Welcome to the April 21st, 2025 meeting of the Wisetta Planning Commission. I hereby call the meeting to order. My name is Blake Cameron and I'm the chair of the planning commission. Uh, next on the agenda is roll call. Uh, Director Sharp, will you please call roll? Yes, chair. Commissioner Inkeny here. Commissioner Planton here. Commissioner Schwaldi here. Commissioner Severson here. Commissioner El here. Commissioner Venoay here. Chair Cameron here. Thank you. Uh, next on the um next on the agenda tonight is the consent agenda which consists of approval of the meeting minutes from April 7th, 2025 and approval of the planning commission report and recommendation for denial for a conditional use permit at 701 Central Avenue North. Um, does anybody have any questions um or uh proposed changes to the agenda? No. No. Perfect. Um, if not, may I have a motion to approve the agenda as presented? So moved. Severson. Thank you, Commissioner Severson. Second, Ankeny. Thank you, Commissioner Anthony. Further discussion. All those in favor? I. I. I. Any opposed? Nay. Eyes have it. The motion carries. Uh, next on the agenda tonight, uh, since we don't have any old business, we'll move right to public hearing. um is the uh development application for conditional use permit and design deviation for 1221 Weisetta Boulevard East which is better known as the consent. What the consent chair I think um did I skip past that? I I thought we just did that. You approved the agenda for the evening and the next thing on the agenda is the consent. Yeah. Sorry. Yeah, it was a little misleading I think. I know. No, that's all right. Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. Sorry, everybody. Thank you. Next on the agenda is the approval of the consent agenda. Sorry, I was one further down on this, so that's my bad. Um, does anybody have any commissioners? Does anybody have any comments, questions um or want to pull any items for further discussion on the consent agenda, which is the meeting meeting minutes from April 7th and the uh report and recommendation for denial for conditional use permit at 701 Central Avenue. May I have a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented? So moved. Planton. Thank you, Commissioner Planton. I'll second it. Vanoy. Thank you, Commissioner Swabby. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed? Nay. The eyes have it. The motion passes and the consent agenda is approved. Next on the agenda on the agenda is the public hearing this evening. Um the first um item for public hearing is the uh 1221 Weissa Boulevard, better known as the retreat. And I believe we are going to so we're going to do this with um city presentation and then we'll hear from we'll have some time for questions from the commission. Then we'll hear from the applicant and we'll have some discussion as a commission. Um and then we'll have a public hearing as well and then close that and bring it back. Um so we're going to hear from the city first. Um, I believe that's uh planner. Thank you, chair and planning commission. As you stated, this is the excuse me, the retreat at 120, sorry, at 1221 Weisetta Boulevard East. Uh this is probably a familiar property to a lot of people at the city, but uh you know when you drive by uh basically all you see is a sign there on Weisetta Boulevard, but it is located um in between the big woods uh and then kind of behind the Holiday and Car Wash uh along Weissa Boulevard. Uh the property is zoned uh institutional and it is also guided for institutional public. Uh here's the overview. Uh you could see that we have the big woods on both sides. We have Colonial Square to the west. We have the other commercial alongside Boulevard to the south. And then to the north and east uh we have Highway 12. Uh this is the view from the street. Again, uh pretty much what you see is that sign located at its entrance. Um they do have a secondary entrance uh from behind the holiday gas station. Their request tonight is uh for two actions. First, uh they have an existing citial use and they're asking to amend that uh to upgrade the the men's wing on the north side of the property. So the image uh below is basically looking from the north to the south. That uh that middle wing there is what will be replaced. Uh and then uh the design deviation uh for mechanical equipment be located on the roof and you can see on the north side they have the gabled roof and then kind of in the middle there's the flat section that will have the mechanical equipment itself. So the previous approvals for the retreat first back in 2003 there was uh cadition use permit issued. Uh there are two buildings on on the site. Uh so they had 70 residents in the main building, 10 in the the sober living residence which is on the east side. In 2006 they came in and um demolished the so uh sober living residence and replaced it. Uh and then at that time it was um the same uh 80 residence uh maximum. So in 2018 they did a de demolition of the women's recovery wing which is on the south side of the building and then increased the occupancy to 91 residents. Um they are not asking for an increase in residence. This is completely a remodel uh keeping the same amount of beds that they're removing. So, the property is uh uh has this 37,000 square foot uh main building and a separate two-story building on the east side. The you can see the building on the east side highlighted in green. Uh the existing building is highlighted in yellow and then the the red outline is the wing that will be uh demolished and reconstructed. Uh the site itself is uh 7.44 44 acres in size and it is uh surrounded by the big woods including a uh easement or um Minnesota Land Trust has an easement over the property as well. Uh so this is the site plan of the entire property. You could see the main entrance is off of uh Weisetta Boulevard. Um the area in white are the areas that are being remodeled and then uh you could see the road heading to the east or the trail heading to the east that goes to that second uh sober living building. So the site plan itself it's installing a new three-story walkout building. Uh there is some addition to the uh existing building itself uh to make uh it from a two-story to a threetory and then there is a deck and a patio addition as well. So the setbacks for the institutional zoning district are 50 feet um for for all setbacks front side u and rear. They're proposing uh the new building to be 90.8 feet away from the property line. And then you see the existing building uh conforms uh to those standards as well. The institutional zoning district allows three stories and 40 ft whichever is less. uh their proposal is a three story addition uh that would measure out to be 38 or sorry 36 feet 7 in. So the conditional use permit uh is for the the changes and alterations to the building. As I stated earlier uh they are not expanding the number of people uh they are changing some uses uh within the the building itself. Uh there is the conservation easement uh that is city-owned property and protected by the conservation easement from the Minnesota land trust. The applicant has been communicating with the Minnesota land trust and they have provided a letter of conditional approval that was included in your packet. Uh parking there are no propos proposing no changes to the parking. They are not proposing any changes to the number of residents. Uh it happens to be there are 47 off streetet parking stalls uh located to the west of