[Music] Right. With it being right at 6 o'clock, we'll call the meeting to order. Julie, could you please take role? >> Council members Ericson >> present. >> Larson >> here. >> Miller >> here. >> Valento >> here. >> Mayor Roberts >> here. If you're able, please stand for the pledge of >> allegiance. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> All right. Uh, first time here, approve the agenda. I'm going to make a motion that we approve tonight's agenda. moving uh item 9A to the regular agenda and deleting item 9B. Is there a second? >> I'll second that. Any >> discussion? All in favor? >> I >> I >> I >> I >> All right, we have an agenda. We have no awards and presentations this evening. Next item is six, open forum. Uh this is an opportunity for anyone to come speak to any city related item. We ask that you state your name and address and keep it to around three minutes. All right, with no one here to speak, we will uh go to the consent agenda. Um I am going to uh make a motion that we approve the con consent agenda 7 A 2 through 7B K. >> Just to be clear, Mr. Are you asking that the entire consent agenda be approved except for 7 A3? >> Correct. >> Yes. >> Second. >> Second. Any discussion? >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> opposed consent agenda approved. So I'm pulling uh 7 A3 uh invoices for potential uh conflict of interest. Is anyone interested in making a motion to approve that? Make a motion we approve consent agenda item 73. >> I'll second. >> Second. Uh any any further discussion? >> All in favor? >> I sorry. Sorry. >> I'm sorry. I do have discussion. Can you explain why you pulled it from the consent agenda just so I have an idea? >> Yeah. So those uh that particular item are are invoices that my my business had provided services to the city. So I'm going to abstain when we got that up. >> No problem. Approve. All right. So with no further discussion, all in favor? >> I >> opposed. One abstension. We are to the regular uh agenda action items. And we have a public hearing on Forest Hills Preserve related to drainage and easement, utility easements. Abby, >> thank you. Mayor Roberts, members of the council, tonight we are here uh the Jiren or Jay Johnson development uh proposed to develop the Forest Hills Preserve neighborhood kind of at the eastern edge of Forest Lake. Um development that what the council approved the final PUD the final plat in May of 2021. As part of that agreement, there was grading to occur uh south of the rightway south of homeowners lots. I just pull that up in an easement area. So, it would be a drainage swale be in the backyards of these properties that would lead to a a retention pond or a larger system. It really designed for conveyance. as the develop uh as the property developed out, grading occurred outside of that easement area. And what the city um did is worked with the land owner to re-establish a new um a new grading plan that would be fitting for those properties, convey the water still to where it needs to go, and then worked towards uh drafting a new easement. So tonight, consideration is kind of a three-fold request. The first item is to hold the hearing um on the vacation of the drainage and utility easement that was platted as part of Forest Hills Farm. Um then the next thing the city would need to do is to uh approve the grading agreement um as part of a DA amendment or a developers a a developers agreement amendment. And then lastly, approve um the new easement that is encumbered by over five properties again conveying that water to the ponding areas. Um luckily we have a great legal counsel who helped wrap this up into a single resolution that I apologize wasn't in the packet for you but is on the day tonight for your consideration. Um it is resolution number 07292507. So tonight what staff would be seeking would be a motion to conditionally approve that resolution which would vacate the easements and then approve the first amendment to the development contract for Forest Hills Preserve with J Johnson Development LLC. Um do you have any questions? >> Any questions of staff? Maybe the only thing that comes to mind is we're vacating four lots, but the new ease is going to be over five. What's leading to that? >> That is correct. Um, I would defer to the engineer, but I think what I can say is the grading is going further into that western lot. That helps just convey that water across all five of those properties in a better fashion than it did with just the four. You might be able to. Basically, the houses just wanted bigger backyards and they had ample space on their lot to relocate the drainage utility easement that then it'll drain continue to drain westward where it goes down into the regional pond. >> Awesome. >> Thank you. >> Right. If there's um no other questions of staff right now, we can follow up some of their questions if need be. Um I am looking for a motion to open uh the public hearing this evening at 606. >> So moved. >> I'll second. >> Uh we have a motion second. Any further discussion? All in favor? >> I opposed. So we have public hearing open at 606. Is there anyone here to speak to this issue? >> I have a question. Um, >> if you if you wouldn't mind come up and state your your name and address for the record. >> My name is Mary Fowler Wacles and we're at 1047 211th. Do you know what block that is? >> Lot six, I guess. And I'm just wondering I mean how this is different. Right now, our lot drains to that back where it runs down. It naturally has kind of like I don't know if I want to call it a ravine, but it >> Yeah, it naturally goes there. So, how would this be different? >> Sure. So, up on the board I have what is the existing easement is on top. It was a very straight east west easement and that line was supposed to kind of biseect the property pretty much straight in half. When the developer builder graded the lot, they graded it so that that um in your backyard still bisects, but it kind of uh heads to the southwest slightly. Um still there, but gives you just that little bit more backyard that