The public may attend the city council meeting in person or may watch and listen remotely by viewing the meeting on channel 8 WCTV at the city's website at weisetta.orgwv. Public comments during the public forum and or public hearing portions of the meeting may be provided in person at the meeting in advance or by logging into the team's call and raising your hand during the public hearing. When your name is called in the meeting, you will be seen and heard in our council chambers and the cable channel. You'll be asked to unmute, turn your camera on, and then you may begin your comments. All public comments should include your first name and who you're representing or as a group. >> Next is the pledge of allegiance. Um, I would ask everyone to stand if you are able and follow along. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you. >> Next is our roll call. Let the record reflect that all council members are present this evening. I will note that earlier this evening, we held a workshop to discuss the following items. discussion of flock cameras and then uh discussion of our future workshop topics. The next item uh before us is to approve the agenda. I would need a motion to approve the agenda as presented or does anyone want to make any changes? >> So moved, Mr. Mayor. >> May I have a second? >> Second. >> Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. >> I. That passes 5 to zero. >> Next is our public forum. Do we have any items on the public forum this evening? >> And nobody on teams. So we don't have any schedule items. So next I would like to do a recognition for Constitution Week. So September 17th to the 23rd is Constitution Week here in the United States. Um, the Lake Minnetonka chapter of the National Society of the Daughters of American Revolution, otherwise known as DAR, has requested the city recognized the Constitution Week, which commemorates the signing of the US Constitution in 1787. Constitution Week was officially established in 1956 by Dwight D. Eisenhower following as as president following a congressional resolution initiated by the Daughters of the American Resol Revolution. DAR is a patriotic organization dedicated to promoting, educating, historic preservation and service in communities across the country. Its service initiatives include supporting veterans, students, and new citizens and very active here in Weisetta. In recognition of Constitution Week and at the request of the Lake Minnetonka chapter of DAR, I'd like to read the following proclamation. Whereas the Constitution United States of America, the guard guardian of our liberties, embodies the principles of limited government in republic dedicated to rule by law, and whereas it is fitting and proper to accord official recognition to this magnificent document and its memorable anniversary and to the patriotic celebrations which will commemorate the occasion. And where it is where whereas it is fitting that every American should reflect upon the vision and fortitude of our forebears in creating a charter designed to form a more perfect human union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, and provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for themselves and the fortunate millions who are to follow them as citizens of this nation. And whereas all citizens have a responsibility to protect and defend the Constitution. And whereas public law 915 designates September 17th through 23rd as constitutional week. Now I therefore, Andrew Mullen, by virtue of the authority vested in me as the mayor of Sidawisetta, do hereby to proclaim the week of September 17th through the 23rd, 2026 as Constitution Week and ask our citizens to reaffirm the ideals of the framers of the Constitution had in 1787 by vigilantly protecting the freedoms guaranteed to us throughout the guardian of our liberties. Thank you and thank you for the Daughters of American Revolution for bringing this forward. Next, we will um cover new agenda items. Does anyone on council have new agenda items they'd like to bring up? Hearing none, we move on to our consent agenda. [clears throat] The following items are on our consent agendas this evening. Approval of the check register. Approval of the municipal licenses. Receipt of police activity report. Receipt of the fire activity report. Receipt of the building activity report. Approval of agreement with LHB for blight study analysis at 294 Grove Lane East. Approval of agreement with LHB for blight study analysis at 200 Lake Street East. Adoption of resolution 462026. Approving the 2027 Weisetta City Council meeting schedule. Approval of the second reading of ordinance 863 amending ordinance 703, an ordinance implementing electric service franchise fee for Excel Energy. Approval of the water treatment plant number two equipment replacement. Adoption of resolution 48, 2026, approving the site alteration permit for restoration work at the Trappers Cavern in Shavers Park. Approval of the professional services agreement with Bolton and M for the 2050 comprehensive plan. Adoption of resolution 432026 approving transfer of 2025 unallocated funds and authorization of for the mayor and city manager to execute a professional services agreement with Source Group LLC for pre-construction services related to the Weisetta Bar and Grill refresh project. Boy, that was a long list. So, is there a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented or are there any items that folks would like amended or changed or pulled for discussion? I I don't know if I need to pull anything, but I have a question. >> Sure. >> More on um item number L or letter L, the comprehensive plan item. >> Uh when we we talked about this in the workshop and I think we had some pretty good consensus on limiting the amount of money that we were going to spend on here on this comprehensive plan because we've done so much work for the 2040 plan not that long ago. Um, and uh, I was somewhat struck or surprised by the dollar amount of this contract. So, I'm just curious if I know it's a not to exceed contract, but does this contract that we'd enter into allow us with enough flexibility to reduce the scope and reduce the ultimate cost down the line uh, as we see fit? >> Um, council member Cook, that's a great question. Again, this is we haven't had our comprehensive plan contract and I don't recall any other contract of this level that we've added not to exceed amounts by essentially deliverable. Um so for every single chapter that we requested assistance with for the comprehensive plan, we asked for a not to exceed amount so that way we can monitor progress, monitor um budget throughout. So really we view this as an opportunity to as our like already the direction we received from the council is meet the minimum requirements of Met Council really build off the foundation of the 2040 comp plan. We didn't need need to do a ton of extensive community engagement related to that like really use what we've done before but um refresh it enough to meet met council requirements and that's what we put in the RFP. um we put it in there with notes uh kind of describing the extent to which staff could support and where we needed consultant support. So as staff is able to complete the work that's necessarily going to limit the amount that our consultants can work and we get the benefit of that as they use less hours then we don't get build for anything more than that just because they build $20,000 for a chapter. They're not guaranteed that they have to put in actual hours to justify that amount. So, we think that that's a good way to control the cost of this contract going forward. >> Okay. Thanks. I guess I'd just ask we go through the process, we just keep that in mind and try to uh >> keep those costs down as much as possible. >> Yeah, I agree. I mean, that's a nice lever to pull, but let's pull it, >> meaning [laughter] not to exceed and then the bill comes back at 199, whatever it is, >> we've missed it, >> right? And so, um, obviously there's if there's legitimate uncovered reason for it, fine. But but >> we expect you to use that lever to reduce the investment required to get it done. >> Yeah. >> So just want to be clear to I >> amplify your comment. Council member Cook. >> Thank you. That's all I have on that. >> Any other comments? >> Okay. So then I would accept a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented. Please. >> So moved, mayor. >> May I have a second? >> A second. >> Uh any further discussion? >> All in favor say I. I. That passes. Um, public hearing. We have nothing for public hearing tonight, so we move on to new business. There are a couple items on new business tonight. The first is consider adoption resolution 492026 approving a parking lot variance at 109 Bushway Road. >> Thank you, Mayor and Council. Um, Haley Hedlum, our planner, is going to lead this presentation. >> Thanks, city manager. Uh the planning item uh for discussion tonight is a variance application um at 109 Bushway Road. Um that's the Lake Matonka Dental Clinic. The actions requested for the application include three variances [clears throat] um from the city's zoning ordinance. The first is a setback variance which is a 9- foot variance from the required 10-ft setback um which would allow for a one- foot setback from the property line for the parking area. The second is a landscaping variance um a variance from the requirement of the screening and landscaping surrounding all exposed parking areas of four or more spaces. Um, so that would allow for the pro the limited screening um or limited space that staff believes there wouldn't be available space for screening there um within the 1-T setback area if approved. And then the third variance uh that we'll discuss is a compact stall variance. So that's a variance from the limitation of compact parking stalls in a parking lot that's under 40 spaces um which would allow for the 10 proposed compact parking stalls in this parking lot um that is being proposed with a total of 38 parking spaces. So, the planning commission held a public hearing on this application in August. Um, and they ultimately um recommend approval uh to council this evening with the conditions um that are summarized on the screen. So, the first would be recommended conditions from the city forester. We'll go through those in the presentation this evening. Uh and then an additional condition that came from the planning commission after their review of the application includes um requiring the proposed one-way traffic flow through the site to apply to the full extent of the property um to allow access uh to limit access to the lot from Bushway Road. Um we'll discuss that more with the plans as well. uh they approved that report and recommendation that in included that recommendation to council this evening. Um and since then staff would like to add um another recommended edit to the resolution this evening that includes just further clarification to one of those uh conditions of approval. Um, I can get into it a little bit more when we get into the details, but there's uh one of the conditions of the city forester is that the applicant will work with the city forester um to come up with a plan to prove that there's either no practical alternatives to saving some of the trees that we'll discuss tonight. Um, and in that case, the plan may change. So, we just need to add some language that would allow for modification to the plan that would be approved tonight with the variances. So, getting into review of the application, uh the project location is just southwest of the Bushaway Road and Weisetta Boulevard intersection. Um there is direct access onto Bushaway Road. Uh there is technically semi-direct access onto Weisel Boulevard uh through a uh access easement uh to the north through McDonald's parking lot. This is a little bit of a zoomed in um view of the property just to show the the north property line that we'll be discussing tonight um and where it lies on this site um in relation to um the property to the north which is owned by McDonald's Corporation. the current land use and zoning. Uh this property is zoned uh C3 which is our service district and it is guided as mixed use so to be commercial and residential. This uh slide includes images of the existing site conditions um and a property site plan provided by the applicant of the existing conditions. So that red line there shows you the property line um and then the current setback of the of the parking lot and its current configuration and layout. So the current use of the property and its parking requirements. Um it's currently being used as a medical office building. It holds uh a dental clinic tenant and a med spa tenant. Um the parking requirements for these current uses equal 32 spaces and one off- streetet loading space. Um the breakdown of parking per use is included there. Uh health clinics require six spaces spaces per provider. Um the applicant