang on just a second. Let me Yeah, I forgot to >> that might help. actually Tim Joe Maslo with Tim's Marina and he did this for the planning >> planning commission that was really helpful to kind of orientate folks to the site. >> All right, there's no music. This is uh north to south overview showing the bay, the houses to the left. This is north to south as well uh showing the dock on our left. And we did uh line uh the parking spaces for the 4th of July. We were able to mark out 103 uh parking spaces in the uh nine parking blocks uh that we've historically used. This is the drive-thru, the way the cars would uh get to the parking spaces uh when using their boat. The house is on the left, restroom on the right. Uh if you take a right that goes to the boat ramp, straight down, goes to the dock. You'll see parking on the left along the pool and playground. We have a stop sign that is more of just to recognize the one-way sign. To the left, there is parking to the left. Uh typically the RV uh site uh uh tenants will park at their RV site. So the open nine parking uh blocks are for the boat users and RV guests. We're turning around. Those are the lake sites on the left. The two on our left will be retired. So we will have four retired sites there where the two new docks will extend from. You'll see our grass parking on the left there. That is the most heavily used grass parking area uh right near the current slip dock. Uh these are the boats in the bay and we have parallel parking along the left. And our hope is to maintain the look and feel as it is. So we uh would prefer not to be required to black top uh the roads. We prefer to keep the up north feel. Uh the exit is to the left and we have parking on the left there in front of those boats on the south bay. Our launch is on the left, parking on the right. Uh this is the uh east parking area. Uh those that are slipped on that area will use those. Otherwise, it in the past it was used for parking if we had a fishing tournament weighin. And now we don't uh do any short-term offerings like fishing tournaments or company events. And this is just a well that was a south to north view. And I did take some uh pictures of the Fourth of July just to show that we do have plenty of parking for the uh increased uh boat slips. Uh this is preourth of July just showing the marked spots on the east parking area. Uh this is our launch parking. We uh keep seven spots and two for Washington County. So nine total. Uh this is still pre-4thour of July just showing the marked spots. Uh this the we'll start the 4th of July uh images. We did a survey uh and these pictures are from 1, I believe 3:30 and 6:30. Uh just showing that we do have uh plenty of parking. This is the launch parking area. Uh east grass parking area, east grass parking area, east grass parking area. Uh South Bay, this will be at 3:30 p.m. on the 4th. I don't know what happened there. >> All right. Yep. Uh so 3:30. Uh this is the uh South Bay. Uh this is the area along the pool and playground. Uh this is uh south to north. This is along the playground. and playground. Uh we have some oversized uh parking spaces there. And all of our mark spots are 10 feet wide. Uh just because kids. Uh this is the parallel parking along the west side of the East Bay. Uh this is the most heavily used parking. This is going to be at our main slip dock. This is another image at our main slip dock. This is going to be 6:30 on the east parking area. 6:30 at the east parking area. Same uh 6:30 uh this is going to be uh by our launch here. Uh the gray gravel by the east side of the property. And this is the South Bay uh parking at 6:30 uh along the pool and playground at 6:30. And this just shows the next day of how the grass held up uh to the uh Fourth of July parking. Uh this shows the screening uh to the property to our east. Uh it looks sparse in the wintertime when the leaves are off, but it does fill out quite nicely in the summertime uh to screen that neighbor to our east. We do have uh we did do a survey on the uh 4th of July. So we do have those results here. Uh, and this just shows uh how the property is suited uh to handle the additional docks uh without interfering with our neighbors sight lines. Uh this is just a photoshopped GIS uh image. We have neighbors uh to our west over here and the uh their view shouldn't get uh blocked. Uh our neighbors to the east, I mean their view is blocked by our current slip dock. Uh the new ones shouldn't add any more uh hindrance to their view. Uh this is what it looks like currently. This is just a Google uh image uh showing lack of uh interference with sight lines. This is the proposed site plan uh which is going to be uh pretty much the same as what we have. We want to add these two docks and we're not adding parking in a sense. We're utilizing the three spots per site that we're retiring uh in 2026. Uh each site has two parking spots and a spot for an RV. So we consider that three parking spaces. And this is just the current site plan. This is a crude uh numbered slips. the these two docks will replace uh two of the short sight shore docks. And this is the result of our parking survey on the 4th of July. It was a bit windy, but it was a 92 degree uh 4th of July on a Friday. So, we feel it's a pretty good uh gauge of our recognized parking demand. Uh we have total cars, cars assigned to boat slips and RV guest cars. Uh we recognized