you already have. It won't change the existing conditions of your property. This is an existing developed property. Um it's just uh solidifying the grading plan and that ravine that you or not ravine because not the big drop but that swale in the backyard where the water is draining through. >> So is it going to go further back into the hill? >> Yes. >> So the hill is going to be >> the hill will not be impacted. This is on top of the hill. So, I'm going to show here the grading plan. This is your property right here. >> Ryan, would you say it's just fair to say that this easement more >> um follows the existing drainage pattern? >> Correct. The how the developer graded the lots was pushing the water to an area that wasn't in a recorded drainage until utility easement. We acknowledge it makes fine, perfect sense where the grading occurred on the lots. We just need to make sure that the drainage utility easement is encompassed over that area where the grad or the drainage goes. So in the future, say a neighbor to the west of you wanted to build something where we would prohibit that to be built there because then it would block drainage utility easement or drainage onto your lot. Right now we have an area we can reserve where drainage can continue to flow where it does today, but it's an illegal easement. And for reference, the easement area, the area where the drainage is lawful to be, more closely follows the tree line than smack dab in the center of your backyard. >> Otherwise, we'd have to grade a swale closer to your back patio. So, all that nice green space you have, we would be we'd already be sloping off your patio right away. If we put the drainage util the drainage swale within the old drainage until easement. >> Okay. So am I understanding this correctly? So where the easement is is supposed to be the top >> the top of the hill where the top tree line is. >> That's where the new one is. Is that the top one is >> it used to be um let's say maybe 20 feet off your patio. you would have had the water and drainage of the neighborhood running through your that backyard that close to your patio. >> It's pushing it back to the tree line, keeping it further away from the homes. So it sounds like it's going to be fairly similar to how it is flowing now. Correct. At the base of the hill at >> So what happened in your circumstance is the builder came in with a development plan and a grading plan and implemented that plan as to how you had wanted it, but the the drainage was pushed further to the south than what was originally anticipated. So what you have today, the existing conditions you have today is exactly as it will remain and now that that drainage will be in the lawful easement area. >> Okay. So are they going to be regrading some of that? >> Not on your property. >> None of it is changing. >> None of your property is going to be changing. This is going This is legitimizing the actions that were already taken. >> Okay. So it's just >> Okay. >> I just wasn't sure. What are they going to do? >> So, you're you're both comfortable with that that explanation, then at this point, >> it sounds like it's pretty much the same. I mean, we still have some concerns um with guidance that take up because we kind of do have an area in our yard that's problematic with the water sitting there. and I hadn't brought it up because I knew he was going and I thought maybe it be addressed but it doesn't sound like that. So I'll have to contact him to see that part. >> Sure. I did give you my card and so I think let's plan to connect and find a time to sit down and just talk about what those concerns are to see if there are further actions that are in some way in violation of the building permit or the development agreement to make sure there's a role the city can play in helping rectify that issue. We can help you in some way. >> Thank you for explaining. >> Thank you for coming tonight. Anyone else here to speak on the issue the public hearing? With no one else uh here to speak, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. >> So moved. >> Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Any further discussion? All in favor? >> I. So, at 6:13, we're closing close the public hearing and go back to council and staff for any other additional questions or follow up. >> Right. With that, uh, anyone willing to make a motion on we have what sounds like one resolution. Is that correct? one resolution that will vacate the easements and accept the new ones and then a second motion to approve the development agreement amendment. >> Okay. Okay. So, I'll make a motion to conditionally approve resolution 07292507, resolution vacating for public drainage and utility easements located within Forest Hills Preserve and accepting revised drainage and utility easements located within Forest Hills Preserve. >> Motion. Is there a second? >> I'll second. Motion to second. Any further discussion? All in favor? >> I >> I opposed. Motion carries. Anyone interested making a motion on the development contract amendment? >> I'll make a motion to approve the first amendment to development contract for Forest Hills Preserve with J. Johnson Development LLC. >> We have a motion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second. >> Motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor? I >> I opposed. Motion carries. 