Good evening. 6 o'clock. We'll call the meeting to order. Uh Stephen, are you taking the role? >> I am, sir. Commissioner Applic here. >> Commissioner Goodwin here. >> Commissioner Staylor here. >> Commissioner Wagner here. >> Commissioner Young here. Vice Chair Stender, Chair Gerard >> here. We're asking if you're able to please stand and join us for the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. This chair is up high for me. Chair is looking for a motion to approve the agenda as presented or with changes. >> Motion. >> I have a motion. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> I have a motion and a second. It's a non-debatable motion. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed? Abstensions? Motion carries. We've come to our open form part of the meeting where we anyone who would like to address the planning commission on any topic um we ask you to come up state your name and address for the record. Spend a couple minutes giving your thoughts. If you're here for the o for the public hearing on Tim's Marina, there'll be a separate time for giving input for that. But so I prefer you to hold the comments on Tim's Marina until the open the public hearing for that. So is there anyone else who anyone out there who wants to discuss any other issue except Tim's Marina? It's nice to know where the audience sits. All right, seeing no one come forward. Is there anything to be read in Stephen? >> Uh no sir. >> Uh we will close the open forum. Chair is looking for a motion to approve the consent agenda. We've got one item on it. Approve the minutes from the regular meeting of March 11, 2026. >> So moved. >> I have a motion. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed? Abstensions? >> Motion carries. A regular agenda item, item seven is Tim's Marina 90080 Jewel Lane. There's a public hearing for a variance and a conditional use permit. The way this work tonight, the city will present the application as they understand it. Once they have finished, the commissioners will ask any questions that they have uh regarding the application. Once that's complete, we will ask the applicant if they would like to add any uh additional information or if we may have questions for the applicant. Once that complete, we'll come to the public hearing. I'll explain how that'll work when we get there. After the public hearing, it'll come back for further discussion and decision by the planning commission. So, with that, I believe Michael. >> Yep. Good evening. Before you tonight is a request for a cup and variance for Tim's Marina. The property is located at 9080 Jewel Lane in the single family zoning district and the Shoreland Overlay District. There are two requests before you tonight. First, the applicant is requesting an amendment to a conditional use permit to add two docks allowing an increase in the number of slips from 96 to 168. Additionally, the applicant is uh requesting a variance from minimum parking space requirements. This request would reduce the required parking from 252 spaces to 115 spaces. Uh, I want to establish uh the context for this project. Tim's Marina is an existing legally non-conforming use in the single family zoning district. Marinas are not permitted in today's code uh in the single family zoning district, but previously established commercial uses may continue to operate and they are able to expand through the cup process. This site has received several CUP amendments in the past and last year ending earlier this month, the applicant went through an environmental assessment worksheet, an EAW, to determine if a full environmental impact statement or an EIS would be required for this request. Tonight, the city acted as the responsible governmental unit for that request. We reviewed agency and public comments and presented those findings to the city council earlier this month and the city council determined that an EIS was not required and that there was not a potential for significant significant environmental impacts for this request. The EAW also included recommendations for mitigation of any environmental effects and that is included in our analysis for the CUP and the variance tonight and tonight we are just focusing on those local land use approvals. again the cup and the variance. On the screen on the left we have the existing site uh layout and on the right is the proposed. As it exists today the site has 31 RV spaces, 96 boat slips, 103 parking spaces made up of 62 grass spaces and 41 crushed rock spaces. And additionally they have 11 truck/tra spaces. The applicant is proposing to add two additional docks. This would allow for an addition of 72 slips overall and that would be a total of 168 boat slips on the property. The proposal would also result in the reduction of four RV spaces adjacent to the proposed docks and those RV spaces would be converted into additional grass parking which would lead to an addition of 12 overall grass parking spaces. I want to discuss specifically the parking issues. They are the core of the primary zoning issues that have come up in our analysis. The city code requires one and a half spaces per slip and an additional 20 uh trailer stalls. Based on that requirement, as the site exists today, it is non-conforming. Uh the site today has 103 spaces, which roughly equals 1.07 07 spaces per slip. Uh and the request, the proposed additional docks and grass parking spaces would provide 115 spaces uh which would roughly equal 68 spaces per slip. That would essentially make the site short 137 parking spaces based on current code requirements. And that is the focus of the proposed variance tonight. As part of our analysis, staff reviewed our pure cities, 10 pure cities in the area, uh to see what their standards for marinas are. We do want to present that for the three cities that do have marina parking requirements, uh our parking standards are significantly higher than our peer cities. Staff also considered the criteria required for both conditional uses and variances. Again, the code does specifically allow commercial uses in the single family zoning district to expand through the cup process. So, this request is going through the right application process. In that, we reviewed all potential impacts uh for the CUP process as well as through the EAW uh earlier and determined that no significant impacts are expected. Additionally, with the exception of the docks, no new buildings are being proposed on site. However, the CUP cannot meet code standards for parking spaces and parking design standards without a variance. And when considering variance criteria, we need to identify a practical difficulty that prevents the applicant from meeting our code standards. The applicant has indicated that high groundwater and frost conditions in winter uh would create a practical difficulty in providing those improved surfaces. And we do acknowledge that a high water table may create challenges to provide the improved parking and the related storm water management uh improvements that are required for that. However, we did not receive any sort of uh documents or analysis that showed that compliant parking cannot be provided on site and so staff has found that this code does not meet that practical difficulty standard. Additionally, staff has found that this request for docks without a related improvement to the parking uh number of parking unit spaces and design requirements uh is essentially increasing the intensity of the non-conforming use without substantially improving the non-conforming site elements. And based on this, staff finds that this request does not fully align with the spirit and the intent of the code. Based on those findings, staff recommends denial of the request for two additional docks and the associated parking variance of 137 parking spaces. Alternatively, based on our analysis, staff has identified an alternative request that we can support uh which would be a reduced request for one dock with a total of 36 additional slips and a associated reduced variance of 83 parking spaces. We are able to make that recommendation because we acknowledge that our current code is much stricter than all surrounding pure cities that have marina parking requirements. Again, our code requires one and a half spaces per slip. The closest city is Still Water, which requires 33 spaces per slip. We do recognize that that's a river that they're parking on, not a lake, but Prior Lake and White Bear Lake require only 25 spaces per slip. Additionally, we do recognize that based on the parking study provided, parking on the site is typically underutilized. So if the condition if the commission moves forward with the approval for a reduced uh number of slips and uh variance uh we could recommend approval in uh along with uh the conditions that we've included in our staff report which would primarily include a requirement that the applicant obtain a uh sack determination and conduct an audit of their sanitary sewer system. implement the mitigation measures that were identified in the EAW, which included limiting new registrations