has stated that there are currently four dentists at this location. Um so that equals 24 total stalls for that use. And then um the med spa which is categorized under personal services requires one space per 200 square foot of floor area. Um and based on the the leasable space stated by the applicant that would equal eight parking stalls being required for that use. The current number of parking stalls on the site is 31 total spaces. So they are just under meeting the requirement um per code. And there's also no dedicated off- streetet loading space. Um so they are existing non-conforming in that regard um with the current requirements of our ordinance. Um on this slide this is a depiction of the proposed plan. So the plan would extend that parking lot uh north towards that red par property line depicted on the screen. uh it would sit the edge of the parking lot would sit one foot from that property line. And then the proposal um shows a reconfigured layout to the parking lot that includes a one-way drive aisle um and then seven additional parking spaces. Um and those seven are added through a combination of angled parking spaces and also compact stalls. So this would create if approved um 38 total parking spaces uh on the property. So this table just shows a comparison of the zoning requirements and then the proposed plans. The highlighted areas are the areas that are related to directly related to the variance requests. Um so the parking setback is changing only on the north side to be 1 foot from the property rather than the 10 foot 10 ft required. Um the landscape screening um again with the proposed plan there's not um room for landscape screening to be implemented in that area. So a variance application has been made for that. Um and then the compact stalls in our code requires um in parking lots of 40 total spaces or less. Um or 40 total spaces or more. Uh the property may have up to 20% allowed compact stalls. Um this parking lot is proposing a total of 38. Um so just under that code provision. um and they are proposing 10 compact stalls which would equal about 26% of the total parking um stalls available. Um and then I I did note um on this last uh row of this table um that the drive aisle currently is considered a non-conforming width um per our code. So, the one-way traffic flow does reduce or potentially remove an existing nonconformity on the site. Um, we can get back more. We can discuss that more um if there are questions. Staff's primary um concerns um and evaluation with this application came with trees on the adjacent property. Um so this was um a considerable u point of discussion with the planning commission and is what led to the conditions of approval um that you would see included in the resolution tonight. um the proposed removal on the actual project site, so on the subject property is removing less than 10% of the um allowed thresholds of of inches removed. Um so that that on the subject property would not require a tree replacement plan. Um, however, there are concerns for impacts to trees on the adjacent property to the north due to the close proximity that this project proposes getting to the property line and the sighting of those trees on the adjacent property. Um, so the trees circled on the screen this evening uh show a 41-in diameter heritage red oak tree and an 18-in diameter significant basswood tree both on that property to the north. Um staff expressed concerns about the um applicability of the Minnesota state statute which relates to um prohibiting injury to a tree on the land of another person. Um that's not within city purview um to issue any sort of permits on, but it is just a point of concern that our city forester brought up. Um and then there was also discussion about removal impacts or impacts to these trees on the property to the north. So the critical root zone um these are two terms defined in our tree preservation ordinance. The critical root zone is shown in this depiction as the larger circles around the subject trees um in yellow. excessive disturbance to those areas can affect the health of trees. Um, so it usually makes it it's an important factor in determining a project's potential tree impacts. Um, and then critical root disturbance to trees could potentially cause either harm or death to both trees. Um, so these would certainly be considered as part of a tree replacement plan if those trees were to be on the subject property. Now, the smaller circles on the screen um depicted in red are what are called the structural root zones. Um, those areas represent the the area of roots for the tree that are responsible to for keeping it physically standing up straight. So any injury or disturbance or work done in this area or that close in proximity um to a tree would compromise the structural integrity. And our code um proposes that any proposed impact or disturbance to a structural root zone of a tree would require removal of that tree um before work begins, before permit is issued. Um, and then those inches would certainly count towards a project's removal threshold. So, because those trees are located on an adjacent property and not the property that the project would be permitted on, um, there are recommended conditions of approval that the planning commission incorporated into their recommendation are incorporated into the resolution this evening. um those are listed here. So the first would be that the applicant needs to demonstrate a lack of alternatives um as defined and required in the tree preservation ordinance. Um a tree preser a tree replacement plan should also be provided should those trees need to be removed. And then the third condition would be that the property owner of those two trees um would need to provide written permission for their removal. Uh the application followed the typical uh public notice and neighborhood notice um procedures. The city did not receive any public comments related to the application. There was also uh no comments received during the public hearing for planning commission as well. Uh the standards for council review of variance application requests um are similar to a judge in a courtroom. That means that the council provides um applies the relevant rules of the zoning ordinance to this particular property and the proposed development. Um, and the council should approve the three variances if the council determines that the proposal meets all the standard variance requirements outlined in city code, which I've included here too, um, just as a refresher. So, those primary questions to consider um, or criteria to consider while evaluating variance requests include um, evaluating is the proposal consistent with a comprehensive plan? Are the variances reasonable? Is the plight of the land owner due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the land owner? Would the variances alter the essential character of the locality? Um and then that economic considerations alone shall not constitute as a practical difficulty. So the requested actions for city council tonight is to consider adop adoption of the resolution 492026 approving the variance for the variances for a parking lot uh expansion at 109 Bushaway road with the recommendated the recommended staff um edit to one of the conditions. >> Okay. Um is the applicant here tonight? the applicant is here and they have u prepared a presentation for you. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> So maybe get some questions out of the way with staff and then we'll give the applicant a chance to present. Um so questions of staff based on what's been presented at this point. >> Hearing none then we would have Oh, sorry. Did you have one? >> Yeah. Drying through my list right now. >> Okay. Sorry. [laughter] Go ahead. Miss McDonald >> planner headb bloom. Um, has the the applicant committed or are they are they okay with this one way the whole way scenario? I'm I'm a little unsure of where that's at. I realize it's a recommend recommendation from the planning commission, but is that something that they're interested in or if not, how how is the how would the flow work without that? like what was their intention? What how did they see that working? You know, >> little portion was one way. >> Yeah, council member. So, I what I can share I I hesitate to speak for the applicant in terms of their feelings towards that um condition of approval. Um however, I can share that they were present at the public hearing and at the planning commission meeting. Um so, they're aware of that recommendated or recommended approval or condition of approval. Um I have not received any comment from them since then expressing any concern over that condition. Um but they are here tonight so they answer. >> Um can you do you know in when that easement was created the easement to Wisetta Boulevard? >> I am not aware of the exact year that that was created. Um, however, it's been um part of the the property for quite some time and a lot the adjacent properties um to the east of or west of McDonald's also share portions of that easement agreement. The applicant will likely know more details in terms of when it was implemented. >> Okay. Um, do you have any data on if the neighboring businesses have an appropriate compliant amount of parking spots per our code or they've been there other um non-conforming parking situations nearby? >> Mayor and councel, I did not staff did not um evaluate the surrounding properties parking. Um, however, a lot of the properties in that area were likely developed prior to or perhaps developed prior to that condition being included into our our code. So, if their amount of parking spaces don't meet code requirements currently, they would be considered the same as this property is now as an existing nonconformity. um if they were ever to come forward with plans for redevelopment or alterations to their parking um we would staff would evaluate their parking requirements at that time. Staff also evaluates parking requirements anytime there's a change in use. >> Yep. Understood. I just wasn't sure if maybe you looked into it since while we understand parking spots are on certain properties, the average person may just grab a spot. And I was just curious how um congested everyone's parking lots are because to me it just seems like they're one short from. So it seems like a lot of work for just for one spot. Um and then um still no comments from the city engineer council. That's correct. So the city engineer did review the application but at this time they they do not they had not provided comments. Um they'll review the application again and full civil plans when it comes in for building permit. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Other questions of staff? Mr. Pleish. >> Yeah I had a few first thanks for asking the question about the oneway. I had the same question. Uh but I do think it was answered in your description that um the the one way solves the problem of the width between you know two different directions. So uh I get that. Um but I am curious about the uh the landowner what they think about it. But it makes sense to me. Um question on the the the list of things that we have to make sure work for granting a variance. One of them was the plight of the the owner. What was it here? the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property. I'm curious what is the plight in this case? >> Mayor and council the um the case to be made for variances is the case to be is a is the responsibility of the uh applicant to make. So I will let I will defer to them and let them answer what the they how they would define the plight of of not being able to meet the requirements per code. Okay, I would like an answer to that. It seems like the plight is that just they need more parking spots and they're out of compliance by one and this gives them a little bit of of um flexibility. Um >> I'm just curious, this is probably an question for the land owner, but is uh are they having problems with the the parking that it's always full and and they're just busting at the seams? So, we'll we'll let you answer that when you come up. And then um question then again I'm not sure who answers this but one of the uh things in here was that it has to get the approval of the adjacent land owner. What happens if they don't approve whoever wants to answer it >> mayor councel first uh the city attorney had had a comment that he might be able to help clarify the prior line of questioning. So, let's wrap that up and then I can go into the uh additional condition. >> Yeah. Thank you, community development director, Mayor and Council Member Pleish. Just wanted to point out that the planning commission did make a finding on that very thing. What is what is the plight of the landowner and it's part of their report and their finding was that um the property has these two challenging access points and abuts other commercial properties and a busy