8B, public works space needs study. And Mark is going to kick us off on that. >> Yeah, Mr. Mayor and Council, um we had an opportunity to uh discuss this item at the work session last week and uh had a couple chances prior to that as well to to go over these two items. But um item 8B is to accept the public works facilities uh space need study. Um So that would be kind of um if you're ready to move forward into this next phase here of of design, we would ask you to sort of accept the first phase of design, which was the space need study and um just formally make a motion to accept the findings of that. Um and then the second item that we'll get to here in a minute is um to move forward with the actual design work of the next phase. So any questions anyone has? We have our architects and engineers construction managers here uh to answer any questions you have on the findings of that study. Um be happy to address any of those issues. >> Council, any questions, thoughts? >> I mean, this is something we've talked a lot about through workshops and different engagements. Um so, I'm I'm certainly in agreement with the the study and the findings. Um, you know, I look forward to this next phase where we get to actually get a put pen to paper and get to maybe what will be a actual um facility. Other thoughts, comments? >> No, I'd agree. >> With that, um, is anyone interested in making a motion on approving the public works accepting the public works facility space need study? I'll make a motion to accept the final space needs study for the public works building. >> We have motions or second. >> I'll second it. >> We have a motion, a second. Any further discussion? All in favor? >> I opposed. Motion carries. Next item is the next phase of this, the public works facility sematic design contract. Mark. >> Yeah, Mr. Mayor and council. Um this next item is what uh architects refer to as uh moving to the schematic design phase of the project. Um as you see laid out in the proposal there, there's a number of different phases. Each of the sort of a percentage of the total effort um laid out and um this this phase really gets us to a much more detailed level of um investigation into the facility and into the costs of that facility. Start to get some of the will start laying out the site a little bit more accurately and a little bit more detail and um you're really going to have a much much better understanding of um you know some of the choices we'll have to make in terms of design and cost and all those type of things. So um again the the um proposed fees are kind of laid out a little bit more boldly in my memo so they don't get lost in the proposal. Um but uh you know this is a significant investment. Um and as we discussed at the workshop, this really only commits you to this phase. Um you could stop after this phase, you could stop midway through this phase. Um but we really staff is feel strongly that this is um as long as the council feels strongly about the site and we've explored other sites, we've done our due diligence there. As long as you feel the same that staff does um that we are ready commit to this site, then um it's certainly prudent to move to the next phase here. Um again, if you're not comfortable with this site and you want to continue to explore other spots, um now is not a good time to move forward with this because we're going to start to design this site and that that effort will be lost if we move to a different site. So, but otherwise, yeah, staff, everyone I think is on staff is fully aligned that we feel good about this site next to the county facility. I think there's some synergy there. We do think there's a great opportunity to carve off a pretty sizable chunk of the site for potential some type of taxable development. Um, whether it's a commercial or you look at the comp plan and decide whether or not there should be a change to some other type of multif family or something like that. Um, but for the most part, we think we can find some sort of taxable use for maybe three and a half to five acres of that northwest corner of the site. We're also working with the neighboring property owners to kind of see if their sites fit into this overall design and that's something we'll be able to explore more broadly in this phase as well. So, we're excited to kind of explore that road alignments and that kind of thing. >> Thanks. just uh I guess for public's knowledge we we have gone down a couple workshops been working through this process. Uh our public works facilities are in rough shape. One of the buildings is from the 50s. We really for the safety of our employees and and and employment of of different genders. We really do need to make uh some a change here. Uh we have looked at the current site up on fourth and also the city- owned property on the corner of uh 22nd or count 50 and 61 and uh I think after that last workshop and that's part of the question Mark has for us is that council was in agreement that that the preferred site or the the better site to be used is the south site. Um and so maybe Mark just a little bit of uh history on how many just how many meetings we've had. I don't know if you know off the top of your head just so public is so aware that we have really vetted this. >> Yeah, this study um this pretty much this final version with a couple of tweaks here and there I think has been in your packet at least three times. So one of the benefits of moving to the next phase of your packets won't be quite as but um no I I think you know and this even engaging these folks to complete the space needs study even predates me. goes back to at least last year or sometime um or early this year. Not even quite sure but uh it's you know I mean at least half a dozen meetings I would say we've probably discussed some form of this um yeah we've we've explored the existing site um the site down by the county there at 202 um really actually explored this site we're sitting on here too as well recall it was a version an option that kind of took the parking lot between us in the dollar store there to u facilitate some expansion there of this facility and see if we could work something that would work there. So there's been a number of different options. I think you know um some of the things we weighed were the location of it in terms of efficiency. I think one of the things that came out of the space team study for sure was the idea that we want to be in one facility with our public works staff. Right now we have things at three four different places. Um But we we certainly looked at the location and the efficiency to the rest of the town for plowing for response to our lift stations and those type of things. Um and then sort of the redevelopment potential, right? Like if we use exist the existing site, then