the main building and there's another five parking stalls adjacent to the sober living residents uh for a total of 52 stalls. Our city code does not have a uh standard for uh a recovery space. So this was discussed previously particularly in that expansion to 91 residents that the uh retreat had provided a parking analysis showing that uh there was adequate parking. We do not receive complaints about lack of parking at this particular property. tree and landscaping plan. Um they are removing two trees but uh uh to allow for access for the construction. Uh but uh neither the trees the trees are neither significant or heritage trees. So there is no replacement required. Um they are proposing to add three new red maple trees which are shown on the top uh exhibit uh kind of surrounding the addition. Um, and we did talk with the applicant uh because the image on the bottom is basically using the access behind the Holiday Gas Station and it's a pretty long access, but we did work with the applicant to look at what the impact would be if it came from the west parking lot off of Weisetta Boulevard. and it would be a much greater impact on on the trees and in that area if we would have came from the west. So staff does support coming from the east. Um so that was a conditional use permit regarding the design deviation. This property happens to be located in the Bluff District because it is an institutionally zoned property and in the Bluff District um there's not allowed mechanical equipment on the roof deck. So they are asking for the deviation uh to allow that rooftop mechanical. Then next uh we'll go through the neighborhood notifications but talk about some of the standards um for those. So, we did uh publish the public hearing back on April 10th, and on that same day, both uh the city sent out a letter and uh the architect for the retreat sent out a letter to the neighborhoods notifying of this activity as well. Um this is uh we still have not received any public comments on this application. Uh the engineer has reviewed uh this and has no comments regarding the CUP amendment. Uh they following the CUP and design deviation approval. Should that happen, the city engineer would review the building permit for additional uh comment. Very similar for the city forester. um you know they looked at the plans uh seen that no significant or heritage trees are removed and also work to to make sure that this is the least impactful construction access for this particular development. So some of the primary questions to consider for the condition use permit would be is this proposal compatible with the present future use of the area? Is the proposed use uh does it have an impact on the area in which it's proposed and does it have an impact on the property values uh in the area in which it is developed for the design deviation. It's a slightly different um way to evaluate. I know that the city attorney has discussed this before, but it's basically that if the benefit of granting this outweighs any negative impacts, um you know, you can uh approve this design deviation. So, a couple of the key considerations is uh does this proposal advance the specific policies in the comprehensive plan? Does this proposed use particularly the uh rooftop mechanical have an effect on the area it's proposed? And then we do have within the provisions of reviewing a design deviation to be able to look at the existing building in the case of a remodel to uh see if the project is um you know conforms with the existing building. And um as those images showed early and I know the applicant's going to talk about it, the new remodeled wing will look like the other wings for the proposed development. So with that, uh you can ask any clarifying questions uh of myself. Uh following that, the applicant will give their presentation. Um then the commission would be able to uh qu ask questions applicant have the public hearing and then finally discussions and uh your ultimate decision and then this would be um the recommendation that after considering the items that the planning commission direct staff to prepare a draft report and recommendation. So with that I would stand for any questions you would have. questions. Mr. Severson. Okay. Um, can you I have two questions. Um, you said on the it was on the tree slide. You said the um coming in from the east. Can you just clarify? Did you mean the you were talking about construction access? Correct. That is correct. Okay. So, they will be using that driveway for construction access. Correct. Do they need to get any kind of approval from Holiday to do that? No, there is a an existing easement in that area. Okay. And then um regarding the mechanical equipment, where is it today? Uh they have both some on the ground and they also have some a rooftop. And was that rooftop was that approved through a cup prior? uh we updated our design standards to exclude that in the bluff district I think it was 2021. Okay. So it's basically illegal non-conforming use not changed the standards question. Uh yes. Okay. So by putting the mechanical on the top of this building, how much additional feet will that add to the height of the building? So it it actually will be below the the peak of the roof. Um so let's see if I can get the Oops, I didn't want to do that. I thought there was a pointer, which I know on your screen, but it's in the middle here behind uh the gable roofs. So it's not actually that like flat area. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Oh. So it doesn't add to the height of the building because the gables are in front of it basically screening it from both sides. If you were standing kind of between the two uh wings, you you might be able to see it. Where is it today? The whatever mechanical equipment is up there. I believe it's on the second story. They they are doing a third story location in that area, but I'll let the applicant explain that in more detail. And none of that can be seen from the road or Yeah. from the adjacent properties or the road. No. Okay. The only other comment that I wanted to make was I always appreciate the degree to which the city looks after every single tree we have and looks like you really did that this time, too. Look, every single tree is important. So, thank you for that. Thank you, Commissioner Heny. Um, I just have a quick question on the mechanicals. If we approve this, does this set a precedent going forward? Commissioner, uh, in a case like this, no, I do not believe that it would. Okay. Um, precedent is difficult to prove in the best of cases. Uh, because each case is unique in and of itself and this one is particularly unique. Okay. Anyone else? Right. Could I Yeah, absolutely. expand. It's not necessarily in the precedents, but part of the uniqueness of this property is it its address and its access is off of Weisetta Boulevard, but it's not part of the Weisetta Boulevard design district. If this was in the Weisetta Boulevard design district, rooftop mechanicals are allowed. So, properties to the south, properties to the the west, uh are allowed to have rooftop mechanical, but because it's an institutional, it's in it's been categorized as bluff district. Correct. Because it's institutional, it's categorized as bluff. Anyone else? All right. Thank you, staff. Thank you, planners Weber. Um, next I'd like to invite the applicant to come forward um and give us a presentation. Um, please state your name and address for the record and your role. Um, if