roadway. So that whole traffic congestion, limited parking is part of the challenges of the property. >> Okay. Yeah, we didn't get the planning commission's notes on this. Um is and you were going to answer the other question then? >> Uh the other question, apologies, we were discussing uh the comments. So um to address the uh permission on adjoining property owners, uh staff has conferred briefly with the city attorney. So if you have additional comments, feel free to step in. But essentially, because they need to obtain that permission, uh without it, the city would not be able to issue any permits or further items required as the project were to move forward. So they will need to work with the adjoining property owner for any tree removal. >> If they're able to design around that, then they would not be subject to it for that tree or trees. >> Yeah. I presume you've talked to them, >> the property owner or the adjoining property? >> The adjoining property owner. the adjoining property owner staff has been unable to reach as that is more of a responsibility for the applicant themselves to reach out and begin that relationship. They do have a prior relationship for establishing more easement on their property for access that they could expound upon, >> but we don't know if the answer is yes or no at this point. >> At this time, we would need uh written permission from that property owner. >> Okay. >> Any other questions of staff? >> Can I follow up real quick on council member Pleish? >> Yep. Miss >> the requirement of the the written permission from the from the adjacent property owner is that to kind of safeguard from the state statute about you know a neighbor's tree if you cause some sort of disturbance like is that the to kind of protect uh council [clears throat] essentially the city cannot provide or issue a permit for work on land that is being applied or land that's not owned by the property owner or the permit applicant. So, we can't issue work or those a tree permit removal permit to be utilized on a property that is not under ownership of the permit applicant without written permission of that other property owner. >> So, is the tree technically on both sides of the property line? No, it is solely on the property to adjacent. >> Okay. So then that didn't answer my question. Then should I just repeat it or >> city attorney? >> Yeah, staff and uh council member um just maybe I can respond in with some additional thoughts and maybe that gets more to your question. So I think the reason that the city forester recommended that condition was a couple of reasons. Um, first of all, his conclusion is that that tree would likely die as a result of what the applicant would do in the parking lot because even though the the visible part of the tree doesn't really the trunk is not on the property, the branches go over the property and certainly the critical root zones go underneath and into the applicant's property, but it's it's on the adjacent property's land. So his recommendation as part of the plan is whenever you have a tree that's going to be impacted like that and essentially die, it needs to be removed before the project begins. And so getting that permission from the adjacent property owner that says, "Hey, are you okay with this project that will kill your tree and okay if we go over and remove it before the project commences?" That's what that written permission would provide. >> Okay. >> Is that accurate, staff? consistent with your understanding? >> That is consistent. >> Yeah, that was mine. >> But how do we compel the replacement if it's not their property? >> Uh, mayor, we wouldn't be compelling the property of the north to do anything. It would be a condition that's imposed because the of the impact of the the project related to the variance, >> right? But if the replacement is triggered, then they would have to remedy it on their own property. So the mayor uh city attorney to be able to address that because I've speak spoken with the city forester they would actually perform the replacement on the other property the subject property that is having the tree removed not the applicant's property and that thus satisfying the code provision. So they would need to work with that property owner for any tree replacement. The other option is potential for cash in loo and they will need to determine with the property owner how they're going to achieve that code requirement. It's an odd requirement when you're having something this impactful to a neighboring property and we don't have other examples where this has occurred yet with our tree ordinance. So, it's been a learning experience as we're moving along as well. and something that the applicant has been working with us well on to essentially we'll determine this but at this time are we comfortable moving forward the variance application knowing that there's additional work such as the grading such as other uh site work that may need to be determined as they further plan so final plans and determination has not been completed fully yet I'm gonna wait for the presentation from the applicant >> if we don't add that requirement and they go forth and the tree dies. What's the vulnerability other than we lost like probably a 70-year-old tree or something or they the the community? uh mayor, council member, my assessment would be that uh the vulnerability would be the loss of the tree to the urban tree canopy and it having happened on an adjacent property through work that the city essentially permitted which was the concern of the city forester. >> Okay. >> So that was the attempt to try to mitigate that potential loss on a property owner that is potentially negative impacted negatively impacted by the variance and therefore it has a nexus directly to the variance. >> Okay. Thank you. That was helpful. >> Any further questions, Mr. Pucket? >> Yeah, not really a question, but it did trigger something in my mind. I'm not a forester or anything like that, but I have a fair number of basswoods on my property, and I got to tell you, 18 in is small for a basswood. This thing's going to get pretty darn big if it grows like it should. So, that down the road would be a problem in any case because the ones in my property are 36 in wide or thereabouts. Just a comment. Okay. I think >> I I have a question. Um, this is thinking like thinking long term and thinking about this one-way configuration that we're considering tonight with the easement and access coming off of Weisetta Boulevard. And as we think about the Weisetta Boulevard kind of redevelopment or reconstruction and looking at the flow of Weisetta Boulevard, we are now requiring access to this property to come from Weisetta Boulevard if we do the one-way system. That means that does that mean that we would have to provide access to this property from any plan that we that we would approve for reconstructing Weisetta Boulevard or um would we have the ability to say well or I mean otherwise they get landlocked and would have to change the configuration of the uh the entrance and exit of that property and the flow of this parking lot which I don't know that we could force them to do that down the road if we approve this. So, I it's a uh I know it's it's somewhat of a hypothetical question, but it's I don't want to create a situation where we're landlocking a property or setting up like some unattainable uh access with from Weisetta Boulevard because of this. >> Mayor, Council Member Cook, astute comment, concern that staff would have as well. Couple of notes. uh Weisetta Boulevard in that area is under the jurisdiction of Henipin County. It is still a county road in that section. So while the county may have a voice in where access points are, ultimately that decision would not be determined by the city of Weisetta. So that adds a further layer of complexity to that future design. Uh as Henipin County has not yet released any uh formal plans and is I believe they were going out for bid to begin the process of planning Boulevard for a potential operation in 2030. We may need to re-evaluate some of those access points at that time as they bring forward. And this would be an item that staff the city would need to make Henipin County aware of. And you'll notice that uh we have the flexibility potentially to change things around if it needed in the future, but at this time this was something that was suggested by the planning commission due to the conflict that is partially existing on site but made worse by the proposed conditions. So it was trying to address uh the variance in the moment in time that it's being brought forward. Well, there is an understanding that there's an unknown in the future that without having formal plans would be very difficult to respond to at this time. >> So, does it operate today with an entry and exit point from both? >> Mayor, yes, I I have used it that way. It is not clear from on-site signage or things of that nature whether it's intended that way, but the drive aisle widths are wide enough that that may be accommodated until you hit the existing drive in the site that passes by the building uh where I have personally experienced where you have to back up to allow because it's a current one-way configuration, but it's not clear which way is intended as the oneway >> and that's the current existing condition. So, we're working through an existing condition that is not ideal and the planning commission was looking to address for safety aspects where you didn't have head-on. >> Mr. Sornson, >> um yeah, I was going to hold this for the applicant, but we're somewhat on this topic now and knowing that um because well, we need to work with the county, it's not going to happen all that quickly. But, um the question I had was h how would this change? How would this traffic change the amount of um traffic in and out of Weisetta Boulevard onto the site? So the question more is how is it operating now? And if it's a oneway, do we think that's going to generate more traffic off of Weisetta Boulevard, which we all know is a significant issue? Uh is it going to help it hurt it be the same? Um and it really goes back to how's it operating now? Because I think that's that's a big deal. So I I assume somewhere along the line we'll get that addressed. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So may maybe let's just get the applicant to present because I think it might give some clarity then we can ask clarifying questions on top of that. >> So >> yeah I just have one more quick question for staff regarding the address being on a Bushaway road. If you can't if hypothetically you couldn't enter off Bushaway road, how does that affect the address or >> Good point. Access points are regularly not off the road that you take access from. This happens more commonly with um residential properties on corner lots or things of that nature. But ultimately the biggest impact would actually be changing the address now with emergency services knowing where this is and it being in within systems. So the existing address is probably best kept off a bush away and then determining access uh the access uh to the site does not always determine where your address point is off of. >> Okay, I'll leave that for some followup with >> Mr. Son. >> That it's an interesting question because if you've never been there before and you look it up on >> on Google Maps, whatever, it's going to take you right right to the place you can't go in. >> Well, I'm curious how the application And it's an inmountable thing, but >> yeah, >> it's an interesting >> I just want to know how you guys are going to direct your clients, like literally what the directions will be. >> Well, with that, let's see if we can get the applicant to try to shed some light on intent. You know, what's driving this? Maybe if you can weave into some of your prepared narrative, enlightening some of the questions that we asked here that were redirected to you. >> Thank you, Alie. Yep. You just need to press the button and it should turn green. >> Thank you. Sorry about that. >> It's your name and who you represent. >> Patrick Lensing. I'm with Summer Hill Commercial Real Estate. Um we're the uh property manager um for 109 Bushway Road and Alaskan Properties and appreciate all your time today considering this request and especially uh Planner Head Bloom for that mouthful uh presentation um and all of your questions. Uh, I have a brief slideshow that will attempt to answer some of the questions you've raised. Um, and I've got notes on all of the other questions and hopefully we can um, uh, come to agreement at least on on what what we see as the solutions that you've uh, to the issues that you've raised. Um so this site uh there we go. Um the the various goals are to meet the current parking needs but also to accommodate growth. So there was a question originally about what is the um what's the plight for this site? Uh the plight is that we