we could develop down at the 2002 site. We use the 2002nd site, we could redevelop the existing site. We looked at some of that balance and what the impacts to those neighborhoods would be, what the appropriateness of this use would be in those neighborhoods. I think those factors all kind of weigh into where we're at today. I think you've done your due diligence. I think um moving to this next phase is is a is the right step at this point in time. >> Any other questions or comments you would like to make, council? Uh, so, you know, the public's going to hear some pretty substantial dollar amounts tied to this project. Again, we've we've kicked this thing down the road too many years. Um, we we're going to work real hard and trying to get it more of a reasonable price tag uh and look at some some creative financing to to help offset so it's not full fully on the uh general levy taxpayers. Uh, so with that said, I'm ask anyone interested in making a motion. I'll make a motion to authorize staff to execute a contract with W Architects and Engineers to perform schematic design services for the city's future public works building and the city-owned site on at the city owned site on Highway 61 and 22nd Street with a fee not to exceed 321,000 inclusive of expenses. >> I have a motion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Any further discussion? All in favor? I >> I opposed. Motion carries. >> Regular agenda item uh 8D. Um I've asked uh to this to be back put back onto the agenda. Um I was not uh present at the last meeting. I did review the meeting and um I we put the decision was that it didn't carry with the 22 uh vote. Um, we did direct staff previously to move forward with an agreement with the the owner at 8241 Northshore Trail. Uh, so it has put staff in a little bit of a quandry as to what direction to go uh, next steps. And so wanted to bring it up back on to talk about what next steps would be and if there's any interest in revisiting that decision. So I don't know, Mark would like to add anything else to What I would just add is that staff had this on the agenda because of what you said is which is that okay we we made a decision at the last meeting to not have the parallel parking there that um sort of implied that we would then put no parking back there. Unfortunately, of course, this whole shining a light on this issue has given light to the idea that maybe that no parking wasn't locked solid like it should be in ordinance, properly signed, all that kind of stuff so that it could be enforced. And so staff was sort of coming back to this issue, not to revisit a vote necessarily, but to say, okay, we're going to put no parking that does that mean just sort of checking in. Does that mean we're going to sign it? Are we just going to sign it there? We're going to extend that zone out. So people aren't just parking a block down and walking. So just some of those logistical concerns um you know as to the direction forward. So that's why it was on the agenda. Um certainly if the issue um wants to be uh brought up again and revoted on um then staff of course has a different set of questions that will go down. So we just we just don't want to take any unnecessary twists and turns and put effort into eventually be in a different direction. So, >> uh, so with that, I guess, you know, again, I was not I was not present last Monday or two Mondays ago. Uh, so I don't know if there's any thoughts on the council that was here to answer some of those questions of what might you think might not next steps might be best if you've caugh thought that far or uh any additional feedback. Well, I guess personally, um, I'd like to see us move forward with the agreement that we had directed staff to create. Um, largely because I think for two major reasons. One, we know there's a parking need out there. And while this doesn't by any stretch of the imagination solve it, it helps. And the conversation has been around, you know, do we allow parallel parking? You know, it's a busy road. Does it make sense? And our new design for Eureka includes parallel parking that is built in and it's gonna be right in the rightway. Um, so if we're not going to do this there, then we probably need to rethink that argument in other parts of the city because that's a much busier road with truck traffic even than what we experience out on Northshore. Um, again, I I parallel park in different parts of the city. that are very busy, fastmoving vehicles and it's I guess from a safety standpoint I I'm I don't feel like it's a major safety concern. Um not to say that there's not the potential. There always is, but there was when people were backing in or, you know, parking diagonally there as well. So, um, I guess my I I'd love to see us kind of revisit this and maybe give staff that that opportunity to execute that agreement and move this forward to help, you know, just to help help gain clarity and that's consistent with other parking in other parts of the city. >> Um, Mr. Mayor, council members, excuse me. I'm open to revisiting this uh you know this this um this option. Um what what is concerning to me is we are going to reward bad behavior. And we have another person that's coming to our council uh that uh owns a business on the lake that is also not following kind of the rules. And what's concerning to me in this case is the owner of that property without permission from the city went out and put down a bunch of material and started using our public rightway for his personal business without our permission. And now they're here asking us to approve that and not only that, maybe pay for it. So again, I don't think we should be rewarding bad behavior by number one paying for anything for a business. Uh even though I can see in some cases where that can be beneficial, but two rewarding them and giving them this parking now after they basically started parking there without permission. That was my main reason for saying no. Um, do they need parking? Absolutely. Am I pro business? Absolutely. I think it's a great thing. But again, this