Good evening. >> Okay, it's beyond time. I would like to call to order the Tuesday, March 3 regular meeting of the Mound Planning Commission. Sarah, can you do a roll call, please? >> Sure.
>> Council member Leazan Mciny, >> I. >> Commission member Rosner, >> here. >> Commission member Baker, >> here. Commission member Wacker >> here. >> Commission member Young >> here. >> And chair good >> present. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. You have for you the
agenda that was sent to you by email. There are no amendments to these uh to the agenda that about which I'm aware. U having said that uh chair would entertain a motion for approval of the agenda as distributed.
Motion to approve agenda as distributed. >> Second. >> Do I have a second? Discussion hearing. None. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> Those opposed. Nay. Motion carries. Moving on. We have two sets of minutes. Let's do them separately. The first set
of minutes is again Jan 6, 2026 regular meeting of the amount planning commission. Are there any additions, deletions, or other changes to these minutes? Hearing none, chair would entertain a motion to approve the minutes as
distributed. >> Motion to approve the minutes from the January 6 regular meeting as distributed. >> Second. >> We have a motion and second discussion. Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. Those oppose, nay. >> Motion carries. You also have minutes of
the February 17, 2026 concurrent special meeting of the planning commission with city council. Are there any additions, deletions, or other corrections to these minutes? Hearing none, the chair would entertain
a motion to approve the minutes as distributed. >> Motion to approve minutes from the February 17th special meeting as distributed. >> Second. Motion and second discussion hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I.
>> Those oppose nay. Motion carries. We have no board of adjustment and appeals issues tonight. So we move on to old slashnew business. The first is review and discussion of
the 2026 planning commission work plan and staff project lists. That's on page seven. And following any discussion we have, we
need a recommendation to go forward to the city council. So, has everybody had an opportunity to review the 2026 planning commission work plan and the 2026
staff list? Are there any additions, corrections, or other issues with regard to the commission work plan in the staff list? Hearing none, the chair would entertain a motion to
recommend to the city council approval of the 2026 planning commission work plan and staff list as distributed. Motion to uh approve recommendation for city council our 2026 planning
commission work plan and staff list. >> Second >> motion and second discussion >> hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. Those opposed? Nay. Motion carries. >> Mr. Chair. >> Thank you. >> May I make a comment on it? >> Yes ma'am. I just wanted to note um just
on the list of the zoning code updates just to give you a heads up of what the plan is if that's okay. >> Sure. >> So the um we're talking tonight about corner lot setbacks and the next step will be to prepare the ordinance. I anticipate doing the bullet one revise the ADA stall length. We didn't really
need to talk about that. So that'll be part of that code. Um and then also the pet shop ordinances. We'll probably do that next just because we have models that we can work off of. I wanted to note that the two other ones, the front yard and sideyard exterior storage
requirements. Sarah and I did talk about that and we're going to pause until staff gets on board because staff, they're adding staff that hopefully will help with code compliance and so we want to see what we learn from that exercise before we go in and make those adjustments. So, just so you know, we
talked about it, we thought about it. And then um the residential use table. I want to wait until we're into the residential discussion about um if we're going to change things or not change things rel relative to densities because depending on what that discussion is, it may influence the table. So rather than
doing it twice. So you will see the the first, the third, and the fifth sooner than the second and the fourth because of other things happening. So, just an update on schedule that we talked through all of those before tonight um to try and see. Um we may have with the corner lot setbacks, we need to change
some other things with yard. Not that we're getting rid of it. We're just trying to make that section work a little better. So, things might get reorganized. So, you'll probably see that as part of the corner lot setbacks. So, I just wanted to note the schedule so that you guys kind of knew what the plan was.