you're an adviser or other part of the applicants team, uh, good evening, chair and commissioners. My name is Eric Reiners. I'm a principal and managing partner at uh, at SRRA. Um we're both happy and proud uh to have been the design partner for the retreat for more than 20 years now and we have been part of every project out there small and large. Um and we've conducted each of the major projects uh renovations, additions uh with extreme care um and consideration for the easements under which we have to operate. And this uh this particular project is is no different. Um we started uh actually back in in 2019 shortly after we finished the women's wing uh replacement project and um it was uh late in 21 when we got um our preliminary design approval from the land trust on this particular project and then actually received administrative approval from staff in 2022 for this project. Um the project then proceeded through uh some fundraising and uh when we finally got ready to uh to get to this point um some ordinance had changed in in the language of of this bluff district site uh requiring that the or stating that we couldn't put the mechanicals on the roof. So here we are tonight to uh to walk through it one more time. Um, previously they were substantially on the ground or are the today on the ground on the north side of that wing with duct work on the exterior of the building crawling up and inside. So, um, the visuals for that particular component under our new new design will be much better for those that actually can see that part of the site um or walking through the big woods perhaps looking south toward the building. Um, these new mechanicals will be completely concealed behind uh the raised um pitched roof structure. So, um other than that, if you have any other specific questions, I'd love to address them. Um, Mr. Curtis is here also tonight, president at the retreat, and I'm sure he'd like to say a few words. Hi, I'm John Curtis. I'm the president of the retreat. Uh, and thank you for considering this uh alteration in the conditional use permit. Um, you know, we've been on this property for 22 years now. U, it's hard to believe, frankly. Um uh we've had 33,000 people go through the retreat and find the road to recovery. Families, women, men from all around the world. Um so it's been an amazing uh opportunity for us. Uh it's saving a lot of lives. you know, when we moved into the property, you know, when the nuns built the property in 1950, they weren't thinking about accessibility. Um, and you know, one of the challenges for us, and I knew when we built the $10 million center for women's recovery, um, that eventually the men are going to want a new building, too. So, um, so here we are. Um and um it is uh for us, you know, an opportunity to bring the whole facility up to full handicap accessibility and elevators on both sides for the men's side, the women's side, and just modernize the facility. And our commitment has always been for every project we've done to maintain the architectural integrity of the of the building itself to make it look like it's always been there. And you know it it maintains that that uh kind of English tutor look everywhere you look. And um and I you know I think Eric has done an amazing job and his team on just designing a facility that that that enhances the property. Um so we're here to answer any questions you have and and um thank you again for for considering this. Cool. Thank you John. Thank you Eric. Commissioners questions. I just have one question. Um, if you would actually take the mechanicals and do the work to put them down, wouldn't that also mean that you would actually have to uh take more land and and get an additional agreement with the land trust? You're exactly right. One of the easements is a limitation on footprint area. And so, um, taking them off the ground where they are today and peeling that duct work off the exterior of the building, internalizing all that is not only an an aesthetic improvement, but also saves uh uh surface area for the project. Thank you. I'd just like to make a comment that thank you for keeping the architectural integrity of the building. I think it's um such a nice building. um when you approach it, it it really is nice having it set into the woods and again your commitment to our community and all that you do for everyone. Um thank you. Thank you. Um question uh Eric for you just kind of in M Commissioner Vanly's vein um is so the intent is to put everything up on the roof mechanical wise. The primary air handling components, yes, for heating and cooling will be on the roof. And it's virtually the same as we did for the women's wing uh to the west. Um again, at that time, as uh planner Zweber pointed out, um that was not an issue. Um it was a language change in 21 or 22 that uh imparts that requirement. Um but yes, it's primarily heating and and air conditioning. Okay. And then a question for you and um Commissioner Stevenson kind of raised it got me thinking about a little bit. I'm not sure that it's like super material, but I we were talking about construction traffic um here and uh it sounds like you guys want to ride all the construction traffic through behind Holiday. That is correct. And um I just know like every time I go in there it's like trying if you're trying to get food at uh Chipotle or Punch or gas at Holiday or a car wash at it's like always a zoo in there. So yes. Um can you talk a little bit about the impacts that um going the other way would have? So are you talking about when you say the other way on on the west side using the west driveway? Yeah. Yeah. So, um, there was a a significantly higher tree count to the west, um, between the existing structure and the shopping center. Um, and the land, believe it or not, is actually slightly lower. Um, and we had some soft soils areas. So, there would have been temporary road construction and site clearing that far exceeded the route we could create from the from the east. Understand? All right. Yeah. Just I was just kind of like trying to think about, right, like are there other options, right? just minimizing impact and and a busy area. Yeah, believe me, we looked at it all very carefully. Excellent. Yes. I just have one more question. I think I think I if I remember when I read through your application correctly, it sounds like from many um vantage points, the peaks will would hide this and where the peaks don't hide it, uh there's screening of some sort on on the roof. That is correct. Correct. Yes. Thank you. Mers, any follow-up questions for the applicant or staff? Um, I'm just curious. Are are most of the people here in support of the retreat? We hope so. Thank you. Question answered. All right. Well, um, if we don't have any questions for the applicant or staff, let's, um, let's talk. Let's open the public hearing. Um so thank you gentlemen Eric and and John. Um thank you. We will um just a couple quick just quick kind of point right this is our time to listen to the community if the community has thoughts and comments um it's a really important part of the process um as we've experienced with some of our other ones. So um any questions that come up during the public hearing will be held till the end and maybe addressed at staff or the applicant at that point. Um, so with that said, I will call the public hearing. Open the public hearing. Um, if you wish to speak, please come forward to the podium. Um, state your name and address for the record