is a conditional use permit business in a residential neighborhood. And it's not the same as some of these other areas where we have commercial businesses. uh when it comes to parking and road space and and and turn lanes, um there's not a lot of space there. And so those were my concerns. And I was more concerned about safety than anything, but again, rewarding bad behavior. I thought it was very unfair of them to just go ahead and do something without our permission. That's my thoughts. Um, so then, uh, I guess what staff's asking then, what are what are your suggestions in moving forward on the parking and all the rest of that like no park the whole thing or just >> Well, if we open the discussion again and it it's it's approved. I guess there is no discussion. If we just leave it as the way the vote was and it failed, um my guess would be we would have to put the no parking signs back up in that area where they were because there were some there at one time that were removed just like the no parking signs that are over by the boat launch that are there for a reason. Um because again, those are residential neighborhoods and they didn't want people parking all up and down the streets. I get it. Northshore Trail, we need to have places for cars to park. A lot of those people don't have big driveways. They don't have a lot of extra space, but that's it's a lot different at a business when you could have potentially 15 cars parked out in the rightway. So, that would if this isn't going to be approved, which it's not at this point, I think we would have to put no parking signs there. If we can come to some agreement, maybe it's only used for employees only and maybe it's posted employees only and their employees parked there. You know, you have a challenge with that business. You've got the owner of that business uh the building who leases out a bunch of dock space. So, you've got those cars that are parking there. Then you've got the restaurant business and their employees have to park somewhere which takes up a lot of space just between those before you even bring a patron in there to use the business. So I get it there's an issue but you know maybe we need to somehow designate those spots because there isn't as much movement with employees coming in and out of the business. They get there at a certain time. They're there for a certain time. Maybe they park there and the patrons can park in the lot. That might be a safer option than having people coming in parallel parking, driving in and out all the time. So, I'm open to discussion on it, but the way it was proposed and when I heard that potentially we were paying for something, I was not in favor of that at all. I don't know if anyone for the record was that ever previously marked no parking and then removed because I don't recall that it was. >> Yes, it was. Mr. Mayor, it was marked no parking. I think the question that came to light was whether or not it was designated that way through ordinance. Um could have been 30 years ago when it was township, you know, could have been a lot of our research didn't indicate that it ever was. It's as good as our research can do. Again, I had asked uh the staff to check into the condition of use permit. You know, when we issued that condition of use permit way back when, but with Aqua, I seem to recall that that's where the no parking stuff came in. >> Mr. Mayor, if I might just add to the conversation, I did look through the permit history, the use permit history there and its amendments over time through consistently throughout them all the reports reference sufficient parking or meeting the parking requirements. Um there was nothing of a there are no conditions of approval that refer to um reassessment of parking, adding new parking, anything like that. Aside from whether or not be substantial changes and if substantial if staff determined there were substantial changes that a use permit amendment might be necessary because the um improvement was made in the right of way and not on the subject property. It was my determination that we couldn't call this a substantial change and reopen the use permit because the activities weren't occurring on the subject property. They were occurring in the right of way. Hence why we were kind of I don't want to say waiting but until the time that the uh class 5 was placed or the gravel was put in the rightway we really didn't determine there was any sort of zoning matters we could take action on. I will also note um we have received an approved agreement or an executed agreement from the adjacent land owner. Um, I don't I haven't spoken with them with regard to payment, but they have signed that they are willing to pay for this regardless of any public assistance. Um, it was brought up at the last meeting that an application was made to the EDA uh for consideration of up to 50% or $10,000. I don't remember exactly how that subset of the EDA's program would fund this. Um but at that um time the EDA wasn't certain that they wanted to fund this and wanted to see what the council's appetite was for the improvement itself. Just sharing that again for the record. I know Mayor Roberts wasn't here for some of that discussion and input at the last meeting >> and and certainly I don't want to put a lot more uh burden on our on our on our police officers and and people to police that area and have to deal with that that we have enough things to to worry about. But those were my major concerns. >> Mr. Um, at some point you maybe want your attorney just to weigh in on how it looks to bring uh this motion back up if you if you do choose to do that. You want to share some thoughts around that logistics of that? >> Yeah. Uh uh so your honor council, if you recall uh two weeks ago when this came up, the the motion failed for lack of a majority vote. Um there's some ambiguity around how you can recall something that you've already voted on. Um typically there'll be some sort of bylaws or um Robert's rules of order or something that dictates how things should happen if you want to, for