Good evening. It's 6 o'clock. We'll call the meeting to order. Uh Michael, are you taking the role? >> Yes. Commissioner Applic >> here. >> Commissioner Goodwin >> here. >> Commissioner Steeler >> here. >> Commissioner Wagner >> here. >> Commissioner Young >> here. >> Vice Chair Stender >> here. and chair Gerard >> here. Thank you. >> We're ask if you're able please stand and join us for the pledge of >> allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the stands nationy andice for all. The chair is looking for a motion to approve the agenda as presented or with changes. >> So moved. >> I have a motion. Do I have a second? >> I'll second it. >> I have a motion and a second. Some debatable motion. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed. >> Abstensions. >> Yes. >> One abstension. Motion carries. come to our open forum part of the meeting. We ask if anyone in the attendance would like to speak to the commission tonight. We invite you up state your name and address for the record. Uh give us a spend a couple minutes giving your thoughts. If you're here for um one of the two public hearings, there will be a time during that application for input on on that particular application. And so this would really be something outside of the two agenda items tonight that have a public hearing. So with that, does anyone wish to speak, excuse me, speak to the commission this evening? Seeing no one come forward, we'll close the open forum. Chair is looking for a motion to approve the consent agenda consideration. There's one item a minute. Approve the minutes from the regular meeting of February 11, 2026. >> I move to approve the minutes from the regular meeting of February 11th, 2026. >> 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. >> I. Opposed the abstensions. >> I >> one abstension. Motion carries. On our regular agenda, we have two items tonight. They both have public hearings. The first one is a public hearing for Hidden Creek South. It's a preliminary plat and a PUB preliminary plan. The way the way this will work this evening, the staff will give a presentation on how they understand the application is going. Then we will uh the commissioners will ask any questions after that that they may have. We will then ask the developer if they would like to add any comments or we may have questions for them. Once that all has happened, we'll open the public hearing. I'll give you a little further instruction on that. Once we've had the public hearing, we will close the public hearing and it'll come back uh for decisions um by the commission. And that'll be the same for both uh public hearings. So with that, uh Stephen, are you the man? >> Thank you, Chair Gerard. As you said, we're here tonight to talk about Hidden Creek South. Uh this is a plat preliminary platin PUD amendment submitted by the Headwaters Land Group. The site consists of approximately 56 and a half acres south of Headarters Parkway within the Headwaters master PUD area. The applicant proposes 171 single family detached homes at a gross density of approximately 3.02 units per acre, which is within the comprehensive plan's low medium density range of 3 to six units per acre. The housing mix includes 50 foot and 65 foot lots. The 50ft lots range from approximately 6,325 to 7,000 square ft. The 65 foot lots range from approximately 8,100 to 15,000 square feet. Under MXR1 zoning, minimum lot width is 65 ft and minimum lot size is 7,500 square ft. Under the approved headarters master PUB, lot width remains 65 ft and lot size is reduced to 7,000 square feet. Because the proposal introduces 50 foot lots and smaller minimum lot sizes than previously approved, a PUD amendment is required. Next, I'll briefly visit the concept plan review history. This project was reviewed at concept plan stage in March of 2025. At that time, no development rights were granted. The purpose was to provide early guidance. Key feedback included a formal PUD amendment would be required. The applicant would need to demonstrate sufficient public benefit to justify flexibility. Headarters Parkway must meet full major collector standards. There were discussions regarding roadway functionality and long-term parking impacts. Storm storm water design would need to address regional drainage and existing tile systems and storm water pond areas could not count towards park dedication. Tonight's preliminary plat reflects that direction and advances the project into formal review. With that context, I'll begin with the street network. Headarters Parkway is classified as a major collector roadway. That classific classification carries specific design expectations. Collectors are intended to move traffic efficiently across a city and are not designed to function as local neighborhood streets with frequent driveway access. Headarters Parkway requires approximately a 100 foot driveway separation from intersection to curb returns to reduce conflict points and improve safety. The extension must match the existing parkway cross-section, including lane widths, boulevard spacing, and the multi-use trail corridor. Now turning to the internal street network. The preliminary plat submitted meet city standards for street widths. There has been verbal discussion about potentially allowing 30-foot wide streets in portions of the development. From a staff perspective, we would support 30-foot widths for street D2 and street E2 for consistency with Elely Avenue North and internal continuity. These streets are marked in green with Elely North being just north of D2. However, staff recommends that all other streets conform to the city's adopted standards. Street A2 in red warrants particular attention. Because A2 creates a relatively straight alignment from Headarters Parkway through this plat and connects to the parcel to the south, there's potential for increased travel speeds over time. The city engineers recommended evaluating traffic calming measures beyond just stop signs, potentially including midblock treatments to proactively address long-term safety considerations. Finally, street F2, unmarked but running I don't have my street F2 >> will serve as the primary corridor for water and sanitary sewer infrastructure. Routing utilities through F2 allows removal of those lines from the Headwaters Parkway rightway west of English, improving long-term maintenance access and preserving the collector corridors transportation function. Also quickly on the topic of Headwater Parkway, I wanted to address a related policy discussion. Since we're already discussing Headwaters Parkway, I want to briefly acknowledge a related discussion that will be occurring at the city council level. As part of the project, the Parkway is required to be extended through the site. The applicant has asked the city to consider participating in a portion of the construction costs given the broader transportation role the roadway serves beyond just this development. That discussion is currently scheduled for the March 9th city council meeting. Tonight is the required public hearing for this project and public comment may address any aspect of the proposal including the roadway. Your action this evening is to review the land use implications of the preliminary platinum PUB amendment and make a recommendation to council. The council will ultimately consider both your recommendation and the related uh cost participation discussion. We simply want to make sure everyone understands how those conversations are connected even though they occur at slightly different procedural settings. With roadway considerations addressed, I'll now move into storm water and drainage, which directly influences the overall site layout. Storm water remains one of the more technical components of this proposal and continues to involve coordination between the applicant, the city engineer, and the Rice Creek wershed district. The preliminary plot identifies two primary ponding areas within outlots A and Outlaw and B. This is a major along with internal sewer sto uh internal storm sewer network. The city engineers February 4th, 2026 review memorandum outline several items that must be addressed prior to final plat approval. These include ensuring that no storm water storage occurs within the headarters Parkway rightway. Eva re-evaluating the originally proposed off-site bypass line and refining the southern drainage system on the western parcel to ensure full compliance with city watershed standards. The applicant has discussed potential adjustments