can't grow the the tenants can't grow additional dentist uh services um and meet the code if they were to add another dentist. Um and I think one could make an argument that the code saying that six parking spaces per dentist is perhaps short of reality on what services are required um even meeting today's standards because the parking lot is full. um even with the four dentists, the parking lot was full before um before there was another tenant in the building. Um and and that was just based on the current service needs. So um one of our other goals is to improve the uh flow um off of Weissetta Boulevard, reducing congestion off of Boulevard by doing this one way. Uh similar photos to what staff had provided existing conditions of the site. Um, this is a day where parking wasn't too bad. Um, but showing the width of that access aisle as it currently sits. Uh, and this is the current survey of that site. The current site plan showing the parallel parking along the area where we would be proposing to do angled compact parking spaces. And this is the plan with the angled parking spaces added and the one-way traffic coming off of the shared uh easement with uh McDonald's. Um so we would have 38 parking spaces in this plan, 10 of which would be compact angled spaces, traffic exiting onto Bushaway Road. Um, I don't have current uh 2026 vehicle per day statistics on Weisetta Boulevard um or 2026 numbers for for Bushway Road, but um one could make the argument that certainly Bush Ray Road is less busy and easier to exit whether you're making a left turn or a right turn. Um maybe skipping away from my presentation um which is free flowing anyway but [snorts] the question being how would um how would access from boulevard uh what is there's concerns there how would that improve how would this plan improve access from boulevard um we would be by this being a oneway um asking vehicles to be entering um our property from Weisettle Boulevard and exiting onto Bushway Road, meaning no one would be exiting our property to the north through McDonald's and then likely trying to make an a left turn, perhaps a right turn, but perhaps a left turn off of McDonald's property uh onto Weisetta Boulevard. I know that people that are visiting McDonald's are doing that anyway, and people that are visiting Starbucks are doing that and people are visiting myburg doing that and I can't fix those. But we would at least reduce the number of vehicles that would be attempting to make that dangerous turn in that congested area. Um doing our part to reduce that congestion. Um some slides that perhaps aren't of of note for you um but may be of note for the engineer once we get further into the permitting plot process. But the grading plan um and then certainly the tree preservation plan. We don't because the trees that are affected um the one tree that is ours that is affected um on our site uh we meet the tree preservation plan but totally understand and I'm a tree hugger myself that the trees on the McDonald's site um would be affected. Uh, and I will ask in a second uh, Planner Head Bloom to maybe put that slide back up with the structural root zone, but um, we'll get to that in a second and I'll address those questions when we get that slide back up. Um, regarding uh, screening, um, one of our variance requests is to um, to not have a screening plan because we will not have enough room to do that. Um, but we will address that. Uh we we intend to address that by planting trees with McDonald's uh blessing and permission and uh cooperation on their site. Um these slides show the current grading or the current screening if you will on the site. There there are a few trees. Um there isn't really a screening to speak of. Uh there are some some low-lying uh liies and hostas. Um most of the hostas are eaten by the rabbits. the tallest screening on the site are weeds um that exist on McDonald's property and uh are not taken care of by McDonald's. Um we actually as the um property that sits above the retaining wall maintain that property because McDonald's does not um so we handle its mulch, we handle its mowing, we handle um the site mainly because we're the ones looking at it and McDonald's does not. So uh but I bring this slide up to show that from a screening perspective the retaining wall itself functions as a fairly good screen uh to the site um even without additional plants or trees. So, and this last slide I have is uh showing existing um this is McDonald's uh the property line they share with with the service station. Um the distance from curb to curb uh between these two properties is 10 ft. Uh so currently they are within uh a 5-ft setback. they're within the setback of 10 ft um by 5t on their properties with uh trees um straddling both property lines uh for their screening. Um and I bring this slide up just as another way of showing that um neighboring sites do have variances um to meet the parking requirements of this of this business district. Um and I'm g give this back to planner Hibblum so you can bring up that tree slide. While that's coming up, um I'm going to try and address some of the questions that um council members have had. So, one way uh are are we okay as the applicant for having a oneway throughout the entire site? Absolutely makes sense. Um uh that that is not a concern for us. Um the timing of the easement was a question. So, it's an interesting question. Uh the property the property to the uh Kitty Corner to us, I guess, um that is currently my Burger and Starbucks, formerly the KFC, references our easement as part of their easement um over McDonald's um back in 1960 whatever or 70 whatever when the property was developed. Apparently, that easement was never recorded. So it didn't exist um officially uh and no one has been able to locate it or no one for a while could locate it. So we did uh 3 years ago um approach McDonald's uh to get that easement recorded so that we had it officially um on the books as it should have always been. Um so that is the timing answer I guess. Uh there is an easement. Um it's the exact same easement that Myburger and Starbucks has. Um and I I mentioned that also as a segue into the discussion about what happens down the road if the county redevelops or changes the way traffic flows on Weisetta Boulevard and and they reduce curb cuts or do something. Um, I'm not sure and and I can't speak for the county or whatever may happen 5 years from now, but because the Starbucks and um myburger building relies on that easement for their sole access to their property. Um, I would be surprised if that access changed. Other accesses to McDonald's uh property may change. Um uh and again I can't speak for the future but because three properties rely upon that particular curb cut uh for servicing themselves um I would be surprised if there were huge modifications to that entrance but um I don't work in government so who knows um >> but but practically I mean they don't they don't all use the emen for access to the to those sites. I mean, it's it's they're coming in off of um Why is that a Boulevard, too? >> Well, >> I'm sorry. Yes. >> Yeah. I mean, the only way you could get a Starbucks or my Burger is to come off Weisel Boulevard. So, um or I guess you could come from McDonald's to the to the east off of Bushway Road, but technically they don't have an easement for that access. >> That's my point. >> Yeah. >> So, but you could do it. >> You could do it. Yeah. Um and and people could for the same reason in that same entrance uh access our site from Bushaway Road >> uh come across the um drive lane area for McDonald's and and come to our oneway. Yep. >> Um >> practically speaking, that's probably what's going to happen >> potentially. Not a criticism, just >> No, that's a possibility for sure. For sure. Um, uh, I'm trying to make sure I've addressed all the questions. Um, and the address change question. Uh, yeah, that is a good question. Um, I know that my office, for example, uh, is in Eden Prairie. Um, our address is City West Parkway, but our street is, um, not City West Parkway. The entrance to our to our address. Um, it's one of those industrial properties that again has a weird uh to to access us from City West Parkway, you would actually have to come from the back of the building. So, it does exist out there. Um, it's not ideal and thank uh thank Lord for for Apple Maps and Google Maps to help people find things. Um, but it it does exist uh in a lot of a lot of places. Um, could we change it down the road? For sure. Um, I think fire and police would eventually figure it out pretty quickly. Uh, the utilities are a different question. They're more stuck in the mud than any of us. So, um, that getting them to change the addressing for for something that happened 50 years ago seems like a um an impossibility for them. But that's that's my own personal bias. >> Mr. Son. >> Um, so do we know what current traffic patterns are now? Because you can, I believe, enter and exit off of Bushway to the office building. Yes. >> Or or you can come to the easement, but how's it being utilized now? >> Right now, people enter and exit from both directions. From the north through uh the easement over McDonald's and also from Bushway Road directly accessing our site. Yes. Um, I don't have counts on what percentage come from each direction. Um, but it does currently get used both ways. Yes. >> Yeah. I I'm just still kind of wrestling with the question of what's this going to do to uh increase or decrease traffic off Boulevard into the site. I know it's one way coming in now, but if everyone's coming in off Bushway, then it could increase traffic off Boulevard. >> Uh, it could increase traffic offetta Boulevard. Yes. Um, people making a left turn um would be the main concern. people making a right turn perhaps less of a concern uh onto the McDonald's site to access us from from what would be a oneway. Yes. Um I mean I I guess my biggest pinch point in using that site as I have for the last you know not just McDonald's but you know our site for the last 15 20 years is making a turn out of that site. um not making a turn into the site and we would be eliminating by doing this people trying to make a turn out of um McDonald's parking lot onto Weisetta Boulevard which um from my point of view and again perhaps I'm biased uh is the bigger issue than making a a turn into the property. >> Thank you. >> Yep. Thank you. >> Well, they can still come in via Bushway. They're not supposed to, but like if you they can I mean there there's another entry point that people come and cross there off of Bushway. >> Have you done McDonald's? >> Along those lines, >> have you thought about reversing the direction of traffic? So you do preserve the option of ingress and egress off of Bushway and then egress out of onto Weisetta Boulevard or you know I'm not I'm not uh I'm not suggesting that people you you could also turn right out of that parking lot and go you know if you're in that oneway system along the edge of this building you could still turn right or left out of Bushway >> right um >> oretta boulevard so it just preserves more options for coming and going. >> Sure. Our our engineer and architect did look at that and it um resulted in at least one perhaps two fewer parking spaces. Um so that was why this plan was preferred. I had the exact same question as council member Cook just now and I I just want to also point out that I think that would be less confusing for your clients to say to get here you don't have to take a boulevard at all. That's a real win. Um your address would be on the way the road where you would actually enter. Um, I think you're selling it a little short on making a left from Weisetta Boulevard. Um, I don't think that's all that much easier if you're coming off the highway. Now, you're trying to cross two to three lanes, get into the suicide lane in the middle, make a left, you're telling your clients, it's in between two drive-thrus. That all sounds very confusing to me. And for safety reasons, I I I just can't get past just switching the one way. Also, when you walk when you exit, if if the one way were switched and you're now exiting at the back and you do kind of basically hang a U-turn to get back out to Bushway, that's the proper one-way direction from the drive-thru. They have parallel or diagonal spaces. The drive-thru sign says this way. Um, [clears throat] I think that makes much more sense than than this. I'm having a really a hard time getting behind um having your entrance be on Weetta Boulevard. >> Sure. I I hear your concern. Um, again, we don't have an easement for that exit onto Bushaway Road across McDonald's site. So, um, we would be asking our, um, our clients to then exit onto Weisetta Boulevard and to make a right or a left turn onto Weisetta Boulevard. Um, >> a right turn though, if they were just heading up to the freeway to get home or something, it feels >> sure, but