a 42 at 330 uh parking factor. Our current designated offsite RV parking spots are 103. Uh we'll have 115 when we retire. The four sites and at 168 slips we have a parking factor of 68. If we consider the 20 slips that are RV slips that will park at their RV sites we have a parking factor of 78 uh close to double what we observed on the 4th of July. So, we feel confident that we do have enough parking. Uh, and it does hold up very well to the fair weather use of of the pontoons. Uh, this is just an overhead view of our grass parking by our main slip dock, which is going to be the most heavily used grass parking area or parking area in general that we have. Uh the only place there's a little bit of trap rock is where we uh put the docks in with the tractor in the spring. So, we're hoping uh to be able to leave the parking services as they are and the uh factor of 0.5 uh letting us kind of keep our current layout of parking and the parking surface uh so we can leave the property much as it has been for the next 40 years. Uh it has held up well for the last 50 uh as it uh as it is. Uh there is some concern uh that the lake might get busier uh but we observed even on the 4th of July uh 02 use factor. So, at any given time, 20% of the boats are off of the dock. And that matches with our two boats, our two cars per boat used, uh, brings us to 0.4 parking factor. So, adding 72 pontoon slips would likely, uh, see 14 to 15 more pontoons on the lake on any given weekend. They're not wake boats and jet skis. Uh I we feel strongly that it's not going to be noticed. U as far as making the lake busier. Uh we went through our parking factor. Uh I know many cities are concerned about parking uh from their marinas, but they're also downtown where there's restaurants and shopping and beaches and carnivals and all this other demand. Uh, and I think our parking survey on the 4th of July showed we don't have all of that. We don't need as much parking as downtown. In downtown, I would assume we were here. I would assume parking was difficult on the 4th of July in downtown Forest Lake, but we don't want to take any more of the public parking demand. Uh but I think we can uh more than accommodate the parking demand that would result from two more slip docks. Uh and over the years we have done more shortterm uh we've hosted bass tournaments, the weigh-ins, uh company events and in in past years we have ceased uh hosting those just because it creates a an influx in a short time when all the bass boats come in and you get spectators. Uh so we've we've kind of ceased all our short-term offerings uh in favor of seasonal boat slips, seasonal RV slips. Uh it's just more consistent and less demand uh for parking. Uh yeah, I think that's that's our speech. U I can answer any questions or concerns. Uh and all are welcome. uh as we work through the uh the process here. >> Any questions? >> Maybe one. So, how was it on Friday night at sundown when I mean I live on the lake and you can almost walk across the lake on pontoons. So, >> everyone goes home. I mean 6:30 is if they're not there at 6:30, they're not coming. So that's why we did our parking survey. If you live on the lake, nobody uses it before noon. So we did 1:30. That's going to be the people that come at noon. 3:30 is going to be the busiest time. You get the people that come at 1:00. Some come at 2. Uh and then by 6:30, even on the 4th of July, a 92 degree 4th of July on a Friday, our parking numbers came down a little bit. >> Okay, thank you. >> Y >> any other questions? >> How many permitted spots do you have right now? >> So, there is uh some confusion there. Uh we reached out to the DNR uh in the past. to distinguish between RV site boats and general boat slips and rental boats. Uh so right now we have 96 and uh we reached out because 66 is what they uh show. >> Thank you. >> Yep. >> Any other questions? I guess as far as um you know the site plan and the parking I'm generally in favor of it. Um you know it's I can appreciate that there's maybe a lot of concern from planning but you know one has to look at what's being asked not maybe what decisions have been made over the last 50 years. Um I mean I've been out on the lake I was out on the lake on the second the third the fourth you know the third was maybe you know arguably a little busy on first lake. People are zipping around. Um there wasn't any, you know, obviously it rained on the on the 5th, but that evening it was it was quiet. Um you know, living in the bay, I can see there's, you know, your 02 is probably about right in terms of >> how many of my neighbors are actually go out, you know, besides the 4th of July. Um so I guess personally, you know, I'm not terribly concerned about >> how much busier it's going to make it. Um just because I I know how often pontoons get used. um while they sit in the water all summer. Um as far as parking is concerned, so how that east side parking that you've shown um it's going to you know be intended to accommodate this potential influx. >> You've been using that for years in that in that fashion or is it just been winter storage space? >> Uh so in the winter it's for boats. Uh in the summer in the past we used to have more parking demand. We have uh if we can if I can bring up the image or I can just go through it. So typically boat slip users are going to park right in this area and along the west side of the east bay in that