>> So, thank you. >> Questions for Rita. Do we know what the time frame for the new enforcement staff is? >> I believe the 12th. >> Yes, our new staff member will be starting March 12th. >> Oh, great. Very soon. >> And and as uh Kevin Kelly reminded me
today to manage my expectations, this new staff person we're getting will be keeping the complaints moving along. So, people that have issues and complaints will be followed up with much more quickly than prior to this. We still
will only have Andy as our one part-time compliance officer, but part of our issue has been that there has been no followup with people. Um, you know, when they call in with a complaint or with something to be looked at, um, it kind
of falls into the gray area or off the radar alto together. So, we're really hoping that this will help uh keep things moving along and hopefully we'll know, you know, hopefully within a couple months because summer obviously
is a big time for complaints and things such as that, blight, all that kind of stuff. So, hopefully within a couple months, we'll have some reassurance that this this is working. >> Okay.
questions or comments about that? Okay. Review slashd discussion corner lot requirements. So, uh this item was something we discussed in April of 2025. It had been
identified as a result of some of the variance cases that we had where there was a lot of not a lot there was some confusion between the way that the code is written and also just concern that we maybe didn't um have it quite clear on how it would be applied. Uh at that
meeting in April just to remind you the direction from you all was that the provisions are fine it's just a little confusing to apply which didn't help the public ourselves and you in interpreting it. So, we took that information. Um, one addition that you will see that we
made is to use the term um, street side lot, meaning a lot line that's against a next to a street. In the past, the way that we had done it is that we had said if you are a corner lot, you have to have a front yard on both corners, but then for application of the lot
designations, we only have one front yard. So, it was kind of confusing to apply. So, we went through and added the street side lot line um which made that's the first change that you see on page eight um is to establish that to
help clarify when we apply the corner what thing we're actually applying like where is it going to be applied. There is a graphic that was in my presentation that if I can pass around if that helps you if anybody has questions though this small you probably can't read it. Um so
that's the idea. Sorry, I was just like I can't read it. So you guys probably can't either. Um if you have questions I can explain that a little bit better. Um then on page nine at the top what we have done I tried to put this in the order that it made sense in my brain rather than the order that it's in the
code. So then the next page at the top um we revised the language of the corner lots to clarify um that the minimum street sideyard setbacks match the front yard setback unless it's a corner lot of record and that's where the code has a
relief is just if you are a lot of record. So if you are a new lot you have to apply the same standards. If you're a lot of record there is a little bit of relief and that's the table below. Um, and these again the numbers have not generally they have not changed. Um, the adjustment is if you look below I kind
of included the table you could see. I'm trying to write it a little bit better than we wrote it before. So less than 50 ft. So if it's 49.95 you're in the first row. If you're 50 you're in the second row. And that's not really clear in how we wrote it in the
past. Um, so that is one of the reasons for the verbiage change. I'd also note that it says match the front yard setback requirement which is based on lot depth which is maybe confusing but then you can go to the table and follow through. And what that does is it allows
you to have um 24 ft and 30 ft. So we can adjust um how much the setback is um for lots that have a fairly large front lot line. Um, and then we did also in the wording to try and make it um, we
clarified number three is just that the setback for the in what I we typically use the word interior sideyard, but I don't think it's intuitive. That's just a planning term. So, we just said the setback for the sideyard that is not a street sideyard to clarify that you have to follow the normal standard. So, hopefully that makes sense to all of
you. It's always a little hard uh to write these in a way that makes sense. >> Okay, let's stop for a minute. Questions for Rita. Okay. Hearing none. Oh, >> just it looked like council she was Counciloman McN was thinking. She had that book on a visual. I am thinking. Um
and I I didn't bring my laptop. So, >> yeah. >> Um I'm going to have to review these back when I get back to the office. >> You need the this in front of you, the code, because I have I have the presentation which has the same information. >> Here's the part of the packet. >> Thank you.
>> Yeah, no problem. It's hard to listen to me talk. >> So I guess I had >> No, it's not hard. >> Two questions >> at all. >> Um where did it say this is only applicable to lots of record >> originally? You mean >> is it now or only originally and now we
were taking that off? >> No, it says under one if you just read it says the minimum street side yard setback for corner lot shall match the required front yard setback except that corner lots of record shall provide the following street side yard setbacks. Is
that the end above the table? The last phrase above the table itself. Is that what you're looking for? Because maybe I'm misunderstood. >> Oh, I was looking up in the descriptions up above >> in the definitions. >> Um, yes. >> Yeah. Nope. The definitions just define.
This is where it says, >> "Okay." And then the down the bottom where it says the seat for the sideyard that is not a side street yard shall follow applicable. Should you also just call that the the lot line side because
that's what the definition was above. >> Oh, you mean >> there? Yes. >> So, call it the side. >> You have lot line front, lot line side, street and lot line side defined. >> So, the question is whether we use yard or lot line. That's a good point and I will look back at all of those to try and make sure it makes sense.