and let us know if you're connected to the applicant in any way or representing anyone else. Cool. Best part, right? All right. Um, all in favor? All in favor, right? Uh, Director Sharp, do we have anybody with um any uh questions online? Chair, we do not have anyone in attendance on the virtual meeting. Perfect. All right. No one while going once, twice. All right. Um I will close the public hearing. Um commissioners, do you have any uh questions uh for staff or the applicants at this point um that we haven't come through so far? No. No. Any thoughts um on the project that anybody wants to share? I would say uh it's a very thoughtful application. I appreciate um looking at the two different ways you could come into the property, the tree preservation, the screening of the mechanicals, the architectural integrity is there with the building. Um I think it's um a very thoughtful application. Thank you, Commissioner Plant. Anyone else? Yeah, I I would just say I would agree. Um, and I just really appreciate the retreat being in our community and what you're doing for um all of the folks who who very much need this. It's a beautiful um it's a beautiful building. It's a beautiful property and it what a lovely way to enhance our community. So, thank you. Um and I think the application itself, as um Commissioner Planton mentioned, is very thoughtful. Um moving the mechanical equipment up to the roof, I think makes sense. is what happened with the other building they did just a few years prior that unfortunately or maybe fortunately for them didn't have to go through this process. Um but it doesn't sound like it's that significantly different. So I think it makes sense from an application standpoint and I think it's a um appropriate use of a conditional use permit. Cool. I um I would I think I would echo your comments and I think um from the application perspective I love that you guys have stayed true to the design that's there today um making it fit in right what's new is old what's old is new um you know so from a conditional use permit I think that's I have no issues with that and from a design deviation I think it makes all sorts of sense to have it on the roof um especially deep in the woods where it is nobody's going to see it so I don't know that it's really a terribly large concern So agreed. Sounds like maybe we have some direction. Then shall I make a motion? Sure. Okay. So I would make a motion to um that the planning commission would like to direct staff to prepare a draft recommendation uh planning commission report and recommendation with appropriate findings reflecting recommendation of approval for the application for review and adoption at our next commission meeting. Thank you commission. Is that right? Yeah, Commissioner Severson. May I have a second? I second. Schwabby. Thank you, Commissioner Schwabby. Uh, any further discussion? All right. Uh, let's take a vote then. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed? Nay. And the eyes have it. The motion passes. The draft report and recommendation will be on the consent agenda in our next meeting. After adoption, we'll go to city council for their consideration. Thank you all for your turnout and your support this evening and for everything that you do for our community. Thank you. Uh the next item on our agenda is the consideration for the development or the development application for a variance at 617 Park Street. Um and we'll just give them like half a 30 seconds here to clear out. Um and then we're going to hear from again from Planners Weber with the city's presentation and then the applicant. um and follow the same process we just did. Planners. I'll just give them a second. Absolutely. Thank you, chair and planning commission. Um this is a request at 617 Park Street East. Uh the house is actually under construction. Uh the building permit was issued. Uh and this EVE variance was not identified at the time of the building permit issuance. So Custom One Homes on behalf of the owners are requesting an Eve variance that I'll go into detail about here soon. Uh so this property is located on Park Street. Um maybe I'll just start with the property directions. You know, this part of town is a little a skew from, you know, traditional north and south. Uh I'm going to refer to Park Street as the south side of the lot. Um the rear lot being uh north and then east and west being the two neighbors. But this uh property is located between Walker and Broadway on the north side of Park Street. Um, this is in the area of town that's zoned R3A, uh, single family and two single and two family residential district. And in our comprehensive plan is referred to as our central core residential. Um, so again, this is the property um on Park Street uh to the south, Gardener on the north end of the block, but this particular lot does not go all the way to Gardener, Walker to the west, and Broadway to the east. I included this second photo to uh to the right there because that's the original plat. So you could see this is a little larger lot than most the the lots to directly to the east are that um old lot which were I think it's 66 ft wide. This one uh took a little bit of the lots to the west uh to create this lot size. So a little larger than the other lots. Uh this I guess we we're calling the existing conditions but this is the old house that had been removed and now the new house is under construction in this particular area. Part of why I did want this photo is um there are three trees there to the uh south and west. Uh they did do this design uh to save two of the three trees. And so um when we go through uh the setbacks uh the proposed house is at the minimum setback of 10 ft from that east property line. They so they submitted the survey showing the 10 ft but then in their building plans they show that their eaves are 3 foot6 inches in depth. The city code says that an eve can encroach into a required setback up to two and a half feet. So since this is at that east setback line and it's three feet 6 in, they're requesting for a one foot variance to allow that to encroach 3 foot6 into the sideyard. So looking at where they proposed their uh building um you could see that the front setback for R3A is 20 ft. The side setbacks are 10 ft and the rear setback's 20 ft. Their proposed building is actually set 30 feet off of the front. Um, so none of the eve encroaches into the front yard setback because of that additional 10 ft. Uh, to the east, we just talked about that's right at this 10-ft setback line. And since it's 3 and 1/2 ft, it's a 1 ft uh variance request. To the west, it is located 12 feet from the west property line, 2T more than what's required. So that eve does encroach but less than the two and a half that it's allowed and then due to the set back to the north there's no eve encroachment. So again while there's an eve encroachment to the west that is allowed by code uh up to 2 and 1/2 ft. It's the east where the variance request of an additional foot. Uh engineering department has reviewed this and has no comments on the proposal. We did send uh we did have this published in the paper on August 10th or sorry, April 10th. We also sent out um we sent out uh the our letter and the applicant sent out their letter also on the 10th. Uh there is no neighborhood required for a variance meeting. So that that letter was sufficient. We've actually received a second comment uh since I prepared this presentation. So there's two public comments