parallel fashion. Uh the area by the pool would typically be used by rental boats in the past. We don't do rental anymore. Uh and then the east parking area would be for uh bassant weigh-ins. Uh and then those that have a boat slip on the east side of the east bay. Uh on the 4th of July, it will be more used with two additional docks. Uh we have I did write the factor down I believe on a assuming a 042 uh usage rate. So, we have uh 54 spots on the west side, 61 spots on the east side of the property, and I believe 70 is a four parking factor. Uh, so there would likely be 10 cars in that east grass parking area out of 39. So, a quarter used. >> If it's a busier Fourth of July, it'll be more used. But, uh, grass does hold up well if it's not muddy, you know, and even the most heavily used grass parking area that we have by the ramp or by the uh current slip dock. We don't observe that. you know, by the it drains well, by the time it gets done raining and people come to use their boats, it's perfectly fine. It's not uh I know there are images if they have a concert or something and people bring RVs and grass parking and it rains and they're there and we just don't observe that. We're not a destination uh more than we are I don't live on a lake or the lake. I want my boat easy to use and it's 10 minutes away or in the case of those that live in headarters it's five minutes away for the long term of Forest Lake. Maybe somebody buys that house in headarters because they can keep their boats five minutes away. >> So, we feel like an amenity. >> You mentioned that it wasn't going to be wave boats or jet skiis. Are you going to limit it to pontoon boats? >> Yeah, pontoons. Uh maybe small fishing boats. Uh if you live on the lake, you know, Forest Lake's a shallow lake. Uh so the depth will make that a reality. combined with the fact that most of our weight list uh demand is from those with pontoons. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> That's all for now. >> Mr. Mansow Menso is it? >> Yep. >> Couple questions I have. Can you tell me how many current campsite slips do you have right now? >> Yep. So, we have 30. And we when I'm reading the documents of permitting, you're allowed nine. >> It should be uh 30 I from what document? It should be I think it was 32 in the past. >> Uh 32 RV sites. >> Well, I'm I'm just talking about your campsite SL uh slips. The the information I read in the document here says you were allowed nine. >> Is that not correct? >> I'm not. >> Abby, am I missing something? >> I'm not aware of it. I know we're 32 RV sites. We utilize 30 and next year we'll utilize 26. That might be the number of docks on the shore behind RB sites. Uh there used to be nine lakeside RB sites. So nine might be the number of docks. >> Yeah, I think >> RV docks. >> That might be a little bit better. So it's 16 moing spaces in the harbor where the um >> 16 moing spaces. So how many currently moing spaces do you have? >> Yep. So we have 96 uh boat sits currently and there was some uh we did reach out to the DNR for clarification. We used to distinguish uh 30 RV site boat slips, uh 50 general boat slips, and 16 rental boat slips. >> Is that correct, Abby? The information I read in the packet seems to be different than what he's telling us. >> So, the DNR permit is for 66 watercraft. >> 66. That's what the the current DNR permit is for. >> Current DNR. >> And you currently have how many? >> 96. >> How did that happen? >> We did uh so we always considered uh 30 RV site boat slips, 50 general slips, and 16 boat rental boat spots. So, we're assuming that the RV site boat slips were neglected in that count. I I >> But we did reach out to Dan for clarification. >> Have we got clarification back yet? >> No. >> Right. Because So, right now it's zoned or you have permit for 66. Yep. >> And you have 96. >> Yes. Yep. >> Okay. And you want to go to 172? >> Uh 168. We would be adding 72. >> 76 according to the math that I added up here. 38. >> Yep. Uh >> slips on two docks. Yep. >> That's 76. >> Yep. Uh those two docks would replace uh two of the uh shore docks there. They would leave from the same place. So those two boats would then go on to that main slip dock. So each new dock would have 36 and then the two that are current would be there. So each dock would have 38 oats on it, but they would add 36 per >> because you're subtracting some. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> And has the DNR given you any indication whether they think this is a good idea or they would approve something like that? >> I They haven't. They told us to go through the process and right now we're trying to gauge whether the city would be amendable to letting us keep our uh parking surface as it is because if they require asphalt, it changes our plan. >> Yeah. And that brings me to that question is Abby, what is our zoning here? >> Single family. I like, you know, you talking about the upn north feel, but my concern is the contaminants that get into this water with not having a solid surface. And I I know the concern and uh we don't notice I mean we have our the grass parking and it it even with a a wet June, we haven't noticed it being ripped up >> your docks that you're talking about putting in. They seem to be right in the middle of a whole bunch of lily pads and weeds out there. >> Yep. Uh so we did reach out to Dan about that uh as well. The west dock would be in a lily pad patch. >> And how would you deal with that? >> If we put the dock in, we wouldn't have to pull the lily pads, but it might affect their growth. So, we did reach out to Dan uh to see if that just throws out the plan or if uh there's a way around that. >> Yeah, because I don't think you can just pull them out. >> Yeah. And we wouldn't plan to pull them out. Uh they would just grow around the boats. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Yep. Thank you, >> Madame Mayor. May y >> um it seems the U does not require a lot of uh infrastructure investment on your part. Would you be opposed to some sort of phasing plan that would allow adding 20 docks a year to slowly gauge whether or not the parking is becoming a problem rather than adding 172 having a disaster and having to tell people they can no longer have a slip the next year. Is there any reason that any reason that we couldn't phase this in over a number of years? >> Yep. So the uh we hope to just go through the EAW process once. Uh so we're hoping to you know get permission and we would be fine with phasing it in. Uh but we would like I I'm not sure how that works with the EAW. It's our understanding is you express everything that you want to do uh and get the okay from all the other agencies. Uh but in the condition of use permit, we would be uh okay with a phase in and annual review. We're used to meeting 10 new people a year. 40 the first year or 50 the first year would probably be plenty. And the next year uh the rest in >> um can you explain uh you have a number of RVs. There's no additional RV spots proposed with this plant, correct? >> Nope. Uh we're retiring four of the Lakeside uh RV sites uh for placement of the new docks. >> And do you do you currently have an RV dump site for waste disposal on site? >> Uh all the RVs are uh sites are city sewer. Dave, do you have any comments on that? >> So, about a couple years ago, we found that they had a attachment into our city sewer and they had an RV hookup just dumping straight into the sewer. Currently, they're paying just residential flat rate of 130 $133 a month or a quarter. So, they're not there'll be have to be a sack determination of all the and the boats and everything that are using this marina. So, as of last quarter, they're they're paying as like a residential house. So, we do have uh so we pay for 9060 and 9080 and then we pay uh I think it's 1,500 a quarter for the RV park. So, we get three bills each quarter. >> Yep. I I can't remember. It used to be six. It might be eight a year now. It might be closer to two grand a quarter. >> Regardless, there needs to be probably some upgrades to that that place that's an actual RV dump station versus direct d, you know, direct drive into the sanitary. Right now, it just kind of goes into the the system. >> Also, can I just clarify? You said that all of the RVs are connected to the sewer system. >> Yep. So, uh the house the old dump station uh is in the center of the road uh by the uh to the west of the main house or to the east of the main house uh by our stoplight. Uh that one is where the house goes in and the there's a 6 inch main uh for the RV park and that was put in in the 89 or 90 I believe >> I just um but the actual RV units are not connected to by pipe to the piped city system. >> So and and I forget what their calculation was. I think they charge uh three RVs as one house. >> Sure. I do think that some of these things um changes that have occurred over time would probably also need to just be a part of that EAW or through the use permitting process to kind of really help everyone kind of lock in what historically has been happening, what are the on-site conditions and then that expansion. Um, those are some of those things we hadn't kind of gotten into thus far, but I think staff can definitely work with um Joe and his team on identifying some of those other items, those on again those onland concerns that kind of pop up like this that hadn't been vetted yet. >> That's all I had. >> Yeah, I'm generally f favorable to um these changes. I think with all of this, I mean, you can see with the discussion happening that items are popping up where there's questions and I think through the discussion, um, we can dive into those more and then figure out just historically what's happened and then, um, I think hopefully move in a positive direction. Um, and then council member Larson, did you have any comments? Um, I kind of in the same boat as council member Miller, a little bit concerned about some of the parking and stuff like that. And I know you made your discussion y >> at the planning commission meeting which I was there for >> and the EA thing. You want to try to do it all in one deal because it does get expensive. >> Um, I think going from 96 to 172 is maybe just a little bit of a stretch. Um, in that area. >> We would be okay in a conditional use permit to phase it in. >> Okay, that's a thought. >> Yeah, thank you again for your time, Joe. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, I think the idea of phasing it in, if it's possible to do the EAW with it all at once and then if we can do the phasing in, if that makes sense. >> The EAW has to be done all at once. if he expands at any point. So if Joe wanted to add 10 boat slips, he'd have to do a full EA. He wants to do >> 68 >> additional, he has to do an EAW. So the idea was let's put all of it together at once. Just because the EAW says yes or no environmental impacts doesn't necessarily mean the conditional use permit that we can find that it isn't that's in, you know, life, health, safety, public, no, not a public nuisance, all of those kind of findings we have to make with use permits. Um, but it's good feedback to at least hear that there is some concern from some of the council members about the volume of the addition because um that is I think has been a concern that we've staff has expressed as well. Certainly the strategy within EAW is to look at the maximum impact and then the council and planning commission have there's no need for them to say well the EAW said everything's okay therefore everything's okay you still have all the zoning issues that go along with it that the EA does not is not there to address right the EAW's environmental environmental impacts and so certainly common to see an EAW with the maximum scope and then a scope that moves forward is less than Can I ask one last question? Would you have any priority on those boat slips for residents versus non-residents? >> I mean, typically, uh, they're going to be, you know, within I we did a survey, just looked at our mailing list. Uh I mean maybe we could give a discount to Forest Lake residents the first year. Uh but right now uh we have 34 uh% are Forest Lake residents. Uh 42% are within seven miles. Uh 54% are within 10 miles and 80% are within 17 and a half miles. Uh, so about half are in Forest Lake or within a few miles of Forest Lake. >> Just curious. >> Yep. I mean, I don't know if we can play favorites, but I I would imagine we don't advertise uh open slips, so we should be able to accommodate Forest Lake residents that first year. >> Um, and this may have already been discussed, but does the EA W take into consideration. Is that just for the environmental impacts for the boat slips edition or is it literally everything like parking included too? >> It's going to be for everything. So the trigger is the boat slip edition, but the EAW is looking at all of the environmental impacts that the boat slips and and that marina expansion is creating. And so if every slip is requiring more parking, then that parking is a part of it. Um, EAWS also have certain components that have to be addressed like greenhouse gas emissions and things like that. So, there's factors that are um it that'll be factors of the EAW that are driven because of the proposal. Then there'll be factors that are driven because of the statutory requirements for an EAW. Okay. >> Quick question. Is it your intention that these additional boat slips that you would provide onsite trailer parking then for these boats as well? >> So, uh we do have a trailer storage area that's pretty full. Uh so, the same as winter storage, we are as full as we want to be. So, our uh intention is to do legacy storage because we do store uh some of our lake neighbors as well. Uh so if we add the docks in 2026 when we send our fall letters out uh we will offer it to those that stored with us in 2025. We assume the boats the new boats that would be slipped exist uh and were stored somewhere for that last season and our intention would be they would just be stored off site uh where they have in the past >> in the summer or winter. uh in the winter for winter storage and the same for summer trailer storage. >> Trailer would be offsite. Okay. Thank you. >> Any other comments, questions? Not not hearing or seeing any. Then thank you uh for coming up and showing us and having the video and pictures were very helpful. >> Okay. Um, and then we'll move on to staff updates. >> All right. Thank you, council. Thank you, Abby. >> Thank you. So, I'll start with Ryan. >> Mayor, city council. Uh, I want to provide an update on the mindot roundabout striping restriping contract that's been awarded and and moving forward uh which is planned to begin at three locations. They did have five, but they don't have enough funding to do all five. So they're moving forward with the three locations beginning July 28th. First location is planned at down in Hugo at the intersection of 61 and 170th. That's anticipated to take a one nights. Then they're going to bounce up to Forest Lake and begin on potentially July 29th at the intersection of Highway 97 and Good View. Uh they're anticipating that to take one night, maybe two. And then depending on how they get through that, then they're going to then finalize their schedule for the uh restriping at the roundabout in the downtown area on Trunk Highway 61 at Broadway. That's anticipated to take three nights. The closures will be from 8:00 pm to 5:00 a.m. Uh, and they know with the downtown one, they're not allowed to start on a Tuesday night because the arts in the park. There will be a 14-day uh variable message sign set up to provide the advanced warning of the project, but just want you to know these three restriping contract projects are are coming through completed by the state of Minnesota. the other two roundabouts that they didn't have enough funding for that might come at a later date uh several funding are the 6197. So heads up on that. I've been requesting specific information that we can put on our websites. uh there's just been a handful of people involved in this from INDOT and trying to get the right stuff uh and accurates and then uh just even last week they did some in the field meetings to