>> And then your definition of lot line side means any boundary of a lot line that is not a front lot line or a rear lot line. It should be or a lot line side street, right? >> Well, you can have a you a >> street side.
>> Yeah, that's you can have a street side. But that's where I was >> lot line side though is if it's not a street side, not a front and not a rear. Right. >> I hear what you're saying and I will think about that. >> Yeah. Okay. >> That goes back to my whether I want to
define a sideyard and then have a street and an interior. So that it's like because it >> since street side includes side, I'm hesitant to not have it be that. Does that make sense to you? >> But your point is well taken. So I will
think about that. That's why we need new folks to look at this because I've been doing it too long now. >> And then in the spirit of clarifying edge cases, do we ever have lots that have parallel streets on two sides that aren't a corner? And does that matter?
Uh they would still be a corner. Do we have knowing mound? It is possible that we have so you would have two street sides basically. >> Um generally we don't see them. We usually see it front and back as through lot. >> Those could be a variance if we need but
you still have two street sides. >> Okay. >> I'm on a I'm on kind of that situation where I would have two streets but one side is not the street, it's the lake. So I sit sideways and I have one street here and then the lake
>> garden and grove. There's a house there that's got front and back. >> There's a lot of lots like you have that have a street, >> a street and then the lake. So they kind of have three things that are >> impact. And I'm on a dead end too and I I'm guessing most of them are as well. But
>> I would guess I would never say never here. And there's probably some someplace that is like that. >> Makes sense. >> On the island for sure. edge cases are my specialty. >> Kitty wonkus. >> Yeah. But um Commissioner Baker, your point is well taken of like how do I want to do that? So, we'll think about
that. >> Um because I hesitate just to say that a sideyard is not a street side. Like a street sideyard is not a sideyard because it is. So then maybe it's a sideyard and then underneath it are street side and whatever I want to call the other one.
>> Yeah. >> So that it doesn't seem like they're not. And then on the other one, your point about do we want I was following the language that originally was in the code about the yard, but maybe it's clearer to say lot line as opposed to yard is
what you I'm hearing you say. >> That's what I was thinking. Yes. But I don't >> because it is actually the yard the setback for the side yard. It is the yard. It's that creates that. But I think those are points that I'll look at as we develop the drafts. That's why we
have this in front of you before a public hearing is to get those thoughts and then we can study it a little bit more. >> Okay, more questions. >> Any others? Because the conversation is good. >> Are there any cases where we care about
the corner? Like I'm not this is not an edge case and but I'm wondering just about like corner visibility, sightelines. >> There is a provision in there that talks about sighteline visibility because we weren't changing it. I didn't include it in your language. So when you what I think my hope is that we'll give you the
entire 197 or 129 197 and in there is that okay case >> um and in my PowerPoint I had a slide so if you want to see it after I can show you what was in my slide that showed it to you in case you asked me the question. >> So we have some existing coverage of of sighteline requirements and then this is
really more clarifying >> different scenarios with with respect to roads on corners. Yeah, this is really about the fact that it was almost felt like it was a loop, like a circular reference that had happened before and was confusing because it switches from
lot depth and lot width being important depending upon whether we're talking about principal or accessory structures. So, we were trying to make that less confusing especially when we had two front yards because we had two front yards but then we didn't really have two front yards. And so that's why we went to the street sideyard to try and
differentiate that a front yard is a front yard and a street sideyard is something different and what those setbacks are. It's still confusing. So I recognize that but it's not with lots of record and regular lots. It's hard to make it easier because you have so many exceptions. Mr. Baker,
>> so I had another question before that you guys didn't change the the language, but we had talked about it before was >> what's the front? So the way it's written here right now, if it in the case of a corner lot, it shall be the shortest dimension on a public street or otherwise designated by
the community development director based on practical front yard. >> Yep. >> But then down below after that says, if the dimensions of the corner lot are equal, the front line shall be designated by the owner and filed with the city. So does the owner override what the
community development director says if they want to decide which the front yard? if it's only if it's equal and which is pretty rare. I don't think I've ever seen that case. We could get rid of that. >> Well, I'm and I'm also curious why we don't like let the owner decide >> or
>> we would make a petition. Well, you're letting the owner decide on the other one >> because they're equal and there isn't the impact in the same way. Whereas they could decide something that we don't think is good in order to have a better setback. The biggest reason that people care about it is do I need where do I
need my 15oot rear setback? and people will choose things which may not actually be what makes sense or the practical for protecting the adjacent property owners. So I definitely feel like we I would advocate ultimately up
to you advocate that community development director gets to make the final decision on those things. Um because someone can appeal it if they don't like what she does or >> so that's what I was thinking. >> Yeah. >> And then I was also thinking >> but if the equal one I mean we could just get rid of that provision. We've never applied that one. We've applied
the other one where we've decided what's the front based on what makes the most. >> That's what I was I'm like, can you just get rid of that other one? >> Yeah, we can. >> Yeah. >> And then like I would also advocate for if the community development director is determining it, filing that with the
city. >> What does that mean? >> Well, I don't know. It says if if the owner decides it be it will be filed with the city, which is the front and which is the side. So >> if the community development director decides I would like shouldn't it also be filed with the city?