to the southern system and those concepts continue to be evaluated. Staff is recommending a condition requiring a final storm water design to provide adequate on-site storage are appropriately managed discharge in a manner that does not create adverse impacts to adjacent properties and complies with all regulatory standards. For just for reference, there is a low point that exists right here that current currently has storm water running this way. We're proposing either uh uh that the applicant provide a solution that will run it to these wetlands that would be here on the west or another temporary storage that may exist somewhere around here. Any final configuration uh must uh must demonstrate compliance with city rate control standards, wershed requirements, and account for regional overland flow and existing drain tile systems. All required Rice Creek wershed district approvals must be obtained prior to final plan. The city has reviewed park planning in this area before. As part of the earlier phase of Hidden Creek, approximately 3.17 acres of parkland were dedicated west of Headwaters Parkway. That area shown in green on the map. That previously dedicated acreage is not included in the 10% calculation for Hidden Creek South since each plat must meet its own dedication requirement under city code. However, when you look at that previously dedicated 3.17 acres together with the proposed dedication in Outlaw A, which is directly south of the existing park, the combined area supports the earlier direction of creating one larger neighborhood park rather than smaller fragmented park spaces. In addition to Outlaw A, the developers proposed land dedication within Outlaw C in the southeast portion of the development right here. During concept plan review in April of 2025, staff estimated that approximately five to six acres would be required to meet the 10% dedication standard and clarified that storm water ponds cannot count toward that requirement. So tonight, the focus is on usable acreage. Outlaw A contains 3.22 acres total. Of that, approximately 1.3 acres is storm water ponding, leaving approximately 1.92 acres of usable land. Outlaw C contains approximately 888 acres total and approximately point4 acres is wetland leaving approximately point4 acres of usable land. City code requires that wetlands and storm water areas be excluded from park dedication calculations and that dedication equal 10% of net developable acreage. Based on the calculations provided, the applicant is proposing a combination of land dedication and fee and loo to meet that requirement. This development was presented to the parks and recreation commission on February 18th, last Wednesday. After review and discussion, the parks commission recommended that the city council accept the proposed combination of land dedication and fee and loot to satisfy the 10% requirement. So, the decision point this evening is whether the proposed configuration, usable acreage, and overall dedication structure meet city code and community expectations. In summary, staff is recommending approval of the preliminary platin PUD amendment subject to general compliance with the city code and city engineers February 4th, 2026 review memorandum, including roadway, utility, and storm water requirements. The development must meet city street standards, obtain all required wershed approvals, and satisfy the 10% park dedication requirements based on usable acreage prior to final plat approval. With that overview, the developer is here if you have any questions for him before opening the public hearing. Do you have any questions for me? >> Questions of staff. >> Um, regard to the 30-foot roadways, um, you said that the D2, um, needed to be 30 ft to match what's to the north. Is that constructed yet? The last remaining portion uh the fourth phase of Hidden Creek South has not been but the third phase is under construction. I think the first lift has been put on already. >> On the third phase, the uh Ele Avenue has been constructed through that third phase plat already. This first this is going to be a significant road north south. Second, the the lots that we have here are not going to have a significant amount of parking in driveways. Um, one maybe two cars. Um, if you have a 30-foot roadway in the wintertime when you've got snow taking up, we'll call it just one lane, half on either side, and parking in in the street. Um, I have a real problem with the 30- foot wide streets, and I believe I mentioned that in the past. Um, this is Minnesota, and especially in in the wintertime, that's going to be a problem. And these lots are not significantly large enough for the parking of commensurate with the style homes that I understand the number of bedrooms to be there. Um, do you want comments now on the smaller lots on the request for the smaller lots? >> We can't. Could I address your your >> certainly >> road width? Uh so especially with D2, it's it's they'd be parking on just one side and these are the uh larger lots that that match the actual MXR1 code, the 65 foot and square footage. So there's more space than would be available at the ones that we are graining the flexibility to that would be on the east side of Headarters Parkway um to be able to address this to as it pertains to the road widths. Um, this is solely to be able to connect it to the existing development. And we've worked with our city engineer and our our public uh service to determine, hey, is this appropriate for uh for access for fire and and snow plows. And with parking just on one side and being able to identify parking just on one side, they have expressed no concern with the with just being limited to these two uh streets. So, we're going to start actually ticketing and towing for parking enforcement. That's I I'm I'm just Humans are going to be in these houses and humans are notoriously challenged when it comes to it's Thanksgiving or it's it's a birthday party and oh my gosh, where are we going to park? Well, it says parking on one side, but nobody's going to be here today. and then we have trouble getting getting through a subdivision. Um, >> Commissioner, if I might just jump in, we we do recognize that and that is why we have worked with the developer to increase the roadway with in all remaining portions of the development that will extend into other development areas. We've heard from the planning commission and the council about the concern for the small roadways and do believe that isn't something that we want to carry into that whole southwest corridor. However, with D2 specifically, that is carrying the Ele Avenue design through that neighborhood and allowing for this development, which this was ghost platted as part of the original, and I understand ghost plats aren't binding in any way, but we did anticipate the this lot configuration roadway um with the first phase or the Hidden Creek South as it sits today. I will also note um other when there has been construction going on and I've driven through the neighborhood. I was through there tonight. Other than when construction has been going on, we have not heard um the concerns and I don't not saying they're not valid concerns, but we have not heard from our public safety professionals that there has concern when there is not construction going on. >> Thank you. >> Other questions to staff? Um yeah, the recommendation is to allow the um changes the proposed changes from the approved PUD and one of the criteria is that there's sufficient public benefit to justify the deviations from the approved headarters master standards. I understand the benefit to the developer of the smaller lots. I absolutely do. Um I am not sure that I understand the benefits to the larger community. Um one of the issues in Forest Lake is that we have a significant amount of residential development without commensurate commercial industrial development to balance property taxes. Uh I believe it is still the case um that every residential rooftop in the city cost the city between 1.3 and 1.5% or about one and a half time. It cost the city about one and a half times the property tax that a residential rooftop brings in to run the city. um when we're jamming lots more rooftops into here and it really is a fair number. What we have is a bigger demand on city services and then the requirement to be constantly chasing increased residential property taxes to meet the needs that we created ourselves by a significantly increased density. Um, in addition, I'm going to really question