to pontoon boats with four- stroke engines and establishing a no wake buffer around the marina. Do you have any questions for staff? If not, the applicant is also here to answer any questions. >> Commissioners, questions to staff. >> Susan, >> the addition the previous cups, what were they for? I I tried to look it up and I couldn't get back far enough in there. >> It's some rough documents that we have, but uh the earliest one I could find was from 1974 uh that allowed an increase of the camping units on the site. Uh then there was an additional cup uh which allowed parking on the eastern uh property. There was an following one in 1987 that allowed an indoor swimming pool and two decks for the uh houses that are on the property. In 1993, there was a sewer extension. And then in 2006, we had an application to increase the number of docks. That application was never fully submitted because they required to do the EAS at that point and they did not move forward with it at that point. >> Thank you, >> Andy. So, in your alternative variance, where does the 87 come from? Is that lowering the actual existing or is that 87 new spaces? >> That would allow them to have the 115 spaces that they're proposing. Recognizing that it's not a significant um >> 36 slips >> 36 slips and 115 spaces would be provided on >> an additional 36 slips and a variance of 87 spaces from what's required >> which difference okay that's okay got it >> and have you got the number of total slips >> it was an additional 36 okay but 36 plus >> 96 132 Additional questions to staff. >> Would the parking spaces be required then to be crushed gravel or paved? >> We would allow them to exist as the non-conforming >> grass >> by elements. So grass parking spaces and the existing crushed gravel spaces. >> Okay. >> Anybody else? as the applicant said, how they will enforce things like the no wake zone and how they will make sure that there is no overflow parking on the adjacent public streets. I can answer for the uh public streets. There are signs that exist now that say no parking. I think there can be additional discussion on improving the quality of those signs. Uh but that is outside of the property like lot line. So it would be subject to standard code enforcement. Um I don't believe we've had any discussion on >> the the mitigations they provided were through the EAW and addressing comments that came in through the environmental analysis. Uh the applicant is here to be able to address those directly with you. >> Any other questions for staff at this time? >> Hearing none. I see the applicant in the front row. If you want to step up, Joe, state your name and address for the record. If you have any comments you would like to add, and then I think there's a few questions for you. >> Yep. Uh Joe Maslo, 9080 Jewel Lane, Forest Lake, Minnesota 55025. Uh my name is Joe. I'm representing Tim's Marina in our efforts to add season term pontoon slips to our marina. We'd like to thank our neighbors for their passion, support, and concerns. the planning commission for their consideration of our project and Stephen, Michael, and Abby and the rest of the Forest Lake staff for their patience and guidance through the process. Uh while we hope for addition approval of the addition as proposed, we are thankful for staff's alternate recommendation and that's what we would expect. You know, we're not going to push for 72 uh and go against staff's recommendation. Uh Tims Arena has existed for more than 50 years. Our family being the third owners having owned the and run the property for over 40 years since 1983. Our family lives on site and Forest Lake is our home. While our offerings have changed over the years, more recently narrowing to mostly seasonm offerings, we've always been focused on helping members of the community responsibly enjoy one of our city's greatest assets. We expect the additional pontoon slips to aid in the continuation of this purpose. While we understand the position and concern of our lake neighbors as there is no direct benefit of additional seasonterm pontoon slips to those who own lake homes. However, we truly believe seasonm pontoon slips responsibly connect the non-shore owning members of our community to our lake and city in a way short-term offerings cannot. creating support for our lake from our off lake neighbors. In an effort to ensure we are doing our fair share and minimizing impact, we have worked with Ken at the lake association to contribute over $2,800 on behalf of our boat slip users. And combined with our corporate sponsorship, the marina has contributed over $3,000 to the association's efforts in 2026. With the approval of one additional slip talk, this contribution will increase to over $4,000 for 2026. We have worked to restrict boat types on the new docks, allowing pontoons only on the new docks to minimize impact to the lake and our neighbors. We hope the facts in our application support and approve support approval of the conditional use amendment and related parking factor variance. We welcome any questions or concerns uh of the commissioners or staff. Can I answer your uh no wake? Uh so it is a state statue 150 ft around docks is a no as law no wake. Uh and we will post signs uh stating as such. And being seasoned term slip users, if we recognize somebody is a problem, we have that access to address it with that uh user. >> Go ahead. >> Go ahead. I'm sorry. >> I don't have any questions. >> And and my second question was, how will you make sure that there will not be any parking on the street outside of your property boundaries? >> Yep. So, we do have plenty of on-site parking. Uh, there are some people that will leave and stop, maybe check their phone before they get on the road. I don't know if we can do anything about that, but we are on site daily and we can direct people that are a problem. Or if it's a city street and it's no posted, no parking, I suppose it could be towed or ticketed. Other questions of the applicant? >> So, with the boat slips being pontoon only on the new dock? >> Yep. Do your other boat slips offer jet skis and wakeboarding boats or >> So the only jet skis are our personal jet skis and a couple of uh RV users have jet skis but we don't give the general public a opportunity to uh slip a jet ski uh or wake boat. >> Okay, >> other questions. Susan, >> one of the challenges of Forest Lake is that it's shallow and we've had a lot of sedimentation um and vegetation to make the lake like shallower every year. My concern and and I've been pretty consistent on this as long as you've been yep been before us >> is that yes there's a high water table um but without any stabilization of parking there's going to be especially because of the high water table and especially because of high intensity rain events that we're getting now instead of gradual stuff. I'm worried about muddy parking. Um I'm worried about more more damage and more opportunity for additional siltation in the lake. Um there are products that are available that are permeable um that are not concrete slabs. Um and I'm really it it's a challenge for me to look at the variance on parking um and continue We've always tried to say, okay, if if there's if there's an issue and they're they're non-conforming, they want to come in for a variance, we need to become less non-conforming, and this is going to be more nonconforming. So, I'm I'm wondering why you haven't tried to pursue something that it would at least mitigate some of the potential issues with both number and stability of parking. So the the parking that would be used uh was traditionally more heavily used from rental uh boats and when we used to host fishing tournaments and such that was more on the east side of the property uh where we would have up to 30 uh launchings and then at least one spectator per typically. So there'd be 30 or 40 cars. So most of that area would be used not every day uh but up to eight times a year. Uh and that's we would expect even less than that with this addition. Most of the parking will be to the west of the ramp uh because that's where the docks would be. So they'll be uh where the RV sites were retired. Uh currently that's just crushed rock with no uh material underneath. So, we'll seat it and the property is very level uh and grass seems to grow wherever. Uh it may be crab grass or weeds, but if it's green and we can cut it at 2 in, we consider it grass. Uh uh most of the lakefront does have a little bit of a lip just from the natural heaving. So, we don't notice any water running off the edge into the uh the lake even when we do have heavy rain events. And the property is generally flat. There are a couple areas that might be a 905 elevation. Most of it's 9004, I think. Uh that was on the survey. So it's 1% is maybe pushing it on the the grade for most of the property. So we don't get any water velocity to take that sediment into the lake. It just if it's raining, everybody's at home, nobody's using their boat, and by the time the next day comes and it it's dried up and soaked into the ground. Uh so when we had water