example, recall a vote. We don't have any of that in our code and as far as we can tell there that doesn't exist. Um so that's that's good and bad. Uh it's good because that means that there's a little bit more flexibility in this situation. Uh as your attorney, I would advise that that's not a great plan moving forward and we might want to adopt something as our rules for how we want to operate our meetings. That's for a different day. Um the other issue that you do have right now is um there's new information and specifically the information that I believe believe um the city administrator provided to you last week around the fact that we don't have an ordinance that prohibits parking on Northshore Trail right now. And absent that ordinance, we don't the signs are great, but they're actually not enforceable by the police as as they currently are. We would need to pass an ordinance. So there is new information. Um, generally speaking, under Robert's rules or most other systems that would govern uh how the city would operate the meeting, new information could be it could be is a reason to reconsider a previous vote. This is new information because now you kind of have to you just have to decide if you are actually going to prohibit parking on Northshore Trail. Um, and if you are, that requires additional action. If you want to move forward with something with this property owner, that will also require additional action. Uh, so those are the options that the council has right now. >> And so, just to kind of bring it all around, if someone wanted to revisit the motion, would simply be a a motion to reconsider. >> Yes. And if I recall, was it Council Member Ericson who made the motion last time? Yeah. So, he could make a motion that he would like to re um revisit his motion. We don't have to do that because again, we don't actually have rules. So, um but generally it would be the person who made the original original motion. >> Can I weigh in? >> For sure. um when I've done this before and been involved in these types of things before and I know we don't have a specific guideline it sounds like but usually it has to be someone from the prevailing voting um member so in this case where it was two to two that means it failed so it' have to be one of the two that voted against it that would have to revisit the motion to bring it forward again normally that's how it works >> yes that would be correct under Robert's rules >> question if we just decide not to move forward with the the parallel parking as we've just been discussing. We go the no parking route. Why don't we talk about that a little bit? Like how far and wide are we talking? How is that going to affect the adjoining property owners if they no longer can have guests parking out in front of their home? Um, do we have a sense of what that impact will be and how far beyond the subject property do we want to put that in place and how many people would be affecting? >> Mr. Mr. Ericson, I think um certainly that that is a component of this, right, is to okay, especially if we don't allow it, there's going to be the temptation to just park beyond the signs and can all that might look like. I think actually either way we probably need to discuss that. I mean because even if there's six spots there, you know, there'll be a day when there's a need for eight spots and two more people will want to park someplace. Um so I think that discussion comes either way, but I think it's exacerbated if we don't have any those six spots there, right? So yeah, I mean I think quarter mile probably you have to kind of think about people's appetite for walking >> and then what is that does that open the that opens the door to anyone could petition to have no parking in front of their home or not along the host the host trail northshore trail >> you know staff and I were talking about this issue today and just um probably it's a work session topic for another day right because it's really we got what five plus miles there road that You know, you might say, "Well, why are you talking about this now?" Well, not just because of Pizza, but because of the improvement, right? The improvement is going to change the character of that road a little bit in that we're going to have wider shoulders um because we're narrowing down the lanes and just new pavement and all that kind of stuff, right? And so, um I think the context of the road will change in some places especially that this is probably going to have a larger discussion about the integrity of the road. Are we going to allow it, not allow it? Allow it at certain places, not others. One side of the road, not the other. You know, there'll be plenty of things to batter back and forth. I'm not sure we can staff can provide you with real great information tonight about the larger picture here. We'd like to prepare more information for you. >> Yeah. So, previously living on Northshore and and people who have lake properties like that, they're entertaining a lot. and you do use that parking. I I just on top of this aside from the p the pizza pub situation just the then the the domino effect of the problems will have and complaints and people upset that they can't on 4th of July have invite 15 people to their home and not be able to park on the road where they've been doing it for 40 or 50 years. And so that be ready for that if that's the route we the council wants to go because that's where that's where we'll head. I'm more than happy to uh make a motion to reopen the discussion on this uh if anyone would second it. >> Motion or second. >> We'll second. >> So that that's just the motion is for discussion now. And that >> it's motion I think I heard a motion to reconsider the motion from last week which um would be to >> May may I just a little point of order if we could If we're going to look at reconsidering that agreement, I think the proper term would be to um make a motion to renew a defeat a previously defeated motion. >> Okay. I >> not so much a motion to reconsider because that would require uh one of the members from the prevailing