the amount of parkland on the east side. That's as I'm looking north where you've got the um street 02 and outlot B, etc., etc. I see very little opportunity except on the culde-sac for significant yard space um for a kid to um kids to play to have backyard structures to soccer balls the whole nine yards. Um again what we've seen in the city is a strong need for parkland since we have smaller we have been moving more and more toward smaller lots and demand from the community for dog parks, soccer fields, baseball complexes. um un undesated open spaces. I guess I'm I'm wondering what the specific benefits to the larger community of granting the request for the 50- foot lots is perceived to be. I think a large part of that public benefit is the infrastructure that's being installed that would be connected to the rest of the areas around here. The park parks being there. I know they're obligated to to do the parks. That's and let's not mention the extension of Headarters Parkway is a significant public benefit that we realize with this development as it pertains to the density. This is, as you can see, this our our 2040 comp plan says that this is three to six units per acre, and this is as close to three as you can get. This is as least dense as as you could get based on what our uh 2040 comp plan says for this area. uh this according to our compliment and if you're concerned about density is best case scenario uh for what what density could be allowed within that that district because it is so barely above what's required of that that zoning district as it pertains to outlet C that small park let's not forget that there is a uh potential parcel to the east of this that that outlet C could be uh that park in the southeast corner could be uh connected to and that would be a path that we would we would go down as we are developing that to inform that. >> No, I I can't guarantee that a developer would would do that, but that would be the direction of staff in our in our preliminary discussions with anybody looking at that potential development of that parcel. Um, so that's that's largely what we would be suggesting with this. Um, and uh the the combination of outlet A with that previous parkland is is probably one of the greatest successes of planning I've seen yet of being able to combine these two things into a major park and working with our public works, working with our parks department. Um, we uh have uh elected to program that park ourselves. That's why you do not see trails. We don't want to inhibit ourselves by being able to program what goes in that park. We want to put that through a full process with the public and through our uh parks committee to see what is required within that park that would that would support not just this neighborhood but the neighborhoods around it. But not to mention again going back to that outlet seat being able to develop another neighborhood park on that like southeast side would be uh another very good benefit to the development of this area and addressing those uh green space needs. There are how many total residential properties in this in this tonight? >> 171. >> What's being proposed? >> And the total acreage of the outlaw B and the hoped for section to the north would be >> you're saying outlaw B. The >> out pardon outlaw A >> outlaw A is might go back to the parks discussion. Uh so the usable acres are 1.92 >> and you're hoping for another three. >> No, we we would be accepting fee and loo per the recommendation of the parks commission. >> So your your your total acreage in those two in the 3.17 and in the outlaw a is five and a half acres. >> Yeah. Or close to it that what they required is five and a half acres. It's actually 2.4 acres. That's land that's being dedicated with. >> Okay. To answer your question, Susan, yes, between the two parcels, you'll be just over five acres of park land where Outl >> property to the north, >> right? To be essentially shared withund, >> you said 51, >> 71. Oh, 171 properties looking for recreation or open space or substitute for for yard space. I understand that the park board has already said yes to this, but I'm still trying to understand the public benefit. the developer needed to put in infrastructure, whether it's 20 20 lots or 50 or 100. I'm I'm still looking for significant public benefit for the 50 foot lots. And if you could help me understand that, that's going to that's going to make that's going that's going to be great. >> Um, if I might just chime in, I I can understand who you want that from us and I don't know if staff can offer you any additional information. The applicant is here and probably could also weigh in on their thoughts on on public benefit. I will say one of the aspects of this development that is um uh desirable to the city and to the future residents is that though we are taking less or asking for less than the 10% land dedication of land being dedicated the additional um uh dedication amount would come in be in lie allowing a park to be the park to be built out as opposed to just getting raw land and waiting until the city is ready to build it out because um the city has not had a great track record of necessarily investing in our park systems and we are trying to do better in our neighborhoods and for those future residents. Now that's not to say anything about the public benefit question that you're asking just to touch a little bit on that less than 10% parkland dedication >> but we have had a number of developers develop the park, at least a preliminary as part of the public benefit. And I get what uh Susan is saying. You know, it's a give and take and it seems that we're giving a lot and getting little and so something with the park being done with the park and they're not going to build 171 houses in a year. Um, I would think that we'd be able to come up with a plan that would be agreeable all parties to get something of a park instead of having to wait 10 years. You know, just off the cuff, you got five acres here and you're going to have this is likely going to be a childhappy neighborhood. Mow the grass and let them run. That would be my two cents. One thing I want to uh for uh uh the developer uh he he originally proposed programming this park. It was in discussions with uh parks and public works that they would rather have the fianu and be able to program this park to best meet the needs of this area with having the city be able to develop this as they saw fit rather than leave it to uh developer to develop as they saw fit. uh the city felt like they understand the needs of this area and what need what recreation needs are are are needed and they they elected to accept that fee and loo rather than having program >> I got no problem with the fee and Lou I'm talking this should be above and beyond the land plus the fee in Lou that some work should be done by the developer to show goodwill for what the city got from this besides 171 rooftops and I cut off somebody here so I Apologize, Jesse. >> And I was wondering what is the fee in L like in dollar amounts. >> Um, well, that hasn't been determined at the moment. The, uh, base price that's listed in the city's fee schedule is $2,500 per lot, but we do have an ordinance that allows for an individualized fair market assessment of the property. Um, generally that goes hand inhand with a little bit higher than that 2500 per lot. This is in line with what we did on the existing hitting creek south as well is we took less parkland and then some cash contribution to be able to build out the the parkland needs in the future. Um we don't have that specific dollar amount yet and if we did I wouldn't disclose it on the record because until the time of our development agreement that is something that uh we would continue to negotiate with the developer. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Other questions, Andy? >> Um, do we know how many lots are below the 7,000 square foot requirement? It looks like it's probably close to half. >> It's a little less than half. >> Little less than half. >> I would I would put at 455, but I can't give you an exact number. >> Um, I I think giving a few lots the exemption because of a circumstance on the property. I think most people can agree with that, but such a large number. Um, that's a that's a tough one to swallow, I think, especially because there's there are some larger lots on here where I think you could still get at three if you adjust some of the other lots is really where I see it. On top of the lack of a park of, you know, the the the public hearings we have, they're usually fuller because no one ever built the park. And I think we need to stop kicking that can down the road sometime. Thank you. >> Any other comments? Otherwise, we'll have to devel Tim. >> Yeah, I'm gonna just agree with you, Andy. The 50 foot lot size and so many of them I have real concern with, especially when I look at the housing product. You're talking about a 35 foot wide house, that doesn't leave much for a side lot. Um, I think we've always had the 65 foot lot and to go away from that, where does it stop next time when the next developer comes in and says, "Well, Headwaters had 65, Hidden Creek has 50. We're going to do this. We'd like 45 ft." At some point, we're just getting houses stacked in here. So, I'm I'm not for it. We have a a issue with when we changed the MXR1, we cut our lot sizes in half. We cut the width by 15 ft from 80 to 65 um with the hope of getting rid of PUDS and having all conforming lots. Unfortunately, and I think the bulk of this commission is not favorable to 50- foot lots. However, I can empathize with the city being stuck at with the comprehensive plan trying to get us at three units per acre, which until the next comprehensive plan comes out and are able to negotiate some, we're somewhat stuck with this to some extent. Um, so I'm I I get that also, but whatever we can do in the future to eliminate these smaller lots and still hit three, I think would be appreciated. And I know you got a lot of constraints on all of them. So, I don't want to throw anybody under the bus and I don't disregard the comments by anyone on the commission because I'm I'm right with you. these 50 foot lots. We were afraid of this when we had the discussions from going from 80 to 65 that the first thing we're going to see is 50 foot lots. And here we are. We have three or four more developments coming forward to us in the next couple months. I'd be stunned if none of them came in with at least a few lots that are 50. But I really think that um so you know, just so I can and I think uh Steve is correct. I counted uh 99 lots that had 65 foot width. So it gives us roughly uh 43 or 44% are 50 foot uh wide lots. Um but it's really hard to count on a laptop when you got to keep moving the screen. >> I try to do the same thing. >> So um if there's any other comments besides the lot size because I think that's been fairly loud and clear. I'd ask the developer if you have anything you would like to add, please state your name and address for the record. >> Good evening. My name is John Dobs. I represent the Hidden Creek subdivision. Um, 2119 Avon Street North, Roseville. Um, so I guess I'd like to start straight up with just saying a couple things popped up on our end this morning that um, and yesterday afternoon as well that about 97 98 just pull in a number of the staff report and our plat we agree with. But there's a couple underlying things that really don't probably change the plat at all, but some things we kind of need to work out. So I was because it's already public hearing and already noticed up I was going to ask to be tabled anyway. Um and uh and just kind of push it so I can kind of work through a couple small issues on our end. Um but as in listening to the group um I didn't come prepared uh like I did last time to talk about what I believe personally not only in this site but in general is a real problem uh which is affordability which is you know I I can feedback what you guys just said and I understand we've had this dialogue about lot size since the time I first met and um and I've had this conversation several times at podium. That being said, um I would love to find a way to make things more affordable um and not shrink things. I mean, that's just the truth of the matter. Um, I'm also a realtor and uh did the math so don't take this with a grain of salt, but a single family house in Riverstone or in Hidden Creek first versus a single family house in Hidden Creek Third, that number is significantly higher in less than three or four years. And it's everything's gone up. I mean, our insuranceances, our costs, all of that. And what's happening, not only here, but in other places, is it's just people can't afford houses anymore. And so it's not an anomaly, and I'm not talking about Forest Lake, but in general, it's not an anomaly that places like Florida and California and places where people are living and moving into the lots got smaller because it's the only way to make it more affordable. And um I can have Capstone, and I one of the things I'd like to do is have Capstone just do a quick narrative of what they've done with their villa product, which is the 50ft lots, but they're going to start 350 to 400. And I don't know about you guys, but that doesn't sound affordable to me. Townous are actually more attached product because you then you run into the building code and the building codes start talking about firewalls and start talking about sprinkler systems and all of that. Uh interest rates are up people all the reasons that the real estate market is the way it is. So um in general um that's kind of the goal. The other one is and it's not a happen stance that it's 3.02 acres to Steven's point um that was this is how we get there. I mean, I can't get to three with 65 foot lots. It'd be 2.3 2.4 units per acre, which is significantly under what the zoning says we can get. Um, and by the byproduct of that is you end up with number of the things that you guys have brought up. So, um, I would like I will come back with more facts. I'll send an email. I'll give you guys the stats. Uh, my memory is is that you had to be to in a house that Capstone's building, you have to make over 100 grand a year and have no debt just to qualify. Now, interest rates have changed since I did it last time. Uh not huge, but somewhat. So, there is an affordability issue. There's a density issue. Um and then, uh I I don't think we're the first one in the city to have small lots. They're 50 foot wide. Um maybe I'm wrong about that. There was another project over by that had a little bit smaller than 65 foot wide lots that was approved not long ago. >> Um I'm not sure about that, but just to the north of the parkway in Headarters 12, we have 55 foot wide lots. So the 55 or 50 foot wide lot is not uncommon in this southwest area. Headarters 12, I don't know exactly when it was approved, but it is following a similar development pattern directly to the north. Thank you. Um, another part of the problem is just I mean it just there's costs all over the place. There's our cost, there's city costs, there's construction costs, um, there's vertical sticks and bricks cost. Um, so anyway, um, I guess in general that's what I would say to why we end up where we end up. Um and then uh briefly um yeah we uh and I stood I think in front of you folks and talked about trying to figure out a joint way to do park and to actually build a park and to have it all kind of come in at once. Um this site is complex uh just like the first phase was for a lot of the same reasons. um the road uh the soil types, the amount of storm water, the JD judicial ditch number four, and then came to parks and started talking a little bit about those ideas. Um just didn't seem like that was going to be the right way to get through that process. Um but that was our intent and I think that was the city's intent. Um but we're land developers. um with a client that's a home builder. The city has their point of view. Uh there's a lot of collaboration that goes on with that process. Um I think the last time we were here we talked about it. I've been involved in a couple of them over in Ramsey where and even talked about maybe get some addresses. But there's a there's an underlying collaborative effort in there that um if people aren't on the same page makes it really difficult. What is a good park? Very subjective statement. what what looks like a good park. Um, what ended up happening in Ramsey was something I'd never seen before. And I'm a landscape architect by training, a degree from the University of Minnesota. It was awesome, but I'm not sure a lot of cities would go for what ended up happening. Um, so it just it just seemed like the details were going to get bogged down. Our intent was to try to do it all at once. I think the city's intent was to try to work with us to do that as well. It just seemed like that was just going to become difficult given all the other things going