shed out in August, the comment was if you change anything now you need storm water ponds and there's just not the depth >> uh to put a storm water pond in. So we took from that is don't touch. Uh, and being that it's going to be used less intensely than historically in the past when we had the short-term offerings, we felt comfortable that it won't cause any more sedimentation or or damage. So, when you were doing short-term offerings, >> y >> was that on average more per day than the number of additional slips you have or less than were your short-term offerings less than the number of additional slips you're looking for? >> So, at the peak, I think we had 28 rental boats. Uh, that would have been in the late 90s. uh we kind of phased it down and and kind of paused it. Uh in 2005, I think we had uh 16 boats in the water that were rental boats. Uh and in a busy weekend, they would all be out. Uh so typically about 30 uh parking spaces would be attributed to those rental boats. Uh, and if we had a bass tournament, most were 15 to 20. Uh, some were 30. Uh, and that's we paused that mid 2000, maybe 2008 or nine just because we didn't like that influx of a fishing tournament. Everybody goes out at the same time, everybody leaves at the same time. And we didn't like that busyness. We much prefer the season term offerings. >> Now I'm a little puzzled >> because you said that when you had rental >> Yep. >> it was usually two cars per rental boat. >> Yep. Per boat in use. >> Um but you don't believe that there will be more than one car per slip boat on busy weekends? >> Yep. So, so rental boats, all 16 will be used on a busy day. So, we'll have, you know, 30 cars attributed to those 16 boats. Uh, but even on the 4th of July, uh, only 20% of the slip boats are out at any given time. So, it's still two boats or two cars per boat in use, but not all the boats are used at the same time. Uh, cuz I mean, Fourth of July is our busiest day. So, that's when we did our survey. Uh, and even on that day and it was some people said maybe it was uh questionable weather, but it was 92 and sunny on a Friday, 4th of July. Nobody has to get up Saturday for work or church. We felt that was a really good day to survey uh the the percentage of boats in use and the parking for those boats in use. Thank you. >> Yep. >> Other questions of the applicant? >> Thank you. >> Don't go far. We may have questions after the public hearing. >> All right. This is a public hearing. the way this will work. Uh, some of you have signed up, but we are willing to listen to anyone who wants to speak, but we will have you sign the record afterwards. But you have to come up, state your name and address for the record, spend a couple minutes giving you giving us your thoughts. We are soliciting input here. It's not really a discussion between um the person and and the planning commission. It's really your turn to give us your thoughts on this application. We will hear from everyone. We wish that you keep it to a few minutes. It's beautiful night out there. Um and and the other thing is uh you know we have very professional crowd here. So I expect it to be nice and calm in here and no theatrics and fireworks and wild cheering and clapping. It's not a wild game. Um, so with that, we will open the public hearing at 6:28 p.m. Does anyone wish to speak to this application? Am I want to put it down? Good evening, members of the planning commission, city of Forest Lake staff, council members. My name is Kenneth Wood. I am the president of the Forest Lake Association. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this evening. As part of the public comment process, our association submitted a summary of key concerns from our Forest Lake Association member survey. 600 plus surveys were sent to our both paid and unpaid members and our paid membership today is 450 including 36 lake sponsor businesses. Out of the surveys that went out, 204 surveys were returned. The survey results showed a clear majority of respondents expressing concern or opposition to the expansion. That was 71%. With a smaller portion indicating neutrality, 14% and a minority expressing support of 15%. So, I'd like to thank the city of Forest Lake staff for their thoughtful review of their concerns. We also appreciate and support the city of Forest Lake staff recommendation included in Michael Burchland's staff report dated April 12th, 2026 to deny Tim's Marina's proposal as was originally submitted. And we support the proposed alternative recommendation which meaningfully addresses the key issues raised by our members and the FLA board. Specifically, parking, land use, and water quality. We support the proposed reduction in parking variance from 137 spaces to 83 spaces. This we feel is an important step in mitigating the runoff and protecting water quality, boat traffic congestion, recreation and safety. We also support the reduction from 72 additional slips to 36 slips and that the tenants will be pontoon boats with only four- stroke engines. This moderate increase and limit to pontoons only better reflects the lakes's capacity and helps address concerns about congestion and safe recreational use. Aquatic invasive species. We agree with the findings that seasonal slip-based pontoon use is unlikely to significantly increase AIS risk given that these boats typically remain in the water for the full season. shared responsibility for lake stewardship. We appreciate Tim's Marina's willingness to contribute um to the lake maintenance efforts through a recent per slip membership with the lake association that Joe just mentioned. This represents a positive step towards shared responsibility for AIS and overall lake health equity and future planning. Looking ahead, we believe there is an opportunity to better understand boat density on Forest Lake during peak periods. Having objective data will help inform future decisions and ensure consistency and fairness in evaluating any additional marina expansion proposals. In that spirit, Forest Lake Association is exploring options for a boat density study and would welcome collaboration with the city to develop a shared approach that can inform future planning and decision-making. In closing, I'd like to sincerely thank the city staff, the planning commission, the city council, and the mayor for the work on the EAW, the cup, and the variance review. We appreciate the balanced and thoughtful approach reflected in the city's recommendations, and we're hopeful that this path forward represents a workable solution for all stakeholders. Thank you for your time and consideration. >> Thank you. Does anyone else wish to address the planning commission tonight? >> Good evening. >> Good evening, members of the planning commission and staff. My name is Barbara Maher. I reside at 1514th Avenue Northeast Forest Lake. Um, I just want to make a couple of comments relative to the uh staff notes and the parking. I think that when you compare it to Still Water, White Bear Lake, and Prior Lake, I don't think any of those marinas are in a single family uh zone with a conditional use permit, and they probably all have concrete or black top. So, it is very different. And I agree with Mrs. young um that I think um permeable parking stability could possibly be explored. There are many many new things that you can put in the ground to help with stability. Um they use them a lot on um lake shores that that have high water coming up and down to stop the erosion. Um, but I I definitely agree with that um thought and I just would remind this group that this conditional use was granted 52 years ago and it would never be allowed at this point. Um, and so I appreciate the staff's work and the suggestion of the um reduction of the additional uh time on the lake. I don't believe a one-day study is even close to accounting for the density of the lake. So, um, appreciate your time. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Miss Mar. >> All right. Give the councilman a little work. >> Anyone else wish to address My name is Doug Mcderland. I live at 21551 Inwood Avenue North, Forest Lake, Minnesota on Third Lake, not far from Tim's Maria. Uh we can certainly, my wife and I can certainly appreciate that they want to expand their business, have more docks, more slips. We can also appreciate the work that the lake association did in determining the density of the usage of the lake. I did find the proposal to half the number basically interesting, but I still have concerns that the lake is just going to get more overcrowded. We don't have no zones between the channels. We're out there a lot. We see people flying through those channels. Um, so there are issues there. it stands, but also there are several other organizations that have extended docks. There's the HOA almost across the lake from Tims Marina where they have all kinds of new development houses, housing, excuse me. At some point, they're probably going to come over, too, and try and extend their docks out. Uh, Pizza Pub has the same extended dock situation. They may come and do the same thing and extend their docks out. You go over to First Lake, there appear to be other homeowners associations that have extended slips and everything. All of this is fine, but what's to stop everyone else from coming back and asking for more slips, which will again then just increase the density and and all the confusion that happens for that. So, that was the only concerns we had that we wanted to share. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> sir. Can I have you sign it, please? Are you I'm sorry I didn't catch. >> Anyone else wish to address the planning commission? >> Hello. Uh my name is uh Bejorn Larson. I'm a Forest Lake resident on Third Lake of Forest Lake. Um one of my main concerns here is the current traffic and congestion of the lake. According to the DNR, we are more than two times their recommended congestion in terms of boat per acre. And as uh Susan Young said, that adds to increased sediment. It also adds to more weeds getting torn up, which adds to more phosphorus in the water, which adds to more algae, and also adds to more work for the lakeshore owners to clean up and take all those weeds out of the lake. So currently um from what I understand based on the neighborhood meeting on the 11th and from here is that Tim's Marina will not have an increase in property tax. Tim's Marina currently with this proposal will represent approximately 12% of the boat traffic on the lake. And I think if anybody here got their property taxes for the lake, I think we all know they've been going up. And now we want the property owners are going to be levied with more taxes to take care of these programs to take care of the lake to look after the lake quality for Tim's Marina to make more money while degrading the quality of the lake. And you may say it's only 36 slips, but where does it stop? As previously heard, I agree. There are many other docks on the lake. So, you're setting a precedent that anybody can start adding more and more slips to their dock. We're already over congested. We have too much traffic. It has come to the point where for us personally on the lake, we get off the lake prior to noon on the weekends because it is unsafe and too congested. And we're property owners. We've been here for almost 20 years. That used to not be the case. So, while you may be looking at only 36 slips, where does it stop? And all that adds to, you know, deteriorating the quality of the water, quality of the clarity, the sediment, increased algae blooms, um, decrease fish health, decrease fishing, and overall erodess the quality of the water. So, while Tim's Marina will have approximately 12% of the boats on the lake, their property taxes aren't going up. That burden and also the burden of caring for the lake shore and taking care of shoreline erosion is borne by the property owners. Okay, for the lake. And while you said that you're concerned about the runoff, the semi-permeable is only part of the equation. The other part of the equation is planting good vegetation on the shoreline and having healthy reed beds in the shore just off of your property. That will help stop erosion and it filters that water coming off of that runoff and that's a major part of this. So you're having so many more cars, you're having more fuel usage, you're having more fuel that goes in, more pollution. In order to filter that, semi-p permeable helps, but it's only half of that. The other half is where does it go when it enters the lake? In order to filter that, we need plants on the shoreline and we need reads in the water and all that is gone. My um last point here is that um I'm not sure of the purpose of saying we only need pontoons with four- stroke engines. So, I Googled it quickly. And if we limit it to that, the largest four-stroke engine that is currently available for sale on a pontoon in Minnesota is the Mercury Verado V10 425 horsepower engine. It is not a 25 horsepower pontoon. So, if you limit this, you're limiting it to 425 horsepower. So, if you really want to limit what it can do, I would recommend putting a limit to the horsepower and saying it needs to be 50 or less because we all know pontoons go 70 m an hour today. And that causes a whole bunch of disruption. So, just by having pontoons and four- stroke engine doesn't mean you're getting slow boats that don't cause big wakes. You're getting fast boats. 425 horsepower boats that can go into that slip. My last question would be for the lake association in terms of how you can support this measure. You set out a survey and as you said 71% of the people opposed it, yet you came up here and said you supported it. You did not send out another survey saying, "What do you think about half of those slips?" So, the current survey you have says that your membership extremely is not in favor of this. Yet, you get up here and say you're representing us while more than 70% said no. So, how can the Lake Association president come up and say we support this? That's a decision by few, not a decision by the membership. And I would recommend you go back out to your membership and do another survey and say, "Does your opinion change if it's 36 slips?" Because you don't know. So, I don't know how you represent me as a member of the Lake Association, and I'm one of those 71% that said, "I don't want this." And you come up and say, "We're in support." So, the Lake Association leadership has a responsibility to represent your members and you failed today. You absolutely failed. >> Okay, that's all I have. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else wishes? Excuse me. My name is Ben Stevens. My address is 9670 210th Street Court North. Uh I just want to thank community as well as all of you for your time tonight. Um just a couple quick notes. Uh I I suppose I'm not quite as prepared as my predecessor here, but um on the safety front, I I don't think that there is a measure to the near misses that have increased as a lakeshore owner and boat participant on this lake. It's inquantifiable. But anyone that has driven a boat on on the lake has had more near misses um than they would have five to six years ago, right? Boat traffic has increased. Uh to add to that, uh any rental situation means we're bringing boat owners that aren't or boat users that aren't necessarily boat owners. And I think that that impacts safety in a negative way as well. So, just something to consider there. I also heard statements about um posting no wake zones uh or signs, and I think that's well-intentioned. But I also know that as soon as a boat were to leave a dock, literally no one, including the sheriff, is controlling how people behave after they leave a zone that has postings. none of us control other human beings and their behavior. So that adds again to safety and erosion concerns. Um my predecessor brought up setting a precedent. I understand that Tims is in a bit of a grandfathered situation. I would be curious to know how many other businesses on the lake are in a grandfathered situation. Once we have that answer, then we can talk about that precedent of wanting more slips. I don't know if anyone would have the answer to that today. Additionally, um I see that Tims has Joe and Tims have put in some thought. Um but ultimately they're a business and they're not asking for more slips so that they can minimize the use of those slips. I've worked my entire life. I've worked for businesses and businesses want to maximize their profit. So, I would add to your consideration that more than likely the well-intentioned statement eventually erodess and they will seek to maximize profit turnover and the parking spaces available. regardless of how it was represented here today. Finally, in his own opening statement, he commented that there's no real benefit to the community at large. And I would just like to punctuate my statements by reiterating his opening statement that the community at large benefits from this little to nothing. Uh thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak public hearing tonight? Sure. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> So long. >> Good evening, council >> and staff. My name is uh Steve Schmaltz. I've lived on the lake since 2002 and since then I've been uh advent uh advocate of the water quality and since that time I've worked with the lake association spent many years on the wershed district board etc. But tonight I'm speaking as an individual concerned about lake quality and Susan I'm glad to hear you standing up for the water quality issue on this particular variance. Um I was concerned I guess in the variance that there wasn't much talk or much coverage about water quality and I think that um a lot of the suggestions that came in from the DNR from the lake association and from the wershed district pertain to water quality. So I wanted to share a few observations with you that I think might have been missed by the by the council or by staff that could impact on how you look at this particular situation. The first is a letter from the uh Minnesota Department of Resources to the city suggesting three or four things. And the thing that caught my eye the most on this was their reference to the fact that the city should first of all enforce all their own ordinances regarding U shoreline. As you know, we have a shoreline ordinance and here they reference that shoreline ordinance as a number one point and I'll read it to you. Get my glasses on here. Excuse me. Um, this is ordinance 153089. Quote, "Public and private roads and parking areas shall be designed to take advantage of natural vegetation, as the gentleman talked about, and topography to achieve maximum screening from view of public waters. And as you look at that layout of the plot, most of those boats are along the shoreline and around the bay. So they're right very visible to the public waters. And so while this ordinance more of a visual aesthetic thing, it does have the requirement to plant some trees. That's what the ordinance requires to break that view. So when you're out there enjoying your view in the boat, you don't have to look at all those cars parked along the side. So it's kind of a backdoor water quality thing. So if you would add to UC UCUP the ordinance requiring them to plant trees along that boat line that would not only shelter the view from people boating but more importantly it will provide significant shoreline stability and water quality and that will go a long way since you've already doubled the variance on the number of boats. So you've doubled the compact ground, basically doubling the amount of uh phosphorus that's going to come into the water along with the oil and grease and other fluids from those cars parked within 20 ft of the of the shoreline. So that's one thing why that was not even mentioned in the variance writeup. So I don't know how anybody missed that, but that's a very important point. The second point they talked about was the importance of storm water runoff. And of course, as you know, there's no digging going on here. So, the watershed district rules were not enfor kicked into action. But I'm hoping, and I know Joe is very concerned about the lake. He's already contributed dollars to the to the lake association to help uh take care of the lake. Would he be willing perhaps as another CUP addition to work with the wershed informally come up with other suggestions and also work to get grant dollars to pay for any improvements that could be put on the property to reduce that load from phosphorus coming into the lake be a voluntary thing but if you add it to the cup and go through the exercise something might very good come out for the lake the last point was a surprise to me they talk about the importance of sediment which I think Susan you mentioned and they said we can't determine what the situation is because there's no maps and nobody's done any core work. But by by coincidence, I happen to get a copy of a permit submitted by Tim's Marina recently to the DNR and I think perhaps to the city for a permit for for dredging their bay. When you dredge, you're removing a lot of sediment. A lot of sediments there because the shoreline is not stable and we're getting wash in. So this is another indication that we definitely do have a you know a a sediment problem here and shorelines that should be stable. So these are just some questions that I came upon that I think were important to be considered that I didn't see in the variance and I'm hoping that maybe as the council can ask staff to go back look at this and if nothing else added as part of your CUP to allow the variance to go through if it's going to go through. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak at the public hearing? Excuse me. Thank you. My name is Kevin Quacowski. I've uh lived on Northshore Circle Trail and been here been on the lake for 15 years either myself or as a son or grandson of the lake. And um I've hauled a lot of weeds. And what I've seen in my days of being on here all that time is the pontoons. We restrict them to pontoons. Well, the pontoons like to cruise around the lake. Well, they're cruising around the shore getting close to the docks and that and it's what I have seen and what is when or the most thing that contri is just I mean no evidence or anything but a lot of it is from just the boat traffic coming by and turning up the weeds and then they come in depending on the wind. Um, that's just one point. And I one other point is is uh just a concern with with the parking on uh 97 there being that that's going to be create is that going to create an intersection that's going to need to have a stoplight there or stop sign on the highway because all the traffic that now we're going to be adding getting on to 97 which is a crazy road for driver that a lot of people are speeding on. Is that going to cause a problem? So that's all I have. Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. >> Anyone else wish to speak to the application? Want to make sure we've given everybody a chance because once I close this, we're done with public comment. We're not >> that we don't bite. Stephen, is there anything need to be read into the uh >> you received uh three comments after the staff report was completed. They're written comments. They're uh with you on the deis. Would you like me to review them? >> Uh they will be included in the record. I I think that's uh written up. >> So there will be three comments that'll also be added to the record tonight. Um, so I'll make a last call for anyone who wants to speak. Seeing no one come forward, we will close up. >> Change your line. >> Change my mind. >> That's right. I saw your >> flitting around back there until you know as soon as he starts to say going, going. >> My name is Barb Stoleberg. I live on third lake and I've been on the lake for 43 years and have seen big changes in the density. So I am all for further density studies maybe even before this is approved. I also would like to agree with some the the gentleman that talked about planting trees along the shoreline because to me when you're driving along and you're looking at tons and tons of boats all jammed together, it's not very scenic. And my other concern you mentioned briefly was about sanitation. We have a problem with a lot of garbage on Third Lake and it's all floating into the res which are near us. And I'm wondering if Tim's Marina, do you have a do you have bathroom facilities or garbage facilities there for people who don't have a trailer there or a camper >> for the slip users? Yes, >> you do have something for Okay. I didn't know. I >> I've never been. >> And we don't have to pick up garbage Monday. So, we know our >> Okay. So, but that is a concern. The more boats you have, the more people you have, the more garbage you have. And if they're not lake home owners who are, you know, trying to tend your shorelines, you probably they probably don't care. And so, that is a concern because I've seen a a big increase in that. And it might be just that Party Point is out there, too. I don't know. right around the reeds, but we've we kayak there through there all the time and it's it's a mess. So, garbage, overusage, too many too many boats. Um the density is a real concern since we're about double what's recommended by the DNR. And I do think further studies, further shoreline protection. As a homeowner, we are required to limit our uh imperous surface. And I think the same should hold for businesses. So I don't know that's one of the city's deals or supposedly I hope. But I appreciate all your time with a lot of points brought out were really good tonight. So thank you for your time. >> Okay. >> Last call. Anyone else wish to speak at the public hearing this evening? Seeing no one come forward, we will close the public hearing at 6:57. Commissioners, further discussion, comments, >> do we have a copy of your amended thoughts? >> It's in there. >> It's in here. >> It's part of the recommendation on the staff report. >> I'm just old. I didn't pay. >> We know that, but we're all old. Um, I will comment on uh there was questions about all of the other uh multiple docks on the lake. Tim's Marina is the only marina on the lake. Everyone else is through a homeowners the only marina. >> So Tim's Marina and then the pizza pub docks are considered a marina. That would be our other legal nonconforming um per DNR permitted uh marina in the single family. And then downtown, the Yearbo Club is also permitted as a marina, but it is in a district that allows for uh marinas. >> So once again, I'm wrong and Abby has corrected me. U so but we always like to have the correct facts go out of the planning commission. So that's why she corrects me. So there are three marinas which would be the pizza pub would be the other one and then where your boat works is downtown. All the rest that you see those would be under HOAs for the condos and our different homeowners association those are are locked in. They're done. Um as far as any growth goes. Um and if you go back into our earlier records you can see we've had that discussion with one of the homeowners association and we denied any additional growth on that. So, this is what we're