the majority of our our clients are coming from the west, so they would be making a left turn. They're they're not coming from the east. you you know that particular >> I I don't have the statistics in front of me know but um it's a the clientele is based in Wisetta we out of Plymouth um um or no so um yeah I'm not saying 100% and and maybe it's not even 80% but it's a higher percentage coming from the west than from the east. >> Um may I ask another question mayor? Um, you mentioned that you'll you'll get a blessing from the neighbors to replace the pre the trees on their property, but you've also in your narratives made it quite clear how difficult the neighbor is. And I I give you a lot of credit for maintaining the the the landscape buffer. It's it's it's quite nice. Um, if you can't get a hold of them, how do you think you'll get their blessing? >> Sure. It's it's not that and when will you give up on it? Yeah. Well, it's not that we can't get a hold of them. It's just that they're a big corporation. We're not we're not a big corporation, so it just takes time. >> Um so it's it's not so much that uh we we don't think that they would play nice. Um they just won't answer um any of our we won't have an answer tomorrow. Put it that way. Um but you you do mention uh and the reason I had the slide brought up the uh the oak tree um that is the first larger circle there. Uh our plan um when we get to permit is that we would be changing the curb line at that uh sort of angled triangle spot. Um we would change the curb line so that we are not going to impinge upon the structural root zone of the of the oak tree. something along those lines. Um correct. Uh so that we um and and I sat down um with with city forester uh to discuss this and and get an understanding. [clears throat] You know, we we while the the concentric circle that um the circle that signifies the uh critical root zone um is certainly what the code says that critical road zone is. One has to also understand that that dash line is a retaining wall. Um the lines to the south are um asphalt that have been impervious for you know 40ome years. So the the root zone that that circle for the oak sort of signifies is is more to the west and east um from the critical standpoint or than it is um to the north and the south um and and we certainly um would hope to maintain and and that that oak tree survives uh for many many many years. Um the basswood is a different question. We would be uh working with McDonald's to get an agreement with them to remove that basswood and then replacing it. We we are treating this and we've engaged Save a Tree to do a um uh a schedule of how many of the trees that McDonald's has on their site and we will be approaching our request to them as if we were removing this basswood um and applying for a permit on their behalf. Um, meaning we would be replacing uh the basswood with the amount of of tree and or greenery um as if we were doing a project on their site. And that replacement would likely be include screening on their property of our site. um so that we can meet a screening requirement even though it's not on our site and we can meet a um tree preservation requirement even though it's not on our site. Um that's our goal. Um that's what we will be asking McDonald's to work with us on. Um and they're McDonald's so um they have very smart attorneys and they will probably have additional requirements um before we reach an agreement um that meet their satisfaction. Um, that's my experience and I wouldn't be surprised if they did that and we would be happy to work with them on that. >> Okay. Um, lastly, where where do you receive deliveries at this site >> currently? >> Um, mailman parks in front of the door and drops off deliveries. Yeah. >> What about UPS or F? >> Same. Yeah. And if they go upstairs and and that's going to be the same situation when they if you were granted these >> Yeah. There right now there's a um uh they the the first floor which is the bottom floor I guess if you will there's a a spot for the UPS deliveries to be dropped off. >> Um >> but then what they'll block a parking spot do you think? Because you you won't have two-way traffic anymore. >> We could we we can look at that. Um we don't have that figured in what we've presented so far uh for a um delivery. I'm what is the terminology? I'm sorry. >> Off streetet loading zone. >> Off street loading zone. Yes. >> Okay. Not so no plan yet. >> No plan yet. We don't have one currently and and we we don't have one drawn in currently. No. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Do you have any concerns that the additional space that you use for the diagonal parking will impact the retaining wall at all? >> No. Um, we don't have any concerns. The retaining wall is still going to be um I believe over 14 ft away from from our curb line. Um, >> that's Mr. Sonson. >> Hey, just go back to traffic one more time. >> Sure. As you exit your property onto Bushway, there's a a median right there. >> There's a median uh to the north. Um but there isn't a median right there. >> Okay. So when you come out, the median isn't right in front of you. It's it's it starts north of that. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? >> Okay. Thank you for that. If more comes up, we'll ask you to come up. >> Back up. Okay. Thank you very much. >> Closing closing remarks or anything? >> No, I mean I just I appreciate your time. I appreciate your consideration of our variance request and um uh I'll be available for questions if you have any. >> So go ahead, Mr. I'm probably beat beating this to death, but um >> would it make more sense to reverse traffic? I think we just talked about that, but like >> if you're most people come from the west, you go south on Bushway, you turn right into the property, you exit on Bush, you exit on Wisetta Boulevard, turn right. Most of them are going to turn right. Wouldn't that be an easier traffic pattern? >> Most of them are going to turn right onto Weisetta Boulevard. >> Turn left. >> If you if you if you enter from Bushway and you exit on Weetta Boulevard, >> most of the people are going to go up there. If they're coming from the west, they're going to turn right. Oh, if they come the west, they would turn left, but >> you're you're saying most your traffic comes from the what? >> From the west. >> From the west. >> Yeah. >> Oh, that's >> Yeah. And to answer your question in some way, uh again, if we were to reverse the traffic, um we would have two fewer parking spaces. So, if we did add another dentist, >> we would be out of compliance um again on parking. >> Okay. But your core issue for the oneway is because today it is tight and now you're making it even tighter by adding the diagonal parking versus the parallel. Not a criticism, but that's just a fact of what what this layout does to your your flow. >> Does it reduce I mean does it reduce the the distance from today? reduce the distance from the >> or your >> actually I believe is two feet wider from the back of a parking space to the to the building. >> Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Plish. >> I I I just thought of another question. I'm not sure what I want to do with this when I get the answer, but it seems to me that the catalyst for this whole thing was the uh need for the dental office to add a dentist. Is that right? >> Sure. Yes. And that is not that is within the control of the office. They could decide to add one or not add one. So that is in their control. It's not out of their control. Yes and no. Um we currently are out of compliance um by one parking space just based on the current um number of dentists. Um and then anecdotally we we're out of parking regardless of adding another dentist or not. Um uh one would make the argument that six parking spaces per dentist is not enough um for for the number of dentists. How many how many dentists uh clients dentists serve in an hour? You've got uh a parking space for the dentist. You've got uh staff at the front desk. You've got the clients who, you know, in the in a given hour there's one or two per dentist and you've got a hygienist for each of those one or two. So, um you you brush up against six per dentist pretty quickly. Um so, it it is pretty full even without this addition. um the the need to add another dentist and and I'm I'm not part of the dental practice so I I can't really speak for them other than to note that um without growing the business um affording the cost of doing business um becomes more and more difficult. So um especially as you know uh the cost of of running the building the cost of of taxes and all the other services you know for the building that go into the the additional rents uh increased. So it is a bit of a circular argument there. Uh granted that uh the property currently with the current uh residents or uh people with their businesses, they're out of compliance by one parking spot, but this is not happening because you want to get into compliance. This is happening because the dental practice wants to add a new dentist, which then triggers the need for more parking, which again is in the control of the dental office, not it's not something that they can't control. They can >> sure they they can and then and then um when their lease is up in a year and they can no longer afford the rent because they don't have the dentist then we have a vacant space, >> right? >> Um uh twothirds of the building and um have a demonstrated um issue with parking that will make it difficult to fill it with another similar user. So >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. So, we need to bring it back to council for discussion now. So, um we we have recommendation from planning commission and from staff to approve [snorts] um the variances as presented, but some very good points have been brought up tonight about whether or not they're warranted um or that we can answer the test of approving the variance based on that. So, who would like to start our conversation weighing in on the pros and cons of what they see here? Can I ask a question for sure probably city attorney or maybe city staff like as we're talking about like the direction of traffic? >> Is that something we can put a condition on when reviewing these variances? Like if we if like if we want to accommodate more spaces but don't feel like that traffic flow is the right thing like can we we have the ability to put that condition on when looking at these variance requests. Is that correct? >> Um mayor council member you know with variances um uh council has the discretion to put a condition on them. It needs to bear um just want to get the words of the code in front of me here. Um it needs to be directly related to and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. So >> yeah, >> all that we've been talking about with parking came up at the planning commission meeting and the commission felt that uh that traffic flow condition made sense. You don't have to put that condition on the approval here. You could leave it to the discretion of the city engineer. You could re, you know, send it back for further study on the traffic flows. So, how you deal with that depends on what you think the impact of the variances are. So, more parking spaces, more traffic staff feels that that condition is reasonable, bears that, you know, is directly related and bears a rough proportionality. And that that is how we got to where we are tonight. I don't know if that >> Yeah, it does. I what I'm trying to do is just balance like I'm not I'm trying to be sensitive not to micromanage a a project and making sure that like what recommendations or thoughts I have are like within the purview of what we're trying to decide here on these variance requests. >> Right. And I think um certainly backing away from any conditions in that regard would be I I think within your purview. I think um going in a different direction or seeking more data would also would would also be good. >> Okay. Thanks. >> But there's no there's no details in the variance that forces anything you just talked about as as written. >> That's correct. Mayor, you there you don't you were not required to have a condition related to traffic flow to approve this variance. >> Yep. Okay. Mayor and Council, if I may just anecdotally add if to the city attorney's point, uh removing a condition on the traffic flow or directing additional study of traffic flow, I believe would be related to the variance. An aspect that I would want, uh careful consideration of is if the council sought to reverse the traffic flow, that could actually result in a substantially different application from the applicant due to the reduced parking that could occur. And that could be problematic as we're reviewing because we're reviewing the application at hand, not a design, not a potential design in the future. So that is an area of caution as you were to determine conditions that