>> Well, we don't have to say that because if it's a variance, we'll do it in the variance case. So we'll write down like this is the front, this is the side if we think it's confusing. We actually do write memos to the file that say when we make decisions that will impact into the
future. >> Is that what filed with the city means? >> Yeah. >> It's just something that goes in the property records file. So if you call and you want to do something, we often will pull the property records file to see whatever documentation it is. Um I don't know if we've documented uh what is the front other than part of a
variance case, but we've done other things. So an easier example just to give you an illustration which is not related to what you just asked but um the library found what their foundation survey is off like you know like less than an inch and we have the ability to
approve it with that but not we didn't just do that we made a record of that that in their property file it says you know PUB amendment was done this is the reason we checked it this is how much it is so that if someone goes down in the future and they're like why is it not 20 feet there's records So we do that with
cases um when we need to to document that and that that's to us what it meant to file in my mind is that it gets in the property records so we know. Does that make sense? >> Yeah. >> But I don't know that we need to say that community development director will put it on file unless you feel like it's
>> doesn't seem like it would hurt to so that someone would read it and go oh if I don't know which mine is I would go talk to the community development director. >> Yeah. I guess that's what people do. Yeah. Is they call and ask like what are my setbacks and then we go through the exercise of having that conversation.
>> And if you have the conversation on the phone, do you actually file it that day? >> Uh I I don't know because I don't usually do that f that one. I would not do. Sarah would do that. So I can ask her. >> Yeah. Because it seems like >> but usually it's fairly obvious because that's how the building setbacks get set
for whatever project you're working on. >> But I can ask her. So I better write this note better. So the front >> I also like simplifying the decision rights. >> Yeah. >> And there's probably never one where
it's exactly down to the inch. Same size all the way around. >> I we have never I don't remember having a conversation. The ones that we've had have been when I have a conversation with Sarah. It's when the longer side is actually the practical
front and not the shorter side, which is what it should be if you're going to do >> a designation. And then we put it where it makes sense based on where the house is currently. >> Uh where the door is, where the garage is, where the driveway is, how it sits on the lot, where we think that the
properties that are to the side or to the rear need to be protected. That's what we take into consideration is what is the protection level that is needed for the property as well as where do they access the front door and the driveway. >> So, and where's, you know, is there a
slope? Because sometimes there's a slope and so it doesn't make sense. That's not really the front. You know, we have those conversations. Are there a lot of trees? I mean, there's all kinds of factors that go into that determination. Awesome. What else? Otherwise, I can keep I said I can keep
going. I'm glad that you stopped, Mr. Good. Um, so the next sections, um, when it references 129100, that's the individual zoning district, the R1 district. And so there were some adjustments that need to be made just to make it a little bit clearer about how
it works. Um, and again, it's just trying to reference back to this corner yard section. Um, and then we just again I adjusted the table just to make the numbers make sense, not because there was any change. You would when we had talked before last April, you didn't want to make a change after everything
we had looked at. Um, and then clarifying that it is one of the sideyards would be 10 feet and then the other one is based on the chart below. Similarly, >> can I make a recommendation? >> Sure. >> Where it says lot width, you should probably change it to front lot line
length. same as the table above, right? Because that's what you're saying. If the front lot line is less than 80 feet, then it's six feet. >> Yeah, I think so. I'm going to think about that >> versus just lot width and lot depth. >> Yeah. Okay.