looking at here. Um, so I can't comment on that on um I had another comment and I lost it in my notes. So, commissioners, >> Mr. Chair, do you want to do the variance first and then the conditional use permit? >> I want to know if there's any more discussion. >> Thank you. >> I I have you done. I was just from a procedural standpoint if if this or any part of this gets denied this evening the applicant can appeal this to the city council. Is that right? That >> correct? >> That's correct. Correct to understand. Just so everybody understands that. Okay. >> It would go for either way on the decision. The other party can all anyone else can appeal. >> Anybody can appeal. >> Yeah. So if it goes against what someone wants, they can do an appeal. So the way this works is that with both the uh CUP change and the variance uh we are the final decision makers. However, that is granted by the city council. So if someone disagrees with the decisions that are made tonight, they can appeal and it'll be heard at the city council. The appeal will be held and they'll make uh the final final decision. I'll call that there is a fee and you need to appeal within se a week I believe >> uh we could say a week but I believe it's 10 days so we can look while there's deliberation >> so it's it's quickly so if uh either n wanted to appeal you can do that there would not be a public hearing at that time this is the only public hearing they would just be taking it up >> no if I'm wrong again >> sorry chair if there isn't appeal that is a like a statutory doover. So then it's a whole new hearing at the city council level. >> Well, once again, I'm wrong. I guess there is a public hearing and for months, Abby, I've been telling people there's no public hearing and you don't correct me. So, all right. Now, I know. So, I apologize again that I was wrong. There would be a public hearing. Do we send out notice for that public hearing? >> Yes, that is a like a complete doover. So, we do send the notice again as the same legal requirements that we did for this one. So, I'm sure it probably wasn't as large of a boundary as most people would prefer, but um yes, we had sent everybody who received a notice, put it in the newspaper and on our website as well. >> Thank you, Annie. >> Yeah. Um, is Tim's Marina currently are all of your slips sold for 2026 >> and you have a wait list where you know you have the demand. Um, I I do have major concerns about the parking. I think if you have that many boats, the reality is that many people can come and there is nowhere there is no overflow. It's Highway 97. So, I am pretty concerned about the expansion just from the parking aspect. I just think it's shoehorning in the opportunity. If they pay for their slip and they have their the right to be there, parking isn't going to turn them away. We've all been to boat launches all over the metro where there are cars and trailers and vehicles parked where they're not supposed to be. I think we're inviting an issue there. >> Thank you. Other comments? look down his head. >> Susan, I'm going to make a motion to deny the variance. Um, our when we make decisions on variances, we have findings of fact A through E. And um it's not based on the numbers of slips or the numbers of of rental units or or or whatever. It's based on findings of the need for the variance. Um the first finding that we would look at is the practical difficulty um to um comply with our existing standards. I understand that this is an existing nonconforming use. Um, but to try and make it more nonconforming um is not part of the spirit or intent of our comprehensive plan, our zoning code, or or any of our ordinances. Um, I don't see anything on here that is an attempt to be more compliant um or to decrease um the non-compliance in the issue. Um the second one uh is whether or not the property can enjoy a reasonable use under its current conditions. Um and yes, they you all have a a great marina there and you have a reasonable use under the current conditions. Um the ordinances specifically talk about that if the um reason to increase is solely economic. Um that that is not a reason for the planning commission to grant a variance. Um there's there's a consideration that we have that, you know, is there something really unique and specific like um somebody needs to build closer to a uh have a a a shorter rear setback because their property drops off. Um that's not the case here. Um any request for the variance, this is entirely due to the desires of the land owner. um and is not something that is beyond their control. Um and I agree with staff that even though um the request is being decreased in the number of of slips, it does not align with the values of Forest Lake as stated in the comp plan and the zoning ordinance. And so, Mr. Chair, I make a motion to deny the requested variance. I have a motion. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Um, I'll be voting no on this motion. And and the reason is I I think that if our parking ratio lined up closer to the other marinas down in White Bear, Minnotonico, Prior Lake, we wouldn't even be here for a variance request because he would meet the current with his current parking that he has. >> No. So, I just don't see I don't see a large increase in the parking. And since I have the audience out here, I'll I'll state I've been on the lake for 35 years. I live on the north side of the Second Lake. Um, and I don't see how this is going to create a problem when we have three basically uncontrolled boat launches. We have multiple private homeowners who have three or four pontoons on the end of their docks. We all know they don't own three or four pontoons. So I think that the alternate that was here I think was a pretty good middle ground. That's my two cents. >> And and Mr. Chair, I I I don't give two hoots and a holler about number whether it's 36 or 72 or 178. My concern is with the process and what we consider for variances whenever we have a variance request of of of any type and condition. And as I go through our findings of fact and which is why I went through them um I really don't see a reason to grant the variance which is why I made my recommendation to deny. Understood. >> Any other discussion? >> I would just um echo the words of Commissioner Commissioner Young that the the variance issue is one of of hardship. That's always the the the word that's in front of me when I think of a variance is is there a hardship? And um you different words for it. You I don't I can't remember the language you use, but you talked about but but that's what I don't see. So um I I as well admittable to to deny the variance. >> Other comments hearing none call a question. All those in favor of the motion which is deny to deny the variance signify saying I >> I >> opposed I abstensions. Motion carries. >> And staff, do you need any more from me on findings of fact? >> No, we can we'll get that from the record. Okay. >> Do do we need a second motion for the cup? >> Think so. >> Yes. Correct. >> Yes. >> Yep. Mr. Mr. Chair, I'm going to move to deny the conditional use um permit changes um for the same reasons >> and the same findings. >> I have a motion. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Have a motion and a second. Any discussion? >> All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I >> opposed. I abstensions. Motion carries. >> Could I confirm who seconded that? >> I I think Don did >> seem like there was there was a tie tie at home base as well, but >> I heard Don before Andy. We got to move Andy a little closer. Maybe I get it at the same time. So, what this means is that as of now, the the motion to to for the application for Tims to expand the marina has been denied. Um, and it'll wait and see if Dam Marina would want to um what's the word? Appeal. >> Thank you. Appeal uh the decision. Um but I want to thank everyone for your time tonight for coming out. Beautiful night out there. Go enjoy the rest of it. You're more than welcome to stay for the rest of the meeting. Um but nobody ever does. >> Come on. It's going to be fascinating. One thing I want to mention to the applicant is that if if you would like to appeal, it's a 7 days in written notice to us and then we'll get it public notice, but we'll have another public hearing at a the a city council meeting. So, just reach out, Joe. We will move to uh we have item eight, which is a placeholder, which uh if someone can educate me, it'd be great. Nothing. >> No, just nothing. It was uh discussion is uh essentially related. I think we were working I think Susan provided some insight into things and we got wrapped around what the new formatting would mean on action items. So I apologize. >> All right. I lost uh we'll do updates. I lost a council person. So you snooze, you lose. So Abby, what do you have for us? I can share at least uh uh Monday evening, the city council did approve the Forest Road North garage condos final PUD plat development agreement and uh deferred assessment agreement. Um they have a few more conditions of approval before they're going to