at your desk. Uh one in support and one in opposition of the request. So a couple of the questions to consider when you're reviewing variances and in in this case you you need to find all of these conditions are met. Uh is this proposal consistent with the comprehensive plan? Is the variance reasonable? is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances that are unique to the property and then uh little statement there about this being quas judicial. So it's looking at the code and applying that code and then finally um you know after conducting the public hearing and hearing from the applicant uh you can make a recommendation to draft a planning commissioner report recommendation for our next meeting. So with that I'll take any questions you may have. I I have one question. So, um so they went through the process to get the building permit. Uh was it an oversight? Uh was or dur during the building process did the trusses come different? What a little insight into why why why we seem to be uh doing this in the opposite order. It it is an oversight. Um, you know, neither Alex or I reviewed this plan for the building permit, so it's a little hard to guess. Looking at what happened with this one, the eaves are not on the survey where the setbacks are. The eaves are in the building plan. So, you're required to take, you know, the two separate sheets and kind of do the math. Should have been done. It wasn't. Okay. So, um, so they have a building permit in hand, right? Yep. So, does does, um, if a variance isn't granted and they have a building permit, what's the what's the remedy? I mean, do they have to rip it off and redo it or because they have a permit in hand, can they continue to build? They cannot continue without the approval of this fair. They would have to modify it to meet the the 2 and 1/2t even corruptment. Okay. which would be only on the east side. So was this encroachment um discovered um when people came out to make sure everything was copetic with the city came and measured came it was actually one of the neighbors that called and asked about it and that's when we re-reviewed and confirmed that this was concerned that it was encroaching too far toward him. I'm not sure exactly which neighbor it was, but it is encroaching particularly to the property owner to the east. Okay. And is it one one foot over or one and a half feet over? Because I thought when I first read it, I for some reason I have one and a half ft in my mind. So you're allowed to crochet 6 in 2 and 1/2 ft. The eve is 3 and 1/2 ft. So subtracting the two and a half from the three and a half makes the one foot variance. Okay. And in order to fix that, we should talk to the applicant. Y Okay. So Oh, go ahead. Go. No, you got Okay. Okay. So you said the eaves aren't on the survey. They're on the building plan. And so you have to do the math in order to figure out that who does the math. Is that the city? Yes. So the city didn't the city didn't do the math in this instance. It appears so. Yep. Okay. So this is on the city not on the builder. Uh I don't know that the code would say that. Uh the builder is required to submit code compliant plans. We should have caught it, but it doesn't change the fact that the plans should comply with the city code. Just out of curiosity, do we know what the setback of the current building to the east is on their home from? I don't know. I I mean we it appears that the setback is 10 feet, but I I don't know the width of their eaves. I don't know how far their eaves are encroaching, but you can see on that drawing where the existing house line is, and it seems pretty close to the same equal distance as what this one's proposed, but we don't have the eaves on the house to the east. Commissioner Hanken, did you have a question? You said you had a third letter. A second. A second. I I in my presentation I said we had only received one. Oh, okay. By the time I apologize if I said Okay. I have one more question. Sure. Commissioner Schwabi. So, are there going to be gutters on these eaves? Are is there any concern about runoff onto the neighbors property, onto their building? Are there going to be gutters? I don't know that answer. We don't require that they show gutters on the building plans. Um, and the house is still under construction. So, I don't know that answer. Okay. You could ask the applicant. We'll ask them. Okay. How much under construction? Um, it the roof has so the the exterior is wrapped. I guess you'd say the roof has sheeting on it. The shingle, at least last week when I drove by the the shingles were not on, but the roof sheeting and whatever the equivalent nowadays of tar paper is is is on the roof. I know in the packet there was a rendering of image of the home being built. Do you have that in the presentation at all or I do not what? I don't recall what on this east side of the building. What are what are we see? Is that where the garage is? Is that Yes. So, uh the building plans, uh it's a it's a two-story building, but it's not a twotory all the way out to the kind of the edge of the outside walls. So, it's almost like it's three pods. There's two pods on the side. First one's the garage and then it bumps in a little bit where the second story is and then it bumps back out for some leaving spa living space. So the eve on that east side is both the garage in front and then living space behind that. Oh, I see. Okay. So, if you look at this, is it uh both the eve that is right above the garage door and the the second tier? Are both of those encroaching on the plans? Yes. Okay. Both the the garage and the living space behind it have a 3 foot 6 in excuse me, eve on the shown on the plans. This one's a little harder to see because our code allows canal levers to uh extend out into that encroachment as well. So, if you're looking at the garage, there's kind of on the far east side, it would look like lapsiding, you know, horizontal lines. That's an encroachment that uh can't levers over. It's where there's kind of the stone next to the garage and then goes up to I don't know what that material is above it. That's the the 10-ft setback. And so that's the eve that extends 3 foot six from that line. But their cantal lever is shown on their survey and is allowed per city code. Thank you. Anyone else commissioners? No. All right. Thank you. Planners over um like to invite the applicant to come forward. Now I can speak tonight. Um please state your name and address for the uh for the record and your role uh with the um with the project. Sure. Good evening. Uh Todd Pifer, president, custom one uh 5097 Woodlane Elco, Woodbury, Minnesota. Um thank you for hearing this and appreciate your time tonight. Uh yeah, we we have a a permanent survey in um the construction of the home started and then uh we were notified that we have this Eve concern that's a foot uh into the setback. Um no no intention, you know, we were surprised as well. So um that's kind of where we're at and now we're trying to figure out what do we do next. So, uh, variance was applied for, um, sent out all the notices, followed the process and procedures. Uh, just want to make sure we're doing what we need to do as a good steward, uh, obviously in the city of Wisette. [Music] Cool. Thank you. Um, commissioners, question for the applicant. Yeah, I I have a I have a question. So if I mean if you had to um if you had to correct this what would be your approach and what would the impact be to time cost whatever just