I would want to make sure uh perhaps we study additional to determine those impacts so that we aren't fundamentally changing the application at hand. But but it doesn't I I don't understand that argument, Alex, because the only place that you've got a pinch point is where the diagonal parking is, not of the entry and the exit points outlined. >> So if you were to change the directionality of the angled parking, it would result in the two less stalls and it would affect the compact stalls. So you're reducing the parking per their original application. >> I see you're reversing the the direction. >> Exactly. You're you're reducing a flow. That angle >> Yeah. >> could result in impacts that are that we haven't studied because it wasn't material to the application that we were studying. >> Got it. >> Okay. Does that answer your question? >> Yes. >> Okay. This is a tricky one. who would like to start with the pros and cons of of you know what's before us as a recommendation from the planning commission um and our staff and then you know if there's enough of a cons then I think we would have to then go to an alternative set of criteria around these variances >> or flat out reject it. >> I can [clears throat] go first. I'm conflicted on this. Like I I I truly do want to accommodate the additional parking needs at this site cuz I I think like it's a great use for the site. Um and if we can accommodate a growing business in town, I think like we should be we should be looking at ways to do that. I just like I one of my regrets from previous service on is that Starbucks and like the Starbucks um drive-thru line and we were told by the developer that by Starbucks numbers like the stacking that like that was plenty of room to stack cars there. Well, it's not on most mornings. it's backed up trying to turn in there like this that that um ingress and egress is really complicated and I do agree with uh wi with the developers comments about trying to limit there isn't a great solution here because you're either going out of that easement or you're coming into that easement and there's just not and either way we're creating I think a more complicated problem but by reversing it and allowing ingress and egress off of Bush away for at least 12 spots. Like you're you're preserving more options for traffic to more traffic to come and go from that area. But I so that I'm I'm struggling with that. I'm wrestling with that right now. But I I do want to accommodate more parking on the site. >> Okay. Who would like to go next? Mr. Senson. >> Yeah. I you know I uh read the packet um saw the planning commission unanimous approval then kind of came here thinking it's pretty straightforward but I don't think it is very straightforward >> anymore. Um I agree. I mean, I we ought to try to support our local businesses all we can and I think you could uh I think you could walk through the findings of the planning commission. Um and and and the criteria we have for the variances and make a pretty strong case that it meets the criteria. I still have a question in my mind though about about traffic flow and I'm not sure how to handle that sitting here tonight. I I guess I would prefer if there's a way now that kind of everyone's kind of understands it and maybe heard it. If there's a way to continue to study the traffic flow issue um and you know if there's been comment from staff or anyone about that I' I'd be um I'd be uh encouraged to hear what they say about it. Um but for the most part I think it you know this does meet the criteria the variances in terms of we proved tonight that there's a unique condition here. It took a long conversation and that's why we're talking about it right. So they're unique in condition. There's practical difficulties. It complies with the with with the comp plan. Doesn't change essential character what's going on. But what's going on is very complicated. And I think we just want to make sure that we're not making it more complicated. I'm not sure if we are or aren't or if there may be a little bit better solution if we look at it more. I don't know. But that's that's where I'm at with it. >> Okay. Who'd like to next? Well, >> I'll jump in, I guess. >> Sure. Thank you, Mr. Pler. >> I also thought this would be a little bit more straightforward than than it has been. Um, let me start with the easy one. Is the variance uh to get closer to the setback is is fine because this is an odd location no matter where you look at it and it's kind of surrounded by things. So the setback very the setback is set normally for other kinds of situations probably not for this which is a place that's kind of surrounded by parking lots and and drive-throughs. So I I don't have a problem with that. And then uh the other one of the other variances here is uh is the u compact parking stalls. I don't really have a problem with that. I mean difference between 20% or 26%. I I wonder how many people actually pay attention to that frankly. I mean, I parked at a place in St. Paul the other day and uh and I was in a regular spot. Next to me was the a compact sparking parking spot and parked there was a Yukon for crying out loud. And uh so but that's just you know real life where I struggle is the the plight of the land owner. I kind of referenced that when I asked the question is that uh let me just back up. I am also very sensitive to helping businesses and parking is an issue all around the city. We need to provide parking whenever and however we can to to solve that. In this case, the reason that there is an expansion for parking need is because the dental office wants to expand by one dentist. And that's not a plight that is not in control of the the business. It is in their control. So, what we're what we're trying to do is to say that it is a circumstance unique to the property. It's really not. It's unique to the business. And but I understand that if we don't do this uh then they won't be able to add a dentist and then then maybe they move out in a year and then you've got a building that's twothirds vacant and I I'm sensitive to that too. So um I'm kind of conflicted about that. I think if I vote in favor of this, I'm kind of going against the uh the idea that it's really in their control, but at the same token, it does solve a parking problem down the road, which I'm also sensitive to. So that's why I'm conflicted here tonight. >> Okay, [clears throat] >> Miss McDonald. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, very similar to the rest of the council up here where I thought this was going to be kind of an easy one as well. Um, I think I'm a little bit more decisive and saying that I don't support this variance request. uh not because of, you know, not wanting to help out and support a business, but just reality unfortunately. Um it's a it's a beautiful site. It's, you know, I I don't know when the building was built, but it's there's a lot of opportunity on that site. And um I just don't think this is the way. This feels like a band-aid to me. I don't think the motivation was to get it in compliant. And if we keep doing this, I think they're going to end up in non-compliant once again. And they're not fixing um the loading portion of our code. Um I think this just feels halfbaked to me and I I think it's going to create issues um in the in the character of the locality. I like council member Pleish mentioned um the plan plight of the land owner um I thought he stated that really reasonably and well. So um I don't feel good about not supporting this variance but I don't think this is the right plan. I just have one question before I offer my comments. The we've talked a lot about the dentist tenant tenant, but is there not also a a other type of service business in there and what is their parking requirement today? >> Uh mayor, I we have a slide that details that right here. >> Okay. So, personal services, one space per 200 square feet of floor area and there's So, that's eight stalls. Okay. [clears throat] What if this was what if the dentist vacates because they can't expand and we have an office user? What I I know that's maybe an unfair question off the cuff here, but what does that change for the parking requirements? It would still depend upon the square footage of office, the mix and types of uses. So knowing the actual mix in a hypothetical scenario at this time would be I would rem be remiss if I tried to provide those exact numbers. It's six per um dentist is our code. Six dolls per dentist. >> That is correct. >> Okay. So under this scenario, if it if they went to five, right, you'd get to 38, they'd have they'd make it by two. >> Correct. I just want to make sure I'm interpreting that right. >> Right. >> Okay. All right. So, I mean, I think for me, um, I would support this. I guess where I come down on this [clears throat] is, are we, uh, significantly degrading the how it's how it's being used? And I I I guess under a couple scenarios, you could say any change along this corridor is increasing the use, right? No matter what it is. But the problem I don't think is going to be the dentist. I think it's everything else that's existing is the problem. Um so that's why I'm I'm looking at this and saying I I don't see it materially changing the outcome other than allowing the site to be used and their practical and reasonable difficulties in which to get there. So, I would support the variance on the setback, the support the variance on the screening, and support the variance on uh removing the limitation of complex parking stalls um to allow for the 10 spaces that they're they're asking for. So, then it comes down to how you guys would then I guess we have one very clear thank you, no, and we've got one very clear yes and and three that are, you know, still working through it. >> Yeah. I mean, as you think about it, I mean, we're wrapped around the axle on this traffic issue. >> Yeah. >> Well, we're not going to solve the traffic issue. That's not what this is about. I mean, we're kind of dealt a hand. We are. And I kind of agree again agree with you, mayor. I mean, it's either way, it's probably not going to it's going to make an incremental difference one way or another. I think if we do this, but if you look at each of the variances, you know, the setback of one foot, the landscaping issue, and the smaller stalls, I mean, I think those are practical and reasonable. And in the context of trying to support a local business, I'd be inclined to support this, you know, with a little side comment to everyone about let's take one more deep dive on traffic flow if we end up where we are now. Um, that's where we end up, but I see a couple hands go up, >> Mr. City Attorney. >> Yes, Mr. Mayor. And, uh, Council Member Saen said, I you know, just to be perfectly clear, the the whole traffic flow um, uh, condition here was was a recommendation of planning commission. It's not required by the code. It could be dropped in its entirety. So, you know, that's a separate issue from whether you find that the practicals practical difficulties test has been made or has been met. So, to your point, Council Member Sorenson, you could drop that condition and direct staff as part of your approval to just work with uh the applicant on the best traffic flow or that meets with the city engineers approval. >> Well, okay. So, let's let's just go through those again. So I think we're very clear on the three variances. That's crystal clear. Can you just articulate and do your best to include the staff ad that came? Um what are the conditions on top of the variances that would be presented as a recommendation? We we either accept them or or change them or reject them. >> Yeah. And mayor, they're right here on the screen. So there were those conditions from the city forester which all has to do with working on a tree preservation plan. um you know showing that um there are no alternatives for for uh dealing with the oak tree and the applicant has stated they might have an alternative. So if there's a plan that's worked out that is meets with the approval of the city forester and McDonald's then then we would be good and that's the last staff recommendation there is that if there is a modification of the tree plan that meets with the approval of the city forester then we're okay on that condition. Um the other condition has to do with the traffic flow. Mayor and council staff would also add that if if you'd like to amend what is condition three within your resolution on the specifically referring to the traffic flow, you could say subject to final traffic design and review and approval by the city engineer and you could essentially uh allow for that additional study through the condition of approval that you're placing on the resolution rather than dictating or trying to design from a dis that allows for the applicant to provide a traffic flow. plan and do that analysis, the city engineer to review that traffic review or that