on in this site. So, I paused that process. >> Before I open it up for questions, John, you're asking for us to table this this evening because you may have some what you're calling minor changes. When do you think you'll be back to us? >> Two weeks. >> So, that would be our March 11th meeting. >> That correct, Stephen? Yes. >> March 11th. Now I throw it open. I just want to make sure I under when you're coming. So when we do a motion later. So I kind of heard that perhaps the benefit to the city is affordability of these smaller lots. And I know that you can't see what I'm looking at here, but I've got a a lot 11, 12, 14, whatever on the north side of street G2. Um, and I'm looking at the size of those lots and I'm assuming that they would be very significantly cheaper even with a house on them than say lot 3, four, five, six, seven on street F2. So that um can you give me a sense of the difference in affordability of of of the houses on those kinds of lots? >> I as I generally said um I give you what I've heard is a ballpark, but I what I would like to do is come back with a written narrative from Capstone specifically given where we're at. last time we had Capstone and I had this conversation was probably six months ago in general before we started kind of planning for this um and it was 25% cheaper than what their houses are as a rule um in the first and second and particularly the third phase. Um, you know, it's hard to build a single family house on a 65 foot wide lot in Forest Lake for under $470,000. And that's kind of the bottom floor. So, um, and that makes it pretty expensive for people to buy. >> So, then if 400,000 on a 65 foot lot, you're going to have a smaller house on a 50-ft lot. Are we talking 300? about 25% less plus or minus. >> Yeah, that's about 300. >> I'm sorry. >> That that would be end up being about a $300,000 house. >> Do you think John did indicate though that it would be a base price? >> So I I I heard that. But but I'm I'm trying to help find some benefit here. And if we're looking for more affordable homes in Forest Lake, quite frankly, not right now. That's the only thing I can find as a benefit to the larger community. >> There's a benefit to the larger community, Commissioner Young, members of the commission. More housing will help bring down housing prices. We are in a housing shortage as a region and as a nation, and that is partially due to the lack of housing. Other questions, Susan, for the applicant? >> No, sir. >> Other commissioners questions? >> I I'd just like to once again state that I think putting such a large number of sub um smaller lots clustered together with a park nowhere in sight. Um, at previous meetings I've expressed the problem of this type of a a scenario is parents have kids who want to go out and play in the yard and they don't have a yard to play in because we're also making them put four trees on these tiny lots. >> So now where are they going to go? They're going to go play in the if the aerial footage in the packet is correct just farm fields right around them or are they going to go across? >> But I mean that's that's the scenario. So, I understand the economics and I there's forces at play that we don't like and I I don't I I worry about future generations looking back and going at that. Why did they let them build these tiny houses like this? So, I just I think that's a real problem and the lack of park to make up for the lack of yard is kind of a poison pill for me. and and and Paul and I have both been around 30 foot lots in an inner core city, but there you have a significant park within six blocks of every house. Um, this ain't it. And and I am worried about families coming to town and being well, we heard it with the subdivision across from Forest Hills Golf Course. Um, you know, having an expectation that there will be some sort of recreational opportunity in the community and it isn't there. And if you're going to invite families and you want families to come into your community and support your school district and support all of the the public and private infrastructure that a community has, restaurants, stores, whatever you've got to provide the full package. Other comments for the at this time? We may have questions for you after the public hearing. Thank you, John. >> This is a public hearing. To be honest, it's a little unusual for a developer to ask for a the table because they have to work some stuff out. We will take the this will be the only time we take comment for this development. Um, if it turns out that the changes to the development turn out to be more than just minor, there would have to be another public hearing uh at some future date. The applicant has stated he plans to be back here March 11th, um, which would be our next meeting. We meet the second and fourth, Wednesdays. Um, so at that time you're welcome to join us again, but there won't be a public comment section during the the proposal for Hidden Creek South. There will still be the open form at the beginning. So with that, we'll open the public we'll have the public hearing. What happen? We ask if anyone wishes to speak to this, please come up, state your name and address for the record. Spend a couple minutes giving us your thoughts on this application. Once we have heard from all parties, we will close the public hearing. It'll come back for furthers to discussion. Uh, and in this case, the applicants asked for a table, so that will likely be the outcome. So, with that, we'll open the public hearing at 6:47 p.m. Does anyone wish to speak to this application? We don't bite. It's always the brave one to go first if I am. or maybe the only uh my name is Katie Cerny, Ce R Ney. I live at 4625 195th Street. So if you're looking at this map and where the bottom left corner is with lots 1213, if that road extended, it would run into the parcel of land on which I live. Uh it's owned by my mom, Patricia Cernney, who's also here. Um, we are excited to see development continuing. Uh, and actually applaud the things that I've seen over the last several years and the proactiveness of planning and moving development along deliberately from the council in recent years. So, that's great to see. Um, we've also seen I've I've noticed that even between this plat and the last one, there's been some changes that reflect that, such as where 12, 11, 12, and 13 are on there on the bottom left corner. It was originally a culde-sac, but I know you guys looked at it and said you want to make sure that development continues to align with what could be in the future. Wonderful. Respect that one. I know some of the things that we have concerned with are already identified as concerns. So really I feel like I'm just reiterating some of those things. Um one is storm water and potential water impacts from the development coming south. So, we've seen things in the the I think the Southwest Corridor study, um the road alignment things, things things that we don't necessarily agree with or like, but wanting to make sure that as the stuff to the south is still being figured out, the issues that could be coming from these developments don't get kicked down the road. that they're handled within and handled in the way that if it was a standalone, it just it doesn't bleed onto other properties adjacent. Um, so the water is one of those. The other one I don't know if people have been thinking about. I think I've heard Susan talk about roads and access. Um 195th Street, if you keep going south here and we're to go do west, where Headarters Parkway was originally aligned in the 2040 plan, uh is a privately maintained road. It is a we're the only house on that road. I'm out there on a four-wheeler plowing it in the winter. So when this is progressing, I'd like to ask the commissioner and city staff to consider as it's phased and as it's developed, how that traffic and people are going to be people is going to go. So just even now, especially last summer with 97 being closed, you can imagine how many people come down 195th Street, assuming they can get through. And then with the craziness that happened around uh Elmrest, Hornsby, etc., or Elmrest, 190th, etc., it just makes it worse. And with this being even closer, we already had people coming across the fields and driving across the fields and they're going to see people doing that because there are people that are okay to do that. But the majority of the public is not actually the public is not okay to do that. So just want to make sure that the commission knows that is a major concern for how this might play out. So that's >> normally we don't ask question but how far south is 195th from >> it's almost exactly where the road there ends. So if right now it the driveway for the house it would be just a little bit offset the if you kept going straight that road would connect right to it. So there. Thank you. So you can see the house. Oh yeah. >> And then if you follow that line, so that's 195th and then right to the right there, it's basically just Field Road, but that's right where if you add the lot on 13, right to the right of that yellow line. >> That's right about where that's going to come in. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else wish to speak to this application? My name is Paul Schmid. I'm at 18070 July Avenue, Forest Lake. I was not planning to speak at all, but from what conversation has occurred here and taking a look at the maps a little earlier today and then here, just a couple of comments. Um, one is affordability is critical for the public and for the community. Number two, affordability will create community Forest Lake community. Three, which was spoken by the woman over there, more homes, more to more affordability will be beneficial to the community and to society larger. And then just speaking about kids, kids play wherever. It would be wonderful to have parks like in the cities every six blocks. I see some places and I also see Fenway Park, which I looked up is 1.5 miles away. People of the older times can think, well, the kids should just be able to go. 1.5 miles isn't so far away. However, with today's family, kids are watched. They can jump in the car and everybody can go there. I would love to have more parks, bigger spaces for kids to do things. I think not that far away is a place where families can bring their children here. >> Yeah, >> that's it. Thank you very much. >> Anyone else wish to speak to this application? I'll ask one more time. Does anyone wish you to speak to this application? Stephen, do we have anything to read in from the public? >> No, sir. We've received no written comments. >> Thank you. Seeing no one come forth and having no public comment to read in, we will close the public hearing at 6:54 p.m. I'll remind the commissioners the uh applicant has asked for us to table this this evening so they can make some minor changes. Again, minor changes are minor changes. If it turns out that streets are moving, lots of lots are moving, it will be right back here with another public hearing. So with that further discussion, >> chair, could I just state for the record possibly that if there are major modifications and we would re need to renotice, we've likely missed our notification deadline for this to be on the March 11th meeting. Correct. >> And so I just want to at least be clear on the record that though we anticipate this will be back March 11th, it could be uh your second meeting in March just depending on the nature of the changes. And if there's no public hearing required, there will be no notice sent out. So I I encourage you to check the city website to see what's going on. >> Email city staff. We can also know notify you >> like to keep everyone informed because then you guys don't come back and yell at us for it when I'm shopping. Let's say that may happen. >> Everyone. So, commissioners, questions, comments? >> Susan, >> one, Fenway is a city-owned park. However, it is an athletic complex. Um, and full disclosure, I am on the board of the Forest Lake Area Athletic Association. One of our biggest problems with Fenway Field is kids coming onto the fields and riding their bikes and and making the fields unplayable and unsafe for all the sports and then the city has to come in and do massive expensive work. These aren't like playgrounds. Femway isn't designed as a playground. I think want to be Blaine Sports Complex, which is a huge place, but is not exactly Family Park space. Um, was this all tiled? I I remember it in the long ago being tiled for farming. I can't speak to that at this time >> because I'm wondering if that's some of the issues that those tiles aren't maintained and aren't there anymore that have resulted in some of the drainage challenges and water flow challenges. >> We have engineers that are looking into that. >> I do also just um as a I know that you sit on the board of with the athletic association, but Fenway does have a playground, so there are recreational amenities there. >> Other comments, commissioners, >> any >> Yeah. Um, is there an overflow for storm water if we have an excessive rain? Is there anywhere for water to go to leave this property or is it all going to be self-contained? >> It will not be self-contained. No. Uh, none of we can't self-contain water in Forest Lake. So, uh, the water that would be in storm water pond outlot B on the north side ends up hooking into a storm water system just to the north of the plat underneath the parkway that actually flows north and then up to the west and then back down to the south around all of Hidden Creek. Um the we also have water that is flowing through the um uh the um existing hidden creek. I don't know if this ties into that too as well that pushes it west. And then the storm water on the south that we're talking about um that storm water on the south. It's anticipated that a potential redesign could be that the water would end up flowing to the west into a wetland complex to the west of the property. Um, all of that would be looked at with the modeling that was submitted with the developer or with any changes to the storm water plan. So, none of it self-contained. >> I just I would urge caution that we're just going to let the water go over there because eventually that land might want to develop, too. >> Yeah. No. Um, we don't allow for any development to push their water onto a neighboring development. So, they're going to have to self-contain it and then transfer it into existing water systems and also show that it's not going to put a detriment on those existing water systems so that there's a bounce and that bounce doesn't overflow then back onto those existing neighbors. So, we that is something that our engineering team >> I think it's good for everyone to know that. >> Yep. >> Any other comments? I will say um uh Commissioner Applowski, those are great questions because we do want to state those things on the record to reaffirm that we are taking every precaution to make sure that this isn't negatively impacting those adjacent neighbors. >> We're good. Well, the chair will make a motion to uh table this to our March 11th meeting based on it only being minor changes or to a later date if major changes occur requiring another public hearing. >> Second. >> I have a motion and a second. It's a non-debatable motion. All those fa in favor signify by saying I. >> Opposed? Abstensions? >> Motion carries. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. And for those who came to participate in this event, uh the potential that they will be again at the March 11th meeting, um unless there's major changes and then there'll be a public hearing. If that's the case, you'll once again be informed like you were last time. Um however, I would check with the city to see if they're coming back on March 11th. Again, the open form would be available at that time. Thank you for coming. >> All right. Before we get to item number uh 7B, uh this is a public hearing for variance for a driveway setback reduction at 23375, Itasa Avenue North. Commissioner Apacowski from the planning commission is the applicant. Hopefully I didn't massacre it too bad. Um so he will step down from the deas until uh we resolve this application and then he will come back for the end in the meeting. So with that Stephen are you presenting >> this will be Michael >> it's going to be me tonight. All right. >> I know. >> New blood. >> Uh before you tonight is a variance request for 23375 Ataska Avenue North. And as you stated, the applicant is Andy Akowski. He owns the property. Um and this property is in the rural residential zoning district. I also want to note that it's not in our shoreland overlay district and so uh it's not subject to those pvious surface um requirements in that section of the code. The existing house on the property has a multi-level garage. Uh currently only the upper level which is on the north side has driveway access. The applicant is requesting to extend the driveway to the rear of the property to properly access the rear