vote to make that motion. This is a little bit separate than a motion to reconsider. >> And that's what I'm doing as a prevailing member. I'm making a motion. making a motion to um say that again, Jolene. >> So, if you're as one of the prevailing members, you would make a motion to reconsider the the parking. >> I'll make a motion to reconsider as one of the prevailing members to reconsider the uh parking on um uh at the Pizza Pub. >> Is there a second? >> A second. >> And then we take a vote on this, right, Jolene? >> Yes. >> Further discussion. >> Okay. Any further discussion? All in favor? I >> I >> opposed >> opposed. >> Right. Motion carries. So, uh any other thoughts uh on I would just like to note that even in the analyst report here that was on page 213 about like the no parking signs and things like that. um they were directed by public works to go out and remove the existing no parking signs from the property. So there was no parking at that location before. And again, I think the business kind of overstepped the bounds by uh putting down aggregate or whatever and um violating some of our ordinances and kind of it's more or less a I beg for forgiveness and ask permission type of thing, I guess, for a lack of better term. I don't know if that's the proper term or not, but again with council member Miller saying, um, I don't want to reward somebody for bad behavior. So, and I don't want to stick on the same thing, the same subject and have three or four meetings over it. Um, I think it's bad government business to be doing things like that. So, rather just progress down the road and learn from this experience. >> So, are you suggesting we no park the whole street then or what? What's that? That's what I That's what I'm kind of hung up on is we do nothing and then it creates more issues. We we had a we directed staff to uh make this agreement. It seemed at the time all but one was in favor of really fixing an issue here and yes, we can go back and forth. Should the owner of approach the city and handle it differently? Uh yes, I think we can all agree that he would probably admit that as well, but here's where we're at. So, how can we fix this and make it a better situation for not just that business, but the neighborhood in general? Because if we're going to no park so far in each side, there's opportunity where people are going to continue to park somewhere else. And then that pushes that issue down to other neighbors. >> Yeah. And I think as to my comment earlier, Mr. Mayor, I think that um you know, obviously, Council Member Larson, you know, has concerns and I think everybody has their own thoughts about this issue. Probably enough for a workshop topic and I think staff has direction on the pizza pub parking issue and then from there we can expand this discussion for a larger context going forward. So even though we've opened up this rediscussion, we haven't made any votes to approve this or not approve this. Correct. But we would still need a motion for that, wouldn't we? Yes. So, with that, is there anyone interested in making a motion on this? >> I'll make a motion like I did two weeks ago that we enter into the agreement with uh Pets above the property at 8241 Northshore Trail to put in place or pave that uh pave way for that parallel parking. Um they are willing to do at their expense. motion. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Any further discussion? >> One point of clarification, if I may interject, um the motion was if they do it at their expense. The agreement is currently written that they may seek EDA um support. Would you like that stricken from the agreement that requires them to pay for it outright themselves? >> Uh no. I'll amend my motion. the just the agreement as it is and let the EDA >> okay >> deal with it. >> Thank you for the clarification. >> I'll second. >> We have a motion second. Senator, further discussion. >> Joey, do you want to take role on this vote? >> Sure. >> Council member Ericson, >> I. >> Council member Larson, >> negative. >> Council member Miller, >> no. >> Council member Valento, >> I. Mayor Roberts >> I motion carries. Thank you everyone. All right. Uh so discussion there's nothing on discussion any further anymore. So staff updates 10. And I don't know who's doing the Q2. Uh >> yeah I I it's in your packet. Um you know this is um something that since I got here I've been kind of working with Jessica to to refine a little bit and bring forward to you on a regular basis here. But um just thought we put it in the packet. the timing doesn't work out, we'll this is something we might just email to the council, but I thought we'd put it in the pack if the timing worked out. So, anyone had any questions on it, we'd be glad to handle that. But >> questions. Okay, we'll go into uh additional additional staff updates. Uh Jolene, you have anything for us? >> Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, I just wanted to confirm that we've now posted a deputy city clerk position um that's live on our website. We'll be posted on the League of Minnesota Cities website shortly, too. So, if you know anyone who's interested in coming and working with us at the city here, please spread the word. We're accepting applications through August 11th. >> Great, Abby. Well, to tell that we're still in search of a building official that is also posted on the city's website in the League of Minnesota City. So, if you know any building officials out there, please uh feel free to send them my way and we'll have some conversations if they're interested. Additionally, I wanted to thank you tonight for accepting the recommendation to hire Steve Gilmore. Um, as noted in the packet, Steve comes to us with more than 10 years of experience uh with community planning, but more on a federal level. So, he's really looking forward to being a part of the Forest Lake community. be joining us next month. Um, two other updates I wanted to just share with the public. I know I included them in the weekly update for the council last week, but I've been in discussions with