give us a little idea of of the impact. Sure. Um right now the house has mechanical roughins, electrical roughins completed, all the windows are in. Uh all the the roof trusses are on, all the sheathing's on, all the underllayment is on. Um, we have we have paused construction on the the roof as far as installing shingles. Um, so to make any recommendation or remedy to it, we'd have to do some engineering course correction on everything that's been installed from mechanicals, electrical, the framing on the roof, underllayment. Um, substantial cost, let alone uh the aesthetic impact for the client and the city as well. it will it will definitely look um not correct and not something that somebody would desire. Thank you. So um our question to staff a little bit ago was what happened? So and and and the the answer is the um the plans were that were submitted were non-compliant plans and then the city did not review those. So can you talk about your part there of not submitting compliant plans? what happened. Yeah. So, we turned in um the survey, we turned in the plans. Uh as you saw that the eaves were noted. Um things are on there. Uh I'm not really sure what happened as far as how that didn't get caught on all fronts. Um but that's kind of where we're at. And you know, again, there there was no intent to that. There's no malice. um just trying to make sure that we're doing the right thing and you know everything fit at the time and uh things were signed off and we moved forward and started building. So um yeah and you know majority of municipalities is you're worried about the foundation and where that fits in the setback and we're compliant with all that. The difference is the size of the eaves um on this home. Are they bigger than normal? Uh, I wouldn't say for the scale of the home, no. Um, is it less typical than a standard build? Yes. But very it's uh the last thing I'd say that is aesthetically in balance to the home. It's it's very good. It's very well done. Commissioner Plant. Sorry, not Plantton. That's okay. Swabby Schwabby first. Okay. Um, so I'm I'm going to go back to that question about the Eve and the runoff and gutters and impact to any neighboring lots. What is What are you intending to do there? Yeah, as of now, there's no intent to put gutters on there. Uh, we'd be open to that conversation, open the discussion, of course. Um, we don't see any concern with that. We don't see any concern with with runoff from the the overall square footage of the roof line. The one concern is with having uh trees in a wooded lot is putting gutters on it and then having things come into that gutter and creating Yeah. But there's no trees around the the actual house there. Yeah. There there's some trees. It's not heavily wooded, but in the back you mean behind? Yep. Both sides. Yeah. But the encroachment just is occurring on one side. Is that am I right about that? Yeah. Side. Okay. Yeah. So if if it were to be determined that this should be remedied, it seems like taking a foot off wouldn't wouldn't be that horrible of a thing. I mean, I know you can't just take a chainsaw to it, but do you actually have all kinds of electrical and ducks and everything running through that one foot area? I mean, it's it's the eve there. How can there be something there, right? It's just a hangover. Yeah. I think that the bigger concern is the imbalance to the property, the imbalance that it looks to the neighborhood and the concern of remedying that from an engineering standpoint, a structure standpoint, and just the cost to do that. Okay. Well, you're saying the to the look of the neighborhood, but it's a it's a pretty big house on that lot. um and seems to be taking about all of it up that it can side to side. Um I I think the architecture is actually very pretty. I drove by it. I like the look of it. It's beautiful. Um but I am concerned about that foot. I mean maybe you have to do it on both sides in order to make it equal. Anyway, that's those are my thoughts at this moment. What would you like to say here? I think you answered some of my questions. I was just going to ask about the engineering of the trusses and what you would have to do to the roof trusses just on that one side. It is quite close to a bigger two-story home. I don't know if walking in the neighborhood or even drying driving through you would sense an instability from one side to the other. the overhangs are much, you know, the eaves are deeper than any of the surrounding homes. That's a style that's not consistent in that neighborhood. So, what would you do if you had to take off one foot? Is it completely re-engineering the roof line on that side? It's actually on two sides of the home. You'd have to wrap that around to the rear of the home as well. So, on that back part. Yeah. So, you're going to have some some imbalance, a big imbalance of that east side and also the the north side of that lot. The back. Yeah, that'd be the four season porch area. That part is it is close to that area. Yeah. Wrapping around. So, it's a significant change. Okay. Um I have a question. So, one of these construction sets that you have, I don't know how I name it. AO1. Does that Yeah, A1. Can we come to that one? So, the one above that. No, there. Nope. Not that one. Ne. Next one. Yep. So, from that angle, that Eve's looks like a pretty dramatic eve. It looks Well, it's maybe it's just from the angle, but it looks quite a bit bigger than the one that's on the west side. Am I right? Uh they're the same size, but if you Yeah. The view of it makes it it gives it that illusion. Yeah. So, if you look at the next Can can you see um how from other constructions you've done, that's a big roof for runoff? that that could be a concern for a neighbor. Yeah, there there's all kinds of ways to mitigate that, but um as far as the the way the lot is drained and the way it handles water, that that should be sufficient. Okay. Thank you, Mers. Anyone else? All right. Thank you, Todd. Appreciate your time. Thank you. Um I would like to turn now to the public hearing for this uh for this part. So um and and note again that any questions that are asked during the public hearing will be held till the end and addressed at that point. Um with that said, I will open the public hearing. Um if you wish to speak, please come forward to the podium um and state your name and address for the record. Director Sharp, do we have anybody online? We have a right here. No, that's fine. Chair, not at this time. Okay. I'm sorry. I was giving you time. Please. Um, my name is Gareth Goodall. I live in the property to the east of this 1627 Park Street East. Um, I can't bring it within myself to object to these plans because I want to be a good neighbor to our future neighbors. Uh this is where I want to raise my family and we want to stay here for a for a very long time. Um I will say that it's hard to not want to object because I'm very frustrated to be here and that and that we are here. Um the I'm I'm frustrated I'm frustrated that this wasn't checked. I wasn't going to bring up the city's part in this, but having heard this and even the house is two blocks away. You could have a photo in your presentation what it currently looks like, which would give a more accurate depiction. But anyway, it's frustrating that this was missed at the planning permission stage, but I would say I'm particularly frustrated with with the building company. This is the widest lot in our block. Two of the three trees were