end up in a building permit and ground disturbance world, but we should see some construction on that um possibly this year or we should this year. Um, also they um uh you staff met with them to talk about an upcoming u land met council land use advisory committee hearing regarding our appeal to our system statement the council gave staff to continue on with that hearing. Um city council attorney or city attorney Amanda Johnson and I actually are going to meet with my council legal counsel and staff tomorrow to see if we might be able to reach some sort of agreement. I don't think um either party necessarily wants to have a hearing, but we we do have the authorization from council to keep moving forward if we need to. Um and then the only other thing that I'll mention, unless I'm taking Steve's update or Michael's update, is we did count up all of our unit counts and uh the platting process right now between preliminary and final plats. We have 330 properties that are being platted or some form of review. So, you're going to see a lot of dirt moving. Uh you're going to see a lot of plats coming through and a lot of dirt and new home construction this summer and fall and continue into next year as well. >> Question J Abby Andy >> was that 300 300 homes or 300 properties being divided? >> 330 property being divided. Yeah. >> Anything else for Abby? >> There was a a Met Council meeting on the process um of the >> highlights. Highlights low lightss please. Um, sure. So, the Met Council has a land use advisory committee. The land use advisory committee makes recommendations to the full Met Council on land use matters. Um, so they're um they were briefed last week, I think it was last Thursday, by an attorney hired for Luak to um help guide them through this appeal or this um yeah, system statement appeal process. Um, essentially what the the attorney did was outline what a system statement is. Um, remind the LUAC of what the city's proposed community classifications are and then proceeded to outline the ways in which the city is appealing uh items in its system statement. Um, the intent of that meeting was really to give LUAC the opportunity to ask questions of a legal counsel that was not their legal counsel that would be in the hearing. Um, it was designed, I think, to help prepare them for the hearing because I did learn in that meeting that I did uh, watch this is the first time anybody has appealed specifically to the land use advisory committee in 20 years. So, this is not something that they do frequently and I think also grounds for why their attorney has called us and asked if we could meet and maybe sit down in advance of that hearing. Um, some really great um questions of the LUAC members that gave us some little better insight to some of the information they would be seeking from the city. So, it really helped us I think is helping us prepare for that hearing is believing that we'd still have to have that on April 9th. I learned a lot about LUEC that I was not aware of. It's a, you know, appointed by the Met Council, but these are mayors, citizens, council members, planning commissioners from all of the metric metropolitan district uh council um regions. And so these are just average cit citizens. I was surprised, I will say, at some of the questions that asked because I think there was um sometimes um I'm gonna back up and just say I was surprised at some of the questions they asked because I was I was surprised that that advisory committee may not have had the knowledge base of what we were talking they were talking about and then questioned some maybe some of the you know real impacts to the community to Forest Lake itself. So, um, we're going to continue on preparing for that hearing. We obviously hope we can reach some sort of a, um, agreement and we really hope more than anything that this kind of continues to help educate the Met Council and LUAC on just how the decisions they're making are really affecting communities in the long run. And and just to refresh my memory, Met Council is is saying is is giving us certain designations. If if you could refresh me on that and then what are we asking for instead? >> Sure. So the Met Council has designated so in our current currently we're designated we have a split uh designation. So we have rural residential I think it's rural residential. I got the rule said that we don't get to develop as densely or isn't going to de develop as densely as the urban area. The urban area where there's predominantly there's sewer and water or not always water but their sewer is currently classified as emerging suburban community and an emerging suburban community right now has to develop at three units per acre. In this system statement planning round, the Metropolitan Council elected to eliminate the emerging suburban community or emerge it with the suburban edge designation and then increase the suburban edge designation to 3.5 units per acre. So that's a community or a a the area wide. So all of the areas guided for emerging suburban our total density of all the future development needs to be 3.5. So not necessarily one development could be one unit per acre if it's that land area is ged for one unit per acre and the other one could be 50 and that was not math that's going to work out to 3.5 but the in essence as a total. So, um, the Met Council said, "You can appeal this city." Um, but generally what cities have to do is they have to say, "Well, we don't want to be a suburban edge. We want to be a we think we are an X." But for Forest Lake, there wasn't anything less less dense. And so, we said, you know, okay, you want to eliminate our classification and you want to now call us suburban edge and say we need to develop by to 3.5 units per acre. We want you to memorialize the exemptions of what you allow us to take out of the gross developable land area. So, right now, if you have 100 acres and you've got a wetland and wetland buffer and that's 50, you now have 50 acres, right? We don't take the stuff that you can't really build on, but they wouldn't allow us to net out uh local roadways or storm ponds. Storm ponds have been one that I've been advocating for for a long time. A lot of the regulations around storm ponds are governed by other governmental agencies. We don't get to say necessarily or or land characteristics. We don't get to say how big or how small these can be. And my running joke for a long time is I can't put like a floating hut on it. So I can't count a home there, right? I can't if I we can't build on it. We can't be saying that's developable land area. So, the ME council has since indicated the that cities metrowide can now net out storm ponds. So, we got a little win um but they are not allowing us to net out local roadways. So, we're going to continue to advocate for that. The other thing um that the Met Council has indicated in our system statement is what is called like a household forecast and they indicate that by 2030, 20 240 and 2050. So each of the development decades that will be of our future comp plan. Each of those development decades we will for we're forecasted to have so many households. They have brought back the forecasted households for every community in the metro region on the basis that regionwide they don't anticipate the growth. Uh they actually anticipate about a 20% decrease in growth from maybe these prior um development years or development decades. Well, I can I can I can math sometimes and I can look at the number of homes we have now, the the number of homes that are permitted. I can look at that 330, which actually it's going to equate to 409 pretty soon. And I can also look at the land areas that are still open in this development decade by 2030, and say there's a likelihood we're going to exceed that number. So, the city council said, you know, we don't agree with your number. we actually think the number should be a little higher. Um, and they said we map differently than you. No, we don't support that. Um, why this is important to to us, it's not necessarily that staff is saying we need to grow like that fast. We are growing and we have the land area open for that growth. The consu the primary concern that staff has is we run the risk of more expensive development and another governmental hoop to go through. And in that process of, oh wow, there's a plat that's going to hit the exceed the forecast. My concern is that all of a sudden now you as the developer are going to have to go to the Met Council and ask for that amendment or we are going to have to go to the Met Council and ask for that amendment. It's going to be more costly. It's going to be more time and ultimately our biggest fear is that the development could potentially be denied. And so we're concerned that these consistent having to go back for the comprehensive plan amendments when we first see when we exceed our forecast is of a concern. And then lastly, um the other specific thing that we stated in our appeal statement is our what's called affordable housing allocation. It's a number that the Met Council has said, hey, by 