traffic plan and ultimately their responsibility for app approving it at a later date when they have time to prepare it. >> But is it really going to change? Um because to your point earlier, [laughter] the way it's designed implies that you need to have a oneway to make the functioning of cars going in and out as designed. Mayor, what it could address, planner headroom may have a additional comment as well. What it could address, one of the concepts that came up as I've seen your discussion is if it's subject to review by the city engineer, it does take into account that potential change in the future too >> for Henipin County when Weisetta Boulevard is done because then it's not tied to a specific design. It's tied to review by the city engineer. So, it could address some of those concerns and it might uh address additional steps that could be taken such as striping, signage, curb cut design to be able to help direct the flow of traffic so that it is more intuitive rather than the two-way. There are a number of different solutions that the engineers could confer and come up with together on an approved traffic design that don't necessarily need to be designed this evening and can be proposed as engineers are working together on a final site design. >> Okay, thank you for that additional information. So bringing it back. So we've got one no supporting the variances one and are you saying now you would support the variances or are you based on this information >> I would support it with whatever we need to say to accommodate the intent of what he just said >> right about traffic. Okay m Mr. Pleish or Mr. Cook. >> Yeah. I'll um and I'll also say that I would feel more comfortable with this whole thing tonight if we actually had some kind of statement from McDonald's saying that they would support this. We don't know. Um they could come in and say we don't support any of this and the whole thing gets tanked. We don't know. I'd feel more comfortable in my calculus tonight if I if I knew that. But I do want to come back to the plight of the uh the applicant. It seems to me that the whole driver here is that they want to expand the business um by adding somebody and that's that's going to require more parking. That is totally in the control of the applicant. So I I I just can't get past that. So I'm going to be opposed to it tonight for that one reason. Otherwise, I think we're setting a precedent. >> Fair enough. No, thank you for that. Did you have a question? >> No, just to clarify what you said at the end, you your position is >> I will vote against it. >> Okay. Okay. I guess one one more question maybe for the applicant. If if if you expand, do you have the space in the current lease to expand to one more dentist or would you have to reduce the space from your other tenant to allow for the expansion to to occur? >> Yeah, please. So the question is, is there space within the building to expand? >> No, with the existing lease, right? Or would you have to pull from your other tenant, you know, and if they didn't renew to allow for the expansion? >> No, there's there's space within the current um footprint of that business. they they occupy uh the first and second floors of that building um and have uh I want to say 12 or 16 operatories um on the first floor and then um the second sorry the top floor and the the center floor the second floor of the building is currently um staff offices so they have space for that to accommodate that growth >> unfortunately that that actually illustrates your point Mr. So, okay. Thank you for that clarification. >> Can I ask a quick question? Even the um who owns Lake Minnetonka Dental? Just >> the name of the property owner is Alaskan Properties. >> No, not the property owner. The the owner of the dental office. >> Well, the dental office. >> Uh dental office is um that tenant is uh Lake Mitaka Dental. Um DCA is the name of the company that owns that. Um they are currently based out of Florida. Mhm. >> Um that dental practice was sold sometime in the recent past. Um and some of the dentists within that practice um are part owners within that >> How many dental practices do you think they own? >> I'm not certain. Um I don't know how many they own here in in the metro. I don't think it's very many. This might be the only one. They might have a second one. Um they're mostly based in the in the south. So across the but they're country according to the internet it's 400 dental offices. >> That would make sense. Sure. >> I was just curious if >> that's who you know. Thanks. >> Okay. So Mr. Sorenson, does any this new information change your perspective? >> No. Okay, Mr. Cook. So now it's kind of up to you. >> Yeah. I mean, my my big issue was just with the traffic flow and not really liking that. I actually, as uh city attorney and staff talked about these conditions, um I would actually feel more comfortable removing the one-way traffic flow condition and allowing and would want to encourage ingress and egress for those 12 spots that are right on Bushway for that to happen. I think you know deliveries probably happen more often just based on my casual observations of being in that area. UPS FedEx trucks come in and out on Bushway. I think to have them coming in on Weisetta Boulevard is probably is not like I I don't want that many delivery trucks going through that narrower easement of um you know between Starbucks and McDonald's. I think there's just there's just a lot happening in that parking lot that I think having those delivery trucks go through there is not not the best thing. So, if you provide them the option coming in and off a bush away, um I think then you really kind of contain a lot of the goofiness of this traffic pattern, this oneway traffic pattern. And I know the concern was you come off a bush away, you come in and you just get stopped at that one way that's coming down the hill uh heading to the to the east. That's I guess that's up like that's contained on the site and not really creating a bunch of issues offsite to the to the neighbors. And so I think if I remove if we remove that, I would be more comfortable um in allowing access to and from Bushway Road. They'd still have to have that one way, but based on these designs, it still has to be one way in that middle um at the angle parking lot, but um it >> come in and come out there. It preserves the option for 12 spots to be used uh in and out of Bushway. >> Just have one one last question for the city attorney. If if for some reason McDonald's let's say this did move forward, I'm not saying it's going to, but let's say it did. Would McDonald's have to agree to it and they said no, then it's all null and void. Uh if McDonald's well put it this way, if the if the property owner doesn't get written permission from McDonald's for removal of the trees in accordance with the city forester approved plan, then they wouldn't meet that condition of approval. So they wouldn't be Yeah, they wouldn't be able to use the variances. Okay, that's what I need to know. So I mean there are a few checks and balances here. Um okay, so then the adjustment that you made is removing the traffic um condition. I would support removing the traffic condition. Um but I would add back um some language that's would say to work with the city engineer to um come up with a mutually acceptable plan of traffic right flow. So how do you feel about that one? >> Um >> removing the condition of um forcing the oneway from bush way >> and if we remove it then it's goes to further study with our city engineer and that's what we're saying >> correct. Yeah, that's kind of what I thought we were saying. So, I'm I I I'd be supportive of that. >> Okay. >> For clarity, mayor, that would be removal of an amendment of condition three in the resolution, which is up on the screen. >> C, >> I'm sorry, C. But it but it would be adjusted to say, you know, to to work with the city engineer to come up with I would trust David would give us the language of exactly what it would be, but it would be along the lines of mutual acceptance of the city engineer and the applicant to an acceptable traffic flow. >> Yeah, mayor. I I think if you want to ask for a motion to approve resolution give me a number here guys. 49 >> resolution 49-2026 with the modification that condition 4C um be modified so that the last provisio would be um with a condition that the applicant work with the city engineer on an approved traffic flow plan. >> Okay. work with the city engine work on the traffic flow plan with this that meets with the approval of the city engineer. I think that's what we want. >> Right. So, I'll try this see if I if I get this right and you can adjust it. But we would I would accept a motion approving um 492026 that approves the three variances which is the setback, screening and removing the limitation of compact parking stalls and then accepting the additional conditions in our packet for uh A B and then we would modify C to say uh the applicant would have to um work with our city engineer to have a mutual acceptable traffic flow. What traffic flow >> plan? >> Does that cover it all, Mr. City Attorney? >> Staff, I think it does. >> As long as it's subject to approval by the city engineer. Yes. >> Yes. And we would also have condition D stay in there too, right, Mayor? >> Correct. And condition D would remain which all expenses of the city including all of our adviserss and planning fees would be reimbursed by the applicant. >> Cool. That would be the motion that I would accept. >> Before before we get a motion here >> with this not I'm obviously going to vote against it, but with this traffic flow thing, it could still end up being exactly the way it is now. >> Good. Good could >> the engineer and the applicant could come up with the same plan. Good. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And also, I think a very reasonable thing that you brought up earlier is if the if the neighbor doesn't want this to happen, they've got >> I'm not I'm not praying that they >> No, no, no, not at all. But I'm just saying that there's another check and balance to the plan. I guess >> it could tank the whole thing. >> Yeah, that's all I'm saying. >> But I'll just reiterate I I do think this is not out of the control of the applicant. I think it's definitely in their control. So, just make sure people know when they're voting for this that they're saying that it is in their control, but they're going to overlook that anyway. Sure. Thank you for that. So again, I would still need a motion as I articulate with the city attorney or an alternative. >> I would make that motion, Mr. Mayor. >> Okay. So, do we need to restate it, Mr. City Attorney? >> No, you do not. >> Okay. I would need a second for that motion. >> I'll second that. >> Okay. Any further discussion on uh a motion that's been moved and seconded? hearing none. Um, let's just do a roll call vote just to make sure it's super easy to, you know, clarify to your point, Mr. Pleish. So, >> if you could call the roll call, please. >> Council member Cook, >> I. >> Council member McDonald, >> nay. >> Council member Plekish, >> nay. >> Council member Sorenson, >> I. >> And Mayor Mullen, >> I. Okay, so that moves forward, but it looks like you have quite a bit of lifting to do to to see if this path is viable. um so you at least have a chance to work on it, but you've got some hurdles to overcome. Okay. So, next um on our agenda is consider adoption of resolution 452026 certifying to the county auditor the preliminary property tax levy for taxes payable in 2027. I'm assuming this is going to Mr. Zimmerman, I'm guessing. >> And thank you, mayor and councel. Mr. Zimmerman will Zimmerman will be doing one presentation that will cover the last two items on your agenda. >> Oh, thank you. So, thank you. So, this will then also cover uh item C, which is consider adoption of resolution 44, 2022 approving the preliminary 2027 budgets. >> So, it's packaged as one. >> All right. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Yep. We're here to talk about the tax levy and the budget. we kind of rolled it all into one presentation for you and then there'll be two action items at the end. As you know, we've been discussing budget for um at a number of meetings and workshops starting in May. Um including the the general fund budget, all of the enterprise fund budgets, the levy um and then we are here tonight to talk about the preliminary levy and the budget. And then we have a couple more meetings toward the end of the year. um a work a couple workshops to kind of finalize things and then our final council meeting on December or not our final council meeting but the final meeting to discuss budget on December 1st where we'll determine the final levy and final budget. So we do have two action items tonight. the resolution 44-2026 for the 2027 preliminary budgets that includes all budgets and then resolution 45-2026 for the 2027 preliminary levy. Um the budgets that we're going to discuss tonight are general fund water sewer storm water solid waste liquor marina and the motor vehicle fund. Just a note at an earlier workshop this year we discussed with the council moving that cemetery and cable fund to the general fund. Um, so those budgets are included with the general fund, but we will, um, the council will need to take action early in 2027 just to close out the funds kind of from an official standpoint and move any funds over to the general funds. So, you can look for that in January. We're keeping it through the end of the year just because it's easier for audit purposes, >> but but you'll still know what those revenues and yeah, >> sources and uses are. It's not a dedicated fund for that purpose. Yes, we're keeping them separated as a department and sometimes not all departments have revenue sources, but since the cemetery and the cable fund both have specific revenue sources, we've decided to keep those revenue sources separate in within the department within the general fund. So, you'll you'll be able to see that. So, for revenues, um we have a little breakdown here and a graph kind of just depicting where those general fund revenues come from. Of course, most of it is taxes um at that 7 just under two million under 7.2 million. And then a number of other revenue sources, charges for services, which includes um like police services, fire services, permits, that sort of thing, or I'm sorry, not permits, um licenses and permits is where you'd find permits and general licenses. Intergovernmental is more of um grant revenue that comes in from several different sources. are transfers of 379,000 are transfers from the various enterprise funds. And then franchise fees, which you'll notice is is a higher number than in previous years because of those two new franchise fees that the council um moved forward with for electric and gas. Fines and forfeertures has a small amount of revenue. And then we have this other category that's really just kind of anything that doesn't fall into one of those other categories for a total of $10,425,858. And then our general fund expenditures, we have these broken down for you by department. Um the largest of those being both police and admin in general. Again, the cable and cemetery departments are in that administration general um government department. and then public works, parks and wreck, community development, and then fire, which is um the smallest portion of the budget, but as you can see there, the total is 10,425,858. So, our general fund sum summary, we have revenues of 10425858 minus our expenditures of that same amount equals our balanced budget, which we want to pass a balanced budget. Um, now move on to the enterprise funds. They're listed there. Uh the liquor fund, water fund, sewer, storm water, solid waste, motor vehicle, and the marina fund. Um and those are their expenditure budgets. All of the expenditures within these funds are supported by revenues from the fund. Um and then as you know, any excess above that either ends up in capital or ends up in fund balance or has the opportunity to be transferred to the general fund. or some of those. Um, so the total for all of our budgets, the general and all the enterprise funds is listed here at $24,691,83. And that pigraph just shows which of those departments make up um the pieces of that pie. So we have a resolution here 44-2026 which lists all of the funds and their expenditure budgets for that total again of 24,691,83. So we'll consider that at the end if I guess it's up to you but I have we have both resolutions listed at the end for consideration. So let's talk levy. Um the preliminary tax levy is is listed here. As you can see, we have a general fund levy levy of 7,167,000, a city infrastructure of 493,500, and then that debt levy for the equipment certificate for the ladder truck of $33,525 for a total of 7,694,025, which is a 6.25% increase over the 2026 levy. Um, just a note that equipment certificate amount is smaller in 2027 because we only have the interest piece. Um, so that will be larger for 2028 which will contribute to that overall tax levy. So assuming this is what's approved tonight, this is the amount that will go to the county um and that the Wise Res residents will see on their TNT notifications. Um, just a little history on the levy. We have um a graph here showing 2022 through the proposed 27 and those components of the capital, the debt service and the general fund levy. Um there has been some growth obviously you can see that from year to year. Um the the levy increase graph is the one on the right kind of just showing each year what those levy increases were. There's a little bit of a dip last year from from 25 to 26 and then now with the proposed 6.25. Um but overall, you know, under a 10% increase each year going back to 2022. Uh the impact to our residents. We have two sort of scenarios here. One showing if values stayed the same from 26 to 27, which probably is unlikely. Um and then one showing if property values increase at 5%. And looking at that home value, the median value of $1,178,550 taxable value, you'd see if if value stayed the same, uh the taxpayer would see a $59 increase in their city portion of their property taxes with a 5% increase. Oh, no, I'm not working. There we go. Um they would see a $27 increase in their property taxes, just the city portion. Again, our historical tax rates by city, uh, we compare to other Lake Minnetonka cities and then Plymouth. Um, and as you can see, we're lower than most with the exception of Orino in each of those years. Um, we have the 2027 estimated tax rate, excuse me, in there for Weisetta at 20.05% I think it says. Um, we don't have any of the information for the comparable cities at this point. Some of them have approved um their preliminary levies but don't have their tax rates calculated yet. So um just a little bit of a comparison and a little history. And as you can see the wise auto graph is pretty level there from year to year. So and just a reminder going forward the levy can only go down from here after the preliminary is approved. Um it can't go back up. Obviously, you can make budget adjustments within that, but the levy amount that we certified at the county um which is required by the 30th of the month cannot go up. So, the first action item is resolution 45-2026 approving the 2027 preliminary levy of $7,694,025. And then we'll move to the second item. is resolution 44-2026 approving the 2027 preliminary budgets which are listed there. Those are all of the budgets that you'd be approving for a total of $24,691,83. Okay, questions of staff on what was just presented? Hearing none. So, I'm assuming we want to take these as separate resolutions and vote on them separately. Okay. Um, so the first motion I would accept, but I want to make sure any other questions. No. Okay. So, we would have a motion uh adopting resolution 45206 certifying to the county auditor the preliminary property tax levy for taxables payable in 2027. We need a motion for that. >> I'll make that motion, Mr. Mayor. >> May I have a second? >> Second. >> Thank you. Any further discussion? >> I'd just like to make a comment before we vote on it, please. >> Which is uh even though we're voting at six and a quarter percent, uh I think we can all safely say up here at the deis that we're looking to get that number, you know, fairly measurably lower than that. Um we're kind of targeting 5%. We're not sure we can get there, but certainly less than 6.25. So, I just wanted to re reiterate that. >> No, thank you for bringing that up, Mr. Pitch. I was going to offer a similar comment. So, um, and and I think that that guidance has been consistent since we began this process back in July, which is great. So, um, we're just leaving ourselves a little bit of wiggle room, but the goal is to to at least achieve near the target that you outlined. Okay. Uh, so we have a motion, a second. Uh, further discussion through that. Um, all in favor say I. I. That passes 5 to zero. Then I would accept uh a second motion considering the adoption of resolution 442026 that approves the 2027 preliminary budget. >> Mr. Mayor, I'll make that motion. >> Thank you. May I have a second? >> Second. >> Thank you. Uh any further discussion? >> I would just make a comment, Mr. Mayor. Um, I think it's important for residents to know that we have a we have a very financially strong position in our city and that's kudos to previous council people, mayors and staff and we want to maintain our AAA rating. Um, and uh I think we're um that's that's one of our goals, but also um let people know that we have a very extensive and thorough process to review budgets every year and we're most of the way through that. It started months ago, but uh certainly aware that any levy we put out there needs to be responsible making sure we're using city funds efficiently and um I think we're taking that very serious. So, I just want to get those comments out there. >> Yeah, thank you for that, Mr. Swornson. Any other um further discussion items that we'd like to add? So, it's been moved and seconded and further discussion. Um all in favor say I. I. That passes 5 to zero. So, those are both passed uh now passed us. And now we will finish with a city manager report and discussion items. >> Thank you, mayor and council. I have a number of updates as there's a lot of um events or changes happening around town over the next couple of weeks. The first is I just want to issue a reminder to the community that our speed limits will be changing. So, um over the next couple of weeks, you may see some speed limit signs be removed, new ones put in. Our goal, our um approved direction is a city-wide speed limit of 20 m hour with some exceptions on our local streets and no changes to any um state or county highways. We've got the full list and map of what our um speed limits are changing to on our website. Uh but I just want people to be aware of that generally speaking, citywide speed limit is going to be 20. It's going to be slower in town. Um so just keep their their eyes on that. Um the next opportunity I want to highlight for residents is um they you may be aware that we're going to be doing in the next several weeks um some replanting along Lake Street. um changing out the plants that are there, removing some failed plantings. Um but in the spirit of that, there are some many plants down there that are still viable. So, we're hosting a you dig it opportunity to our residents where they can transplant um perennials from 9 to noon on Thursday down on Lake Street. You've got to bring your own tools, take it back to your own garden, but rather than us just totally removing them and them going to waste, our parks department salvaging some of them, but if there's any residents interested in salvaging some of those plants that are still in good condition, we want to give them that opportunity. Uh, next, I want to highlight the fire department's pancake breakfast is September 20th from 8 to noon here um in the city hall kind of campus. Uh, I also want to highlight that our Weisetta City Council candidate forum is coming up on September 24th. That will take place in our council chambers at 7 p.m. And lastly, just because it um takes place, I believe before our next council meeting is that our city of Weisetta showcase event is going to be on October 5th. That used to be called public safety day. Um that also will happen um on our property here uh at city hall from 4:30 to 6 on Monday, October 5th. There's going to be a bounce house, hot dogs, face painting, and touch a truck for fire, police, public works vehicles. So, it's a really great family-friendly event. Um in addition, we'll also be celebrating um Chief Clapper's appointment as full-time fire chief, kind of the openhouse version of that. Come see him um on October 5th. And that's all I have for you. >> Okay. And do we also have a neighborhood meeting on the Monday, correct? >> Yeah. Monday, September 21st. Um I forget the I I want to say it's section three of the community. We sent out mailers. Um we're going to be meeting in Shaver Park. Um we don't really have a super like finite agenda. It's not a presentation from the city, but it's an opportunity for neighbors to come out, meet with staff, meet with council, and ask their questions. Kind of similar in a format to what we do at night to unite. but just want to provide another opportunity to um meet and hear from our residents. >> Thank you. Questions of the city manager about her report. Okay, hearing none. Uh anyone coming in for public forum? >> Mr. Mayor, there is not. >> Okay. With that, I would accept a motion to adjourn tonight's meeting, please. >> So move, Mr. Mayor. >> May I have a second, please? >> Second. >> Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. I. Our meeting is adjourned. Thank you.