saved, but the third one that was taken down was on this side to make the house wider. and it seemingly still wasn't enough um in terms of width. And frankly, the the the bit that means that whilst I will not object to this and will happily agree to it being passed, I have to speak for my own self-respect when we received this letter from Custom One Homes talking about how the impact to the neighboring homes as in mine was negligible. talking about how due diligence was done to research other ways to bring the structure back into compliance when there's been no pause in the construction of the roof other than maybe the but no no pause that I could could see in terms of any of the work that's now been said it's too late to turn back and talking about the diminishment to the curb appeal of the home with no regard to the curb appeal of our home or what these properties look like close together. Um, I will say on that front, uh, I I'm not an expert in runoff or drainage. I would be against gutters as an addition just because anything that further brings the houses looking like they're closer together would not would not be something that I would wish. So, as I say, for my own um integrity, I feel that I wanted to to say these things. I'm disappointed that this has happened. And I think it is on you to submit plans that submit with um the thing. I think you owe that to your client too. Um but I won't be objecting to the uh to the proposal. Thank you. Thank you, Gareth. Anyone else? All right, I'm going to close the public hearing and pull the discussion back into the commissioners. Um, commissioners, um, anybody have any, uh, questions for the questions for the applicant or staff before we discuss? I did have one other question for staff. Yes, Commissioner Severson. Um, so I recall, was it last fall that we there was a moratorum on any new building and construction in this neighborhood? What happened with that? Um, there was um a excuse me, a moratorum brought forward to the city council, but did not pass. Correct. Didn't Okay. We did uh the zoning study anyways. Yeah. But there the moratorum itself did not pass. So that never happened. Okay. Maybe I should read my study email. Who else questions for staff for the applicant? All right. Uh thoughts? Anyone want to lead us off? I I have some comments. I've I've walked by there many times. Um and I it is one of the wider lots and the house did not have to go to the all the way. I don't understand why you your plans weren't compliant. we're compliant with the foundation, but I just don't when I look at the considerations here for our um approving a variance. Um is it consistent with the comprehensive plan to have a charming walkable neighborhood? I think it's out of place in the neighborhood. Um I don't see the hardship that we use to grant a variance other than now the um mediation is what the hardship is. Um, and usually we grant a variance, you know, because there is a hardship. Um, is it the plight of the land owner? No, it wasn't originally. Um, the plans weren't built to be conformed. Um, so I I have a hard time with this. Um, it does encroach um into the neighbors. I think it's unfortunate um that the remediation might be difficult. I wish it could have been worked out with the with the um neighbor maybe in some way um before it got too far along. I don't know how far along it went, but um I don't feel like it's a unique hardship to the lot. I don't think it's consistent with our comprehensive plan. Um and so I don't feel like it's uh unique to the property or reasonable. It's unfortunate. Thank you, Commissioner Plant. Well, it seems reasonable to me that a builder would know that the eaves are going to go onto the building and that should not have been a surprise to the builder. Um, at the same time, I really feel for the neighbor to the east who doesn't want to get off on the wrong foot with brand new neighbors. You can tell that it's very disturbing to him that this is happening, but he really feels the closeness of that building. And every inch counts, every foot counts. I would like to see the builder make an attempt to remedy this and and get it fixed. I would like to see what they could do to do that. Thank you, Commissioner Schwabi. I would have to agree with Commissioner Planton that um the variance I feel like is due to the fact that we're here. Unfortunately, they used every single inch of that lot and it still wasn't enough and I feel like that um I don't feel like that's should be a variance at that point. You know, you have you have a brand new lot so there aren't other circumstances or it doesn't narrow in certain areas. there aren't other things happening on this property. It's brand new, complete tear down. I feel like in that case, you got to have your your house fitting into the size of the lot and give yourself a buffer. You know, you didn't give yourself any inches of buffering. And so, I I don't feel like that's on the city to remedy. Thank you, Commissioner Sheperson. I would I would agree. I I think answering number three is the play of the land owner due to circumstances unique to the property. I don't think we can say I can say yes to that to answer these questions. Thank you, Commissioner Anthony. It's an interesting it's an interesting question because I was uh thinking about being in in their shoes. It's really not the land owner that had um much to do with this, right? It's first the builder who um although the land owner understood that they were using every inch of the property to try to uh to put to put their house on and and had a plan that that did that. Um but but first the uh uh first the builder uh somehow made a mistake or or uh didn't comply didn't put in plans that complied with code. Uh and then the uh the process didn't catch it on the city side. Um having said that, I also know that um I mean uh all the trusses and stuff today aren't aren't just built stick on site, right? They they they are ordered ahead of time and uh and are brought in. Um and the re-engineering associated with that would would not be would not be insignificant. Very sympathetic to that. That's not a good situation to be in. I I Commissioner Vanoy, I find myself agreeing with a lot of a lot of what you said, right? I think mistakes were made here on both sides. Um I think there's some um you know, the the builder and the designer, I think, have to own the fact that they submitted non-compliant plans, right? That's on you guys. Um, and some of it's on the city too for them not catching that. Um, and I think that puts um, you know, ultimately the land owner, right, in a weird spot because, you know, they're right, this is all being done on their behalf but not by them um, through their agents, right? And then, um, I think it puts their neighbors in awkward spots as well. Um, it's just it's I think it's a it's a weird part. I think um it was Commissioner Planton maybe maybe it was a Cubani Commissioner Schwabby sorry um but somebody was talking about um the the width of the building and I noted when we were going through the presentation that the setback in the back is 73 ft. So there's a significant amount of space behind the building um where they could have gone back instead of pushing the boundaries all the way out to the sides um and making a very wide building. they had al they had the option existed to go deeper into the lot and have the same footprint for the building in terms of square footage. Um right obviously design-wise, architecturally