>> Yeah. The only reason I'm hesitating is that lot width isn't actually measured at the lot front lot line. Um it's measured back from the front lot line. So if you for example if you have a culde-sac and it comes to a point we don't measure at the actual front lot
line we actually measure so many feet back and that's what the lot width is. So if we do that then >> okay >> so that's where the only reason I and I I remember hesitating on the front lot line length whether that was the right term or not. So, this conversation helps me think, "Oh, I should go back and
really think about that part, too, >> but consistency may make it less confusing, >> and then just to be clear, the owner gets to choose which side is six feet and which side is 10 feet or whatever, right?" >> Yes. Other than my only exception is
that we don't want you to have a variance on both sides. So sometimes it's already dictated by where your house is placed, >> right? >> Does that make sense? >> Yeah. >> So we don't we don't want you to put it at six feet and then get a variance so you can be at six feet on the other
side. So if you have a 10 foot, you can't pick the that one and have a variance to that one and make the other one. is that like you get you have to do the one that is the minimum first and then so it is not totally up to you.
>> Does that make sense to you? So if you picked a I I didn't explain that. So if you had to do a six and a six and you already had 10 feet, I wouldn't let you put the addition on. So you have a six on one side and then ask for a variance for to get to six on the other side.
Like you have 10 feet. You should >> that's your 10 foot. So you're saying if you had a five and a nine, you'd have to do two variances >> potentially. >> And that's just governed by our minimum variance principle >> in general. >> Yeah. I mean it's Yeah, it's it's the
idea of you should be minimizing. So I mean there's special circumstances. I say those things and someone's going to come in and there's topography and what I just said goes out the window. Generally when we look at assigning it, we assign it based on what's already in place and trying to minimize the need
for variances or the me or the need to like have it go less. Anything else on that one or on the front yard setback? if not on the next one 129101 which is the R1A and the 129102
R2 those are structured differently um and so we kept the similar structure the difference with these is that they already have smaller setbacks so they only refer back to the corner setback they don't have these exceptions like the R1 given the fact that their minimum
lot sizes are 6,000 versus 10,000 they just have smaller setbacks so there isn't a need to have quite the exception rule that the R1 lots do so it just refers back to the corner lot. And then on the accessory buildings, uh,
1294, um, we were just trying to clarify. It used to say, um, that you had to meet the front yard setback requirements for principal buildings. That's the wrong principle.
Um, and so we just have changed the word to say street sideyards. street side yard setback. Um, again, we're trying to not use front yard because it was confusing.
>> Questions about that. >> Hopefully, we'll see if this makes it better. My hope is yes, the next time we have one of these. What else have anything else people see? So the general goals of this update is
potentially reducing variances and having more administrative. >> The biggest goal is to make it easier to understand because we really struggled with it when we've had >> uh structures and we had at least two different variance cases where it was
confusing because we had to deal with it both for a principal and an accessory >> and there's terminology that overlap each other. And so it's mostly about clarification based on our discussion last April when we really dug into it and ultimately you all said actually the stepbacks are fine it's just confusing.
So um I don't know if it will reduce anything other than confusion or errors because I think we made an error in one of the variance cases because it was too hard to follow where it went. Makes >> sense. >> Yeah. any other. So the next steps is um
we will take the conversation today create an actual ordinance um or language for you and hold a public hearing because we have to hold a public hearing and as I said at this earlier the same time I'd like to do the ADA stall length because that's to remind you just what that was was we had
discovered that the language in the parking section is not following current um standards. Um it used to be that like the length of the stall was important and now it's more important to do um the side areas that are marked off. So the stall width and length are the same um
but they have that extra kind of uh movement in and out area. So we need to update the code for that. Um and then the humane pet one will probably have you see it but not do a public hearing on that. We did pull examples um from other communities. It looks like they're all very very similar. So somebody had
the first one and lots of people are using it. um which is pretty normal and customary. So, we'll bring that to you probably at the same time and just have you look at that. Uh the city attorney did ask us to look at that language which is about what you can sell and
then also just operational. He said one of the other cities he works with has ordinances about just making sure the operations work. So, we're just trying to make sure that we have that pulled together. So, those will be coming up. And is that in response to the resident too?