garage. This is triggering the need for a variance um because to reduce the driveway sideyard setback requirements from 5 feet to 2 feet which is a total variance of 3 ft. The existing conditions of this property uh it's roughly 5 acres and has roughly a 4,000t home that was constructed in 2002. And as stated before the uh house was built with a two-le garage. There's access on the north side of the property and then there's another access on the east side of the property which is the rear. And when the property was first developed, driveway access was only provided to the north garage. The garage in the rear is accessed by a sloping grass pathway that's shown in that image. The applicant has indicated um that at times throughout the year it can become inaccessible uh during wet or freezing conditions and that erosion has also been occurring over the years. I also want to note that driveway access is a requirement of code section uh 153119 subsection K. So now the applicant is proposing to extend the driveway all the way to the rear garage and in addition is proposing to construct a retaining wall uh near the north property line uh to support and slightly level that land. Uh the proposed extension is that in yellow uh on the survey. I do want to note that the retaining wall that he's proposing is below four feet in height and so it is permitted does not require a building permit and isn't subject to this variance request. Um the main focus is on the proposed driveway. In residential zoning districts driveways have required 5 foot setback from the side property line. The applicant is proposing the driveway within that 5-ft uh setback and that's what's triggering the need for the variance and that total variance would be for three feet. There are no proposed modifications to the existing dwelling or the garages or other aspects of the site. Staff evaluated the request against the city's variance criteria for the unique conditions. We find that the existing dwelling location um an existing driveway access easement along the south side of the property that existed before the house was constructed likely uh restricted where the house could be built. uh which resulted in it being built closer to the north property line, limiting the place for a driveway along the north property line. Uh so that layout of the house, the layout of the existing garages, the layout of the existing driveway all create unique conditions. We find one that single family homes with garages and driveways are reasonable use in the rural residential zoning district and that driveway access to garages are required per that city section uh city code section and it's also consistent with our parking regulations for single family dwellings. We find that this is not a self-created uh condition as the applicant the configuration predated the applicant's ownership of the property. uh we find that there's no adverse impact uh or character change expected to the neighborhood. We are recommending conditions to prevent drainage um from flowing onto his northern uh neighbors property to prevent any sort of adverse impact on the neighbor's property line. And we find that this meets the intent of our code. uh it maintains the residential character and it corrects a greater nonconformity which is that currently a garage is not accessible via a driveway. Based on that, staff recommends approval of resolution 02252601 authorizing a three-foot driveway side setback variance allowing a site a driveway to be built 2 feet from the property line. The approval would come with conditions. In the staff report and in the resolution, we included a condition to provide a grading plan showing that drainage would be directed to the rear of the property, would not impact the neighbor's yard or drain towards the house. The applicant has since provided that document and we would not require that condition. All other conditions that are in our staff report and in the resolution, we would still recommend. Uh that would include a condition to prohibit the discharge of uh eroded material onto the adjacent property, restricting that proposed retaining wall to four feet or less to make sure that it does not require a building permit and is permitted within that setback area and requiring that the applicant follow all rules and obtain all applicable permits from the Comfort Lake Forest Lake wershed district. That is the end of my presentation. If you have any questions, I can hopefully answer them. questions of staff. >> We have none. >> I'll take it. >> Would the applicant like to add anything? Please state your name and address for the record. >> Sure. Andyowski, 23375 Itaska Avenue North. Um the intent of the the retaining wall is actually to create so that we get the slope going towards the back. So, that's the intent of getting that retaining wall up to the property line at the narrowest point so that we can have a nice level black top going straight towards the back to the east where after um once we get past the grass, it's a long slope down to probably a good 100 feet before it gets to a pond. So, plenty of place for it to infill. Um and then the other thing is at the narrowest point, we're about 13 feet from an existing retaining wall to the property line. So that's why there's just I got nowhere to go. That's why we have to come here for the variance. >> Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? >> It's a lot easier to see why you need to do this if you're on Jamaica because Yeah. You got you got no place. >> Yeah. This uh New Year's after all that rain we had, it got on this it b caked into the snow and it turned into a skating rink. So, I luckily had sand on site that I could salt my or sand my way around to get the truck out of there the last time. Okay. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Again, we ask if you wish to speak to this application, please step up, state your name and address for the record. Spend a couple minutes giving us your thoughts on this application. Once we heard from all parties, we will close the public hearing. So, with that, we will open the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. Does anyone wish to speak to this application? I'll ask a second time. Does anyone wish to speak to this application? Michael, do we have anything that needs to be read into the record? Any public? >> We have not received any public comment. >> Thank you. I'll give a last call for anyone who wish to speak. extended to this application. Seeing no one come forward and and u nothing to be read into the public record, we'll call close the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. Bring it back to the commission for further discussion and a decision. So with that, commissioners, what would you like to do? Susan, >> I move approval of res resolution 02252601 memorializing the actions pertaining to the variance requested at 23375 Itaska Avenue North >> with conditions. >> With all conditions >> I have a motion. Do I have a second? >> I'll second it. >> I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I >> I >> opposed. >> Opposed. >> Abstensions. Motion carries. Thank you. Good luck with your project. We've come to our uh part of the meeting of discussion. Um you guys have anything for discussion or we move to updates? >> Updates. The only thing I have for discussion is you guys should have gone a little harder on Michael >> probably. >> Gracious that was you guys were so easy for him. >> No. >> No. I was out there today and and and looked and >> Yeah, it was pretty open and show. >> You know what uh what you need to learn, Steve, is that he really did a nice job. >> All the facts. >> I'll try harder. >> With that, we'll move to updates. Uh we'll start with our esteemed council person, Mr. Larson. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh commissioners, um I don't have uh really too much updates uh for you tonight. I'd like to welcome Commissioner Goodwin. I missed the last meeting unfortunately due to a a leg issue here that I'm kind of still dealing with. But um welcome. If you have any questions or anything like that, feel free to throw it off us and we'll work through things. Um the only thing maybe I will comment a little bit about is uh uh city administrator which I'm sure you heard about uh that we um went with uh parting ways with our city administrator Mr. Scott on a settlement agreement situation. So currently we have our assistant city administrator Jolene Chica uh running the running the ship. However, she is on vacation for a little bit, which I'm sure is very well needed. So, um, with that, we're moving forward with things. Um, we have a public works steering committee on Friday, so we'll get some more updates on that, but that's moving forward as well. So, with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions if you might have. >> Questions for the council person? Thank you, sir. >> Thank you very much, folks. >> Abby, >> uh, the only update I have, I think all of you are included right now on the city's weekly updates. It's internal document that we send out every Friday. Um included in that last Friday was a note from the community development department that community thread who offers lowcost senior rides in our community. So community thread as a nonprofit um they are seeking additional driver volunteers and are holding volunteer info sessions in March. um at this point they have too many seniors and not enough riders or drivers uh to continue to expand the service in the community. So I told them I'd help share that information if anybody is interested in learning more. Um I'd be happy to put that out there and then we're going to try to put that out as well in our monthly communications. Additionally, I think over the last couple months you've heard a lot of updates from me on transportation and housing. We have two new web pages on our website. want underneath the um our community tab right up at the top. One of them is transportation resources and or transportation services and housing resources. Two separate two separate web pages trying to at least get that information out. But we are also trying to lean on some of our partners that are offering these services um that when they're marketing them, sharing them through our social media feeds um to try to have some streamlined communication. Uh right now we've got a lot of partners doing a lot of things and the the communication is all over the board and we're really trying to streamline things into getting everybody using the same media, graphics, those sorts of things. So happy to answer any questions any of you have for any outstanding development projects or other long range planning efforts the city's undertaking at the moment. >> Questions for Abby? >> Thank you, Steve. I have a couple uh comments. One uh this past week um I think one of the the discussions earlier we were talking about Chesta Creek phase 2. Um they have uh submitted a request to the city to change the name of that development to Havenwood. We have worked with all of our stakeholders and now we have accepted that name. So, uh, when you hear, uh, as we go forward, uh, we'll make every effort to make sure people know that it's, uh, Chesa Creek phase 2, but is now, uh, Havenwood, which is welcomed to the staff because of all the creeks and all the things that we have to kind of, uh, match in all of our developments. So, anything that's, uh, unique, is is more than welcomed so that we're uh, staying ahead of things. >> Sounds like a cemetery. >> Havenwood. Yeah, it's it they did a lot of they did a lot of uh uh market research and uh we welcomed it. Uh so if you when you hear Haven Wood, you're like when did this come before? Why is this at final plat we'll make sure that we uh communicate that is Chest Creek phase 2. Um the other is as it pertains to the uh Tims Marina EAW uh just for your educa uh education as well as uh any any uh folks that you are in communication with the city council will be deciding on March 9th uh the uh if there is a requirement to go to an EIS on that proposal. Um and so don't miss that. But more importantly for this body is as it relates to the accompanying uh application for a cup amendment as well as a variance to allow that uh what they're proposing those two additional docks. Uh that will be in front of you on March 25th. Uh but uh more importantly, there'll be a neighborhood meeting here on March 11th uh so that the uh applicant can meet with uh the the public uh regarding that that development and hopefully be able to kind of address some of the challenges that are are being had uh with some of the the groups in our community. Uh so we'll see. Just want to let everybody know that neighborhood meeting will be occurring here at 5 on uh March 11th. And now that we have something on the agenda for March 11th, um we have I think Commissioner Stender has said that uh he's going to be jet setting that week, so you'll miss all the fun. Um but uh that will be uh largely what we'll be talking about the 11th, but the 25th will be a uh probably a very well attended meeting because that is also a public hearing as it relates to that CUP variance for Tim's Marina. Um and we have informed our city council that the decision that they have in front of them on the 9th is not as pertains to the CUP invariance. U it pertains to if there is enough environmental analysis to make a decision on the impacts of those uh proposed docks to uh the environment here in Forest Lake. Uh so you will have all the fun on the 25th as the sole public hearing uh that will be on that project even though it's not the environmental side. Um, so, uh, it'll be fun. So, pack a lunch on that day and we'll, uh, probably sleep over. But that's it for me. >> Questions of Stephen? Michael? >> Nothing from me tonight. >> Questions of Michael? >> Hi, Andy. >> I just want to thank Stephen and Michael for the assistance with the variance application. It's a little overwhelming for the first time. So, they were very good at providing examples and really want to thank you for that. >> Thank you. But now you know what it feels like on the other side. >> And I even offered I was like, you know, with all this boost, I'd like to sit down with you and understand, hey, what what were the hang-ups? What were the challenges that you had that we could probably address as we're kind of addressing some of these code updates? >> Tim, Susan, >> two quick things. one. Um there are only 11 of 11 of us right now that are doing the driving for Thrive. Um this is a really important thing to build to what developer said, building community. Um keeping elders in our community um is really important. Having them be in their own homes. Um I will tell you that I do a lot of volunteer work. This is one of the most rewarding things personally that I do is to drive for thrive. >> Can I just hop in really quick and say so the way the system works is when you register as a driver they do have a background check but beyond that it's a drive if it works for you. So that somebody makes a request and if they can find a driver to make that drive then it works. There's no obligation. But they shared with me one of their success stories after they expanded the program into the Forest Lake area last year of um a client who had asked if she and a friend of hers could go to an apple orchard because they hadn't been to an apple orchard since they were much younger. And um they the driver took them to an apple orchard. And so these aren't all necessarily like doctor's appointments. Um, sometimes it's bringing them to visit family or to do something fun like that. So, um, just wanted to add that in because I think it is just a it is a very unique program that's being offered in in the community. >> Yeah. >> Um, and the second thing is it's jump time in Forest Lake and on Saturday at noon we are having the Forest Lake Rotary Plunge. This is not a polar plunge. This is a Rotary Plunge. There are nonprofits, there are sports teams, there are local organizations, you have you have a city presence there. The police relief fund is going to be jumping and Steve is going to be jumping as part of that group. Um, this is a big deal for some of the nonprofits and sports teams and local organizations. I know Invisible Wounds has got a team. Um, we've got a couple of women shelters that have teams. uh a group that uh fixes cars for um for folks that just can't afford it but need transportation is is jumping and the force like good Samaritans are jumping. So it's big deal having a whole lot of fun. It's at noon um down on the lake behind what we used to call the bath house. Um it's not behind the gazebo but you'll see the big honken tent and we'll have bleachers and you can be comfy and have fun. Thank you. Maybe >> but there's no lions. >> No, >> Jesse. >> No, >> Corey. >> And I have nothing. So with that, chair is looking for a motion to adjurnn. >> So move. >> 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. Thank you all very much.