look at it to verify their schedules too. So they're kind of dialing some stuff in for sure on that especially when we get to the downtown one. And then tonight's we held the seen most of you guys upstairs but the public open house for Eureka Avenue street improvement project that was very well attended and very positive feedback. So uh that will continue to move forward in the process and uh next step would be coming back to you guys to approve plans and specs and authorize ad for bid for that one once we get some other final approval stuff and have that project ready. Uh other thing that's some conversation going on in staging with the highway 97 project. It's anticipated that Highway 97 will be opened from Highway 61 to Everton Avenue by mid August. So that'll provide traffic to be able to get in there. They'll still have Highway 97 closed from Everton to where the uh Hornsby intersection is. Uh so kind of some movement forward on that. Uh and then just uh Northshore Trail, there's been some emails uh some residents aren't uh attached probably to the mailing lists or the updates or contacting the field inspector or looking at the updates that are on the website, but all the road closures have been well planned out. Nothing has been done or completed by surprise. There's well advanced signage, road closed ahead, then another road barrier um before you get into it. We are though finding a significant amount of traffic that is ignoring the signage and just trying to drive through the project and you know we're trying to deal with that accordingly. But uh and then I think some out of frustration then there's some emails that are coming back forward to probably city staff that's getting that stuff and then we're following up with that. But uh nothing's been on planned at this po point. Uh if people are talking and you have the ability to interact with them, just make sure they're uh signed up for the all the updates that are happen. Sometimes it's two, three times a week that an update might be going out. uh the QR code that's on the project website page on the city's website. All the information there, flyers have been handed out with the construction inspector's uh name and number and contact info. We're following the staging of the plan as previously uh discussed with everyone. So, just a large project, not a lot of ins and outs. And um you know, I did it this morning. I thought I was going to be late for something we had going on in town and I saw accidents on the main corridors and I tried taking some back roads and I'm like, nah, it's got to be open up there, right? No, I got up to the road closure up in Zimmerman and I had to turn around, too. So, I'm guilty of it, too. But that's just kind of the stuff that we've been dealing with. Just kind of wanted to bring up some of that stuff so you know that we obviously are aware of it or trying to deal with it and uh some of the other things going on with other projects. So with that, I'll open up with any questions you might have. >> Can you speak to that intersection that was called out in open form tonight? Is that a area of >> Hyo? >> Hyo. Yeah. >> I'm going to throw a dart at that part of town and then we just pick what road to go to next. I mean, we we do >> I know I know that some subsequence. So >> we do a road rating map every year. Uh coordinate with public works on where, you know, projects are going in the future. And that road is still scored well higher than roads to the west and east of them. So >> thank you. >> Yeah, I did look that up tonight. So I'm not just winging that answer. >> That's why I asked. >> Do you know what year it's scheduled for? >> It's not in the 10 years >> with current funding. It's not in the 10-year capital improvement plan. >> Okay. >> There's no other questions. your updates this evening and Abby >> uh just a few we are doing interviews for the assistant community development director position hope uh we might have a candidate selected by the end of the week um additionally I am meeting in the upcoming weeks with the county two different separate meetings one is to talk about the local affordable housing aid um reminder that there's a metro area tax for affordable housing we talked about it last fall kind of got some direction Planning Commission, EDA, and Council. So, they'll be working with the ED the county CDA on uh potentially developing an agreement for your consideration for to for them to administer the use of our funds in Forest Lake. Um and then also meeting with the county who wants to talk about expansion, potential expansion of our local bus circulator program and what kind of needs there might be. So if e any of you have any thoughts on the bus circulator program or that affordable housing aid feel free to reach out to me. Um and then also though we have not determined it complete I am really excited to announce that we did receive a like application for preliminary plant at the second phase of Chestnut Creek. um only 15 years later I think um developer that has um looking to develop the site has been working with the watershed to rectify some of the issues that really took a long time for us to figure out. Um so it's really exciting to kind of maybe see that second half of that neighborhood get completed in the next couple years. So um other than that I don't have any other updates. With no questions, we'll move to Dave. >> I missed open forum, so