>> Yeah, we had that as a work plan item and since a code already exists. Um, we pulled >> eight or so of them and they're pretty much all they're pretty similar to each other. >> Um, >> well, in her email she had sent that code which I'm sure you're stating is
>> Yeah. >> the same as a lot of, >> right? And then I had found online a list of all of a bunch of other cities so we know who are the other cities. There's 15 in this state and I think we know of we don't know the names of all 15 but as I said I think my staff pulled
me pulled like eight and they're all very similar so we'll just use that as a basis. Great. >> Um the biggest thing that that does it looks like I just reviewed one of them quickly. It basically implies that you use animal rescue or other things to sell animals in a pet shop. You don't
actually sell like dogs and cats. It's the idea that that's what that from what I can see that's what it does is it doesn't allow you to actually sell animals in your pet shop. It allows you to partner with rescue organizations so they can bring in animals for whatever a
day or like that kind of event, but you don't actually host animals on a ongoing basis. >> And is it dealing with the puppy mills which that email >> that was the reason they've done it? Yes. >> Okay. >> Um but it doesn't say that. It says you know you're you're allowed you're not allowed to sell them. you are allowed to
partner with animal rescue organizations or humane societies to have events where you can sell those that kind of idea. Okay. >> Um but you'll get a chance to see it before we like make a decision if you want to move forward with that or not. >> Great. Thank you. >> And that you weren't here. That was at
the joint meeting. There was a resident that had >> uh approached council members on seeing if the city would consider adopting an ordinance such as that. And is there a specific project or just we're per >> It's just just in general they're trying to get more so to prevent them from being started in the community.
>> Makes sense. >> And this resident had reached out out to us more than once. Okay. So it seemed like the perfect time to bring it up at our joint meeting. >> True. >> So and talking to a friend of mine in Dallas. This is a national network uh initiative.
>> Okay. And it I don't I I probably wouldn't need my gut re or my thought was that there aren't that many in Minnesota um pet stores left that do this. Um I was going to say a number, but I don't know if that's right. But it's they want to see these in cities
>> and the cities range from Twin Cities suburbs to, you know, northern Minnesota. So it's it's kind of I think where they have people that are interested in reaching out to their councils to do. So, we'll bring that back, but not as a public hearing. We'll bring it back as like here's what this says. Does that
look for the city? >> Well, thank you for diving into that so quickly. >> Yeah, it's nice when there's already an existing one. That makes it lots easier. >> So, I don't have anything else. We don't need a motion relative to that. Just need a direction.
>> Further questions for Rita. >> Hearing none. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Let's move on. City Council Lazison Cath, you have anything? >> I do. And forgive me, I've got to read off my phone because much like this TV, my printer was not speaking to my
computer at the end of the day. >> Um, Rita, you weren't at our council meeting, >> correct? There was not. >> So, I just wanted to bring up up that the council did have a concept presentation from the Harrison Bay Group
who are looking to purchase the funeral the Huber funeral home. um for a 55 and over three-story 72 unit rental apartment building. Um and it was just a a concept
presentation. Some of the concerns were um that you know our fire department and OPD as well also are heavily burdened by fall calls. You know residents that need assistance, >> help getting up.