2030, Forest Lake, you you we believe you need to create this many affordable housing units. Again, there's no risk if we don't create those units. What they want to see in our comp plan is that we are guiding land sufficient enough to be able to create the units. So, essentially the argument that more density will in will decrease values and create more affordable housing. Um, with that one, the city council did not indicate a specific number we'd like that to be reduced to. it was more of a policy statement that we don't agree. Um, frankly, we didn't necessarily want to run the risk of those numbers increasing for some ways. So, so that's a highlevel summary of what the system statement is, the mech council's role, and what we've appealed. >> Thank you. Um the the one I I have issues with the density and that's but there is no way that we can have the number of housing units at 30% a u average median income AMI. Basically that equates to a $75,000 house. I I just want to say for the record when I do indicate uh the 600 units that is in bands of affordability. So there's so many units that are 30% I think it's 30 to 60 60 to 90 90 plus and so not all 600 would fall in that extremely low area median income. and and when when we had our discussion um on the comp plan, I I I I did the I math the math, which is not my always my my strong suit. Just ask my daughter. Um but no, no, it it I I don't see it how it can happen. And in fact, um, when I called around for the apartments that are here, we don't have any apartments at 60% AMI for except our very very very old apartments. >> Um, we we have some newer ones. the um not going to think of the current name just across from the service center library >> the common bond on one >> common bond yeah >> so I mean but you are correct most of what we have is aged infrastructure it's aged into affordability which isn't uncommon >> other questions of Abby >> uh Mr. council person. You were missing when we started, so >> sorry. >> That's okay. She already covered the garage condos, though, so we'll save you a little time. >> He was excited about that one. >> Yeah, that was going to be my high point. >> Well, then go ahead. >> Well, I'll I'll start out with surprise. >> I just like to say thank you to the community for coming out tonight, whether it's good, you know, if it's a positive thing, a negative thing, if they want to share or whatever, but just to come in and voice their opinion. I I don't know how much you know it means a lot as far as us as far as council and I'm sure you guys as well for people to come out and you know explain their viewpoint whether it's good or bad or whatever but to take the time to come here and and share their their thoughts I think is is very good. I really appreciate that. Um, the other thing is I was going to mention that we just hit the garage condos on Monday and that's done. So, uh, thank you again for all your work on that. I know that made its rounds a couple of times and there are some things there. So, thank you all for your hard work on that. So, um, other than that, I don't really have anything else to share, but if you have something of me, I'll try to be efficient and answer what I can. You know, I I would concur that it's a nice crowd tonight. Very polite. They can come back anytime. >> Yep. >> We had it was good. >> Very good. Thank you very >> question for uh the man. >> Hot topics in front of the council in the next month or so. >> There's always something going on. Um um one thing we're still working with is uh public works. Uh there's still some meetings. We had a steering committee a little while ago uh meeting on that, but uh we're working forward to trying to progress that along. Uh so that's a work in progress. >> Are you going to have an open house to, you know, let folks >> Yes, they will. see what the plans are. And >> they're going to once we get things kind of more in the schematic design and and stuff like that, I think we're going to have a a thing where people can come in and see, you know, where it's at, how it lays out and so on and so forth. So, um, just the process is like anything else, it takes time. Takes time and there's things that have been brought forward and redirected and so on and so forth. So, um, >> if I could just hop in on Monday, the council has a workshop meeting and the, uh, the public works, the new public works facilities on that workshop agenda. That will actually be in this room because we recognize our workshop AB has been a little spotty upstairs. So, you should be able to live stream it like any of the other meetings or attend in person. >> Yeah. So, we encourage you to stop in and voice your opinion or share what your thoughts are on that too as well. greatly appreciated. >> And at some point, the council was looking at possibly a city sales tax. Is that a yes or a no or a maybe someday? >> That's still being looked into. It has to go before representatives and stuff like that that has a long hurdled process to to go before uh it would even become a referendum item issue at the end of the year. >> So, it'd be in the voting process with that. So that is down the road yet a little bit. >> Thank you, sir. >> Thank you all for your your dedicated service and your time here. I appreciate you. Thank you. >> We go backwards here, Michael. >> I don't have anything tonight. Thank you. >> Nice job on your first big presentation. >> Thank you. >> Questions of Michael? >> Good job, >> Stephen. I'd like to point out that I presented a bunch of times and I haven't gotten a good job from Susan once. So, he must have must have knocked it out of the park. Um, I just want to reiterate uh what Councilman Larson as well as you did, Chair Gerard. Uh the this I've been we've been working this um uh uh applicant what the applicant brought the with the Tims Marina for 4 months through the EAW and man if there was ever any any confirmation that my family and I made the right decision and uprooting to come here it is every every time you're dealing with the uh people who are so engaged with this and so polite and so courteous and understanding absolutely top-notch one of the best cities uh in the world as far as I'm concerned I just a perfect example of it tonight. But I've got really great news for you guys. Um if you love this, you're going to love April because uh starting April 8th, we'll have three public hearings uh that at your next meeting. One is for a preliminary plaid on the development that's forest view estates that is uh related to the uh final phase of bittersweet u in the northeast sector uh of the the city. Uh and then we'll have two variances that'll be before you uh related to >> Before you go any further, for those newer on the commission, that would be up by Cooling Camp Park is where Bittersweet is. >> Yep. Um and we just had a neighborhood meeting tonight, so that should be uh well attended as well. Um and then uh that following two weeks later, we'll have three public hearings for three different developments. two final or two uh final plats for developments, Chestnut Creek 2, which is now Havenwood, as well as Amberly Woods, both uh nearby, as well as a slight tweak, if you remember, the uh tower ordinance that we that came before you uh late last year. A slight tweak we have because we made it a little too restrictive uh for some of the the residential. kind of bundled everything together and uh realized that we're running into some issues especially with being able to support towers in our rural residential district uh that kind of got wrapped into all that and the stealth requirements that came out of uh council. So that you'll be seeing a new ordinance that will be kind of addressing some of those issues um in front of you. So uh a big April uh which is really kind of sideline the ability to put the the boost updates in front of you. So we'll be planning that in May. uh we'll go through the whole uh further if you guys aren't aren't happy with uh are happy with public hearings. We'll they'll continue into May. So uh enjoy all the the comments that you'll get from the public in the uh through April and then we'll get back to the ordinance uh related to boost in May. >> Questions of Stephen Andy? >> Nothing. >> Susan, >> nothing. >> Don, >> no. Jesse, >> nothing. Cory, >> I would like to point out in the meetings from last from the 11th and if it's the same list for this week, my name has an E in it. Instead of C O R Y, it's C O R E Y. Correct. That I have nothing else except thank you all for participating this evening. It's always a little bit different when we have a crowd in here. Uh many a night there's no one for the public hearing. So, it it was a good meeting. So, thank you all for your time and your service. With that, the chair is looking for a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. >> I got a motion to I have a second. >> Second it. >> I have a motion and a second. It's a non-debatable motion. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. Opposed. >> Abstensions. Motion carries. Thank you all. Have a good night.