I don't know who attended, but I I spoke to some people out on Hyo as well, and I told them the the good news was that they're rated a five or a six, but the bad news is that there's about 50 miles of roads that are rated in that. So, at our clip, we're doing three to four miles a year. So, it's it's trying to group stuff together to Ryan's point that we're can't do a off in one area to try to group stuff. So, I I'll try to follow up or if I can figure out that guy's name and and call him back as well. Um, just want to thank everybody for Fourth of July. It's the 14th. It's been 10 days from now, but uh police, fire, public works, all did a great job, I think, getting everything done for the 4th. Um, didn't really have much of a hitch there and everything kind of went out kind of went well. So, no other updates and you have any questions for me? Seeing none, Chief Newman, >> no updates. >> And Amanda, >> yes. So, just a quick update on the outstanding 463 actions. If you recall, we have one on Jensen Avenue. I'll talk about that one last. And then we have two others that the council approved back in April for uh one on 17th Street and one on Everton. the two actions on the action for Everton and 17th Street they had until today to uh demolish their buildings and they did not do so. Uh so those are both being uh filed um with the court to get default motions on. Nobody responded to those. One of those the property owners cannot be found. It was that we noticed them by publication because they obviously were not living at the property. they were also not residing at the address provided by the tax records which was like someplace in St. Paul. So, um there's that one and there's another property where the individual also does not reside there claimed to be trying to find somebody to come out and do the demolition work, but it was not done. So, in any event, both of those are moving forward with a court actions. uh Jensen Avenue property. Uh that one is still in process of a settlement agreement with the bank. Um if you recall, to allow them the ability to to get into the property that's a little bit more nuanced. That one's taking longer than uh I am sure all of you would like. It's taking longer than staff would like or I would like, but trying to do that in a cost-effective manner, which would not include full-blown litigation for the city. Um, so that one, but that one is, you know, moving uh forward as well. Available for questions if you have any. >> No questions that I'm seeing. Mark, >> I just want to thank everyone for uh allowing us to make hire on our finance director. We're happy to extend an offer to Ellie Lurin and we'll be in touch with her and hopefully welcoming her to our team. Yeah, that's very exciting. >> See no comments or questions, then we'll move to mayor and council updates. And we'll start with Council Member Miller. >> Um, just a couple things. Uh, Dave, I'd like to just say from a citizen standpoint, uh, I was amazed at how well the Fourth of July went and how well all of the public works and everything got taken care of. The streets were as clean as I could ever have dreamt of not even 24 hours after they had events. So, uh, the signage, everything was down. It was absolutely amazing. I drove through and I'm like, "Wow, did we just have a parade here?" Uh, in the carnival and I couldn't believe it. It was, uh, it was very, very well done. So, thank you. Um, I attended the longest meeting of my career so far. Uh, I went to the schoolboard meeting a couple of weeks ago. I spent seven hours at that meeting and uh one of the major issues that they were addressing uh was sent back for a rediscussion and they still haven't decided on the result yet. So maybe this week we'll hear more on that. That's all I have. >> Thank you. And then council member Ericson. >> Yeah. I'd also like to take thank public works and the police force for just a fantastic Fourth of July. It was just it was awesome. So well done. Um no other updates tonight. >> Thank you. and council member Larson. >> Uh just have one thing here. I got a card that was addressed to myself as well as the council and I'd like to just read it real quick. Uh Forest Lake City Council, thank you for the beautiful pot of flowers for my retirement. It's gorgeous and a great addition to our deck. I enjoyed my 22 years with the police department, but the time has come to move on and I'm enjoying it. Thank you again and all the best to the city of Forest Lake. Lynn Gort. Very nice. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. Uh and then for my updates, just wanted to say that I attended the open house earlier today and then a couple weeks ago I attended the cable commission meeting which we just discussed um like our budget. We discussed the audit um and things like that. And then I'm officially back from my maternity leave. So, yay. Um and this is the longest I've been away from my baby. So, I've been thinking about him. can't wait to get back. Hopefully things went well. Fingers crossed. Um and then thanks everyone for bearing with me today as acting mayor. And uh just wanted to echo for everyone else. Thanks to staff um for everything that they did for the 4th of July is that is not an easy task. Um and it's multiple days. So thanks for the hard work that they all put in and the overtime for that. And then with that, with nothing else on the agenda, we can adjourn. [Music]