>> Yes, help getting up. Um, and the man who did the presentation did say that uh they they provide an employee on site that actually takes care of falls and we did ask for a
little bit more information when they come back here and and then back to the council. Uh that was a big concern. Um, another concern to many of us, me always, because you know, if I could have a no taller than two story in
mount, I'd be happy. But >> but, uh, too much density in that particular area backing in and coming in and out right by the school with all the traffic. Mhm. >> Um there was a comment that maybe if they took it because they're trying to
mirror the uh senior living home, the assistant living, they're trying to mirror that. So one comment was to move the whole thing back because right now it's closer to the street than Huber is. So move it all back and create rather than big long
string of you know apartment rental apartments to make an L shape and then move it back so it isn't so obvious from the road. >> So we'll see if they do anything with that but I think the next stop would be coming here. I don't think we left them
with a yeah, we're thrilled or no, we aren't in agreement with you, but they did take our notes for feedback and we'll see what they come back with. Um, and then this coming Saturday night, just a
reminder that March 7th is the Beat Hunger Bash at the Gillespie Center. It's always a lot of fun. It's $65 is the ticket price with Greg Sletton and Selmer Effect playing and that is from 6:30 to 11. And then also at the
Gillespie Center next Saturday, March 14th is the 15th annual Northwest Tonka Lions Club chili cookoff and that's between the Lions Club and the our Mountain Fire Department and that starts that doors open at 11 o'clock. That's
also always a fun one. And the proceeds for that go to Northwest Tank Alliance and the organizations that they support. And then in closing, next Tuesday at our council meeting will be our annual state of the water. So if anybody's interested
in seeing what we've got cooking, that's a good meeting to come to. But we're also going to be having kind of a information night in April. I believe it's uh Thursday night, April 22nd. Don't quote me on that, but it's either there's we're still kind of working on
it. But we'll also be having a big water presentation that night. So, uh we'll see if we get a big crowd rather than just all the complaints floating around the community. We'll see if they actually show up and hear what >> And is that the following Thursday?
>> That's this Thursday. Uh the state of the union is our annual is just at our council meeting. >> Okay. So that's the 10th, right? March 10th. Yes. And then the actual information night that we're having that we'll be covering all kinds of topics related to mound. It's kind of a new
well, lack of a better term, state of the union. It's new. We're going to have that again. I believe it's that Thursday the 22nd. >> Um >> Thursday the 23rd. >> Okay. So it's Wednesday. No. So, it's Thursday the 23rd because we didn't want to do it on Wednesday because of
religion. >> The same day as the city. >> Is this April? >> Oh, it's April. >> April. >> Okay. Thank you. >> State of the Union will be April. And then >> and that's the open house. >> Yes, that'll be an open house. >> Okay. >> Oh, that's the same thing. Got it. Okay. Same thing. Okay. >> That's State of the Union/openhouse.
That's in April. >> I'm like, it's the same day as the open house. >> Yeah. Right. And then and that's what you got your >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Name takes. takes for because we'll have, you know, you guys will be wandering around and there might be people that want to have conversations with you. We'll be excited for that.
We'll go, there's the planning group. Go run on over. But we're looking forward to that night. We're thinking it'll be reallyformational for the residents. So, >> and that's all I've got. >> Okay. >> Say Kathy, do you know if any of the flats have sold? >> I at this point I don't believe so. I
know the last we heard. Rita, maybe you've heard more. is that the open house that we were all at has been was really successful, >> you know, and I think they're really targeting snowbirds >> for that and a lot of the snowbirds are >> in warm climates. So hopefully it'll
pick up, >> you know, when as they start moving back to Mount and >> hopefully they sell because they're they're beautiful. >> Yeah. I could never live there because I'm not I don't I'd have to
get rid of 95% of my stuff to live cleanly and beautifully in there. So, but they're really nice. >> So, I Yeah, we we've all kind of asked that and haven't actually heard the numbers. So, as soon as we do, I'll pass it on. >> Keeping our fingers crossed.
>> It could be the time of year. >> I That's what we all think it is. >> Yeah. I mean, I think it was when they built on the island the um condos over there. I can't think of the name of them, but I remember they were a little slow to the to get that interest in too.
So, it could just be the seasonal >> the villages of Island Park. >> Thank you. I drive by it every day and you'd think I'd remember the name. >> And it it turned out really nice. And you're right. You know, the open house was the end of October and then also the holidays. So, >> people move out. So, we're hoping to
spring will be new renewed excitement and lots of purchase power going on over there. And that's what I've got. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. Um, next meeting I believe is
April 7. That's the first Tuesday in April at 6:00 pm. And again, reminder of the open house, April 23, 6 to 8:00 p.m. at the firehouse.
Everyone is encouraged to attend. Other issues hearing none. Chairman entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. We >> have a motion. We have a second. Discussion hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I.
>> Those opposed, nay. Motion carries.