the county about the potential um, use of transportation tax dollars that they have for expansion of the circulator system, new tracks. their um funding is looking to augment not um supplant not to replace the city's funding but we are discussing just potential expansion options what that really looks like. I do also know that um New Trix is in conversations with the city of Wyoming's staff too just about the potential for that regional network system. And then also um coming soon before you will be an agreement with Washington County CDA. So some time ago last fall we talked about the local affordable housing aid. So that's a new tax that the city is receiving funding for to support our affordable housing efforts. that time both the planning commission and EDA and this council directed me to try to find partners to support single family rehabilitation um as well as rental rehabilitation programs. The county's created a program specifically to help us. So really kind of trying to tee up an agreement that we would um give our funding to them and they would distribute it to the city's residents and land owners, property owners in the form of low interest loans. So, I'm hoping that we'll get that in front of you in the next month or so and the county is ready to start administering loans in the city. So, we'll really be working to kind of try to get the word out on those. >> Great. Thanks, Chief Peterson. >> Yeah, mayor and city council members. I just want to publicly thank um our police officers uh for last night and today, the fire department and public works. Uh they responded to a ton of calls with the weather coming through last night. uh power outages, uh trees down, branches down, and and such. So, um they were all working uh very very hard for many, many hours um keeping the city safe. >> Great. Uh Captain Higraph, thanks for attending. Do you have anything to add tonight? >> All right. Uh what's Amanda? >> Nothing available for questions. >> Ryan, >> sure. Mayor, City Council, just a few updates of the Seal Co. We finished that other than the final sweepings. So that work was completed up in the northwest part of the city kind of north of Broadway and west of 61 and a couple other roadways that included apartment lane and Finley Courts. Um Mandot roundabout restriping project. You might see some traffic signs I saw when I came into town that were being set up. Uh there's three roundabout locations. They're going to do night work and uh do restriping at those roundabouts. The first one is starting tonight down in Hugle at 170th in trunk highway 61. They anticipate that to take one night to do and then they're going to proceed uh the next night, so Wednesday nights to Good View and Highway 97. They think that'll take one night too. And then they would proceed then to the downtown roundabout at Trunk Highway 61 and Broadway starting Thursday night. Uh they they thought two to three nights with that. So they'll do Thursday, Friday. If they don't get it done Friday night, they will go into Saturday. If weather comes into play again, they know that they're not allowed to do it on a Tuesday night because of the events that we have in the park uh Tuesday night. So we don't interfere with the traffic because the roadway intersections will be closed 8:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. when they complete that work. Um so uh Northshore Trail project has proceeded through phases six and five. We got the base course down. First lift of buminous ran into a lot of soft spots that had to be corrected. So we'll definitely be uh re-evaluating the project budget and uh bringing some updates back on that. A lot of contingencies built in the project, but we off obviously have run into a lot poor uh soils than anticipated from the geotech reports the the material that we thought were might be there. But we're paved with the base course up to Jason Avenue. Right now we're in phase four. So far so good. The been better material in phase four. So hopefully the good news continues as we continue traveling west. Phase four though is in between Inman and uh Jason Avenue. And then we'll have phase one and three left on Northshore Trail. Phase two is actually part of the local street improvement project that we combined with the project. That's Hayward Avenue. So that's why you won't often hear as a phase two referred to as along Northshore Trail. Uh so as that project proceeds, again, if you're not uh signed up for the email blast updates, we you know, we have that uh that updated quite frequently. I've subscribed myself just so I can see when they're coming into real time. Uh, also trunk highway 97, you know, there's been a lot of questions with that on the staging, but uh they're still on uh schedule when they would have certain uh portions of that roadway reopened. Uh the next portion that they're looking to get reopened would be from Everton Avenue, then all the way back to Highway 61, middle of August to have that open. And then from Everton to Hornsby, that still is anticipated to be opened mid to late October. Uh and then once obviously that's open, then the whole roadway will be open until they start phase two in 2026. That's all I got unless you have any questions. >> Questions? Right. Thanks, Mark. >> Uh Councilman Miller, >> nothing. No thanks. Council member Lento. >> Nothing from me tonight. >> Member Larson. >> Nothing. >> No updates tonight. >> Uh I just have a few comments. Just um uh we have golf number of us participated in the chamber golf tournament. Uh so that was a great connection to to uh network with business owners. I think uh the team the Bolton and Mink City minister team probably uh beat uh the two council members here, but that's not real tough to do. So, um, so I appreciate everyone willing to make that move to Tuesday. Another advantage of of six o'clock meetings at 7. Uh, I invite you to come down to the park afterwards. So, you have time to do that to enjoy arts in the park this evening. And so, with no other business coming forward, uh, the meeting is adjourned. [Music]