that's going to look different. Um but there was there's it's not like they've taken up the entire space um buildable space. So um it's it's just it's a I think it's tough, right? I think again mistakes were made on both sides and um it's I think it's awkward for everybody. Yeah, this is one of those situations where um I can't answer yes to any of those three questions. At the same time, you're you know, you're recognizing the significant um expense required in in making these changes and it's going to delay the homeowner getting in their home. But we don't have an option of just saying yes, you get the variance because it's an awkward situation and mistakes were made. It still remains we cannot say yes to any of those three questions and that's the bottom line. Um and that's where we that's what we have to use as our guidance when we um are considering this request. And uh wow, it's a bad place, but um I can't say yes to any of those. I think we have I I Commissioner Hug, I hear what you're saying. I think um I think we've got some latitude, too, right? Like I I was hearing from the property owner of the East, right? I think I mean, he put it succinctly, you know, doesn't he doesn't want to get off on a bad, you know, on a bad foot. and um you know he sort of like begrudgingly right is approving of it. Um you know so I think we we at least have some latitude to to make a decision one way or the other based on common sense too. I think you're right there could be considerable cost for somebody in this equation if we said um if it came down to no um you got to pull your um pull your overhang back a foot. I guess I'm interested to know, you know, where where is that latitude? Um, I mean, I I would want to be like the homeowner next door. I wouldn't want to get off on the wrong foot, you know, and I don't want the city to be off get off on the wrong foot here either, right? um alienating this builder, pissing off the the resident. Um you know, so so where do we have latitude if any? Um because I'm inclined to say, hey, we have to recognize the city's error as well here. We have to acknowledge it. And is that sufficient enough that we can say, "Hey, we made a mistake. Let's, you know, you get the variance." Um, and that's where I'm, you know, I I personally am, you know, I'm personally more inclined to say this is this is a big deal and the city didn't catch it and they're so far along that, hey, we have to just keep the pedal going on this project even though it may not I mean, it got approved prior, you know, So there were no objections previously to allow it to get this far. So how can we, you know, say now all of a sudden with because of one foot 12 in they've got to practically tear the entire roof off, the entire roof reex. You want it symmetrical. So it has to be the entire roof. The angles have got to be symmetrical. Otherwise, you're going to have a certain degree on one side and a more s significant degree angle on the other side. Um, and it's moving walls on both sides, the east and the west uh to get that um um to get that symmetrical look. So, what is our leeway? That's I guess my big question. I would I would say that it's the the the question is is the variance reasonable not is it c too costly right I mean is that because if that if that's the case then I would say then variances would be based on dollar amount to fix it or dollar amount to to change something I understand that but there are tradeoffs between costs and mistakes mistakes were made here and one participant in the mistake was the city. I really I I also really get back to um the question I asked right away, right? Once you have a permit, once you have a building permit, has the ship sailed, right? It see it seems like we are uh determining uh rules rules rules and regulations after the ship is sailed, right? Um, that's why there's a process so that you don't order all of the stuff, you don't uh finalize all the plans until you and but once you have a permit in hand, right? Um, isn't that the deal? Uh, I know when I put a I put a fence up uh along our uh along our east side that has an easement in because a uh drainage is included. And the city showed up on the day the day that the fence was going up wondering if it was a good idea for us to put the fence up. And I'm like, we have a permit. That's the idea behind a permit. You're permitted to do this. Right. So, um I I I David, I'd really like your interpretation of uh process here because uh from my standpoint, once we hand over the permit, why I understand that mistakes were made, but once the permit and if if it's not a structural problem where the building's going to fall down, uh blah blah blah, right? I could see what there would be some uh some some changes that would be could be required if they were found, but that's not the case here. Right. This is a permit that was provided and now we're um going through a process of of a variance for something that's that's already been permitted. Well, and I would also then add at what point would they have had to like what if nothing had ever happened? no one brought forth this issue and now the people are living in the home and it's out of compliance like where where's the cut off of when we can stop the process? If I can I'll make one more comment if you if you go back to um the three questions before this was brought up by the neighbor. Those three questions were answered yes. It made it to that point where it was being built and we're going to change the response to those questions over 12 in. Chair. Yes, sir. Yeah. So, lots of thoughts and questions floating around there. Um, I think your discussion has really been excellent, commissioners. Um, I'll try to address a few things that I heard asked and maybe my colleagues here can also chime in on the question of the the timing of getting the permit and then realizing the city realizing that uh there was this encroachment. Um, a building permit 99% of the time is exactly what you say, Commissioner. it it it's the permit that allows building to proceed but it doesn't allow you to do something that is not compliant with code. So we've been in I think during my 20s some years here at the city I can think of a handful of times maybe two or three times where where this sort of happened where after a building permit was issued someone somewhere as building was proceeding caught that something didn't comply and the builder needed to correct that and if it was a costly mistake or a costly fix they might come in and ask for a variance um or some other remedy code change. Um, but that's what has to happen. A building permit doesn't allow you to do something that's in in essence illegal, doesn't comply with code. So, I agree with um the answer earlier from our consultant planner that they either have to fix it or get a variance or get a code change. So, I don't know. And that's what the law says, too. I mean, there's there's a case law out of St. Louis Park, I believe, 10 years ago, 15. where a whole garage was built. The entire thing was built. They had to tear the whole thing down after it was built because it didn't meet code. They had a building permit in that case. It had gotten far along. So, it is a tough position. You're to be in. You're right. Um, but I also think what was asserted earlier is correct, which is to say that it's on builders and homeowners to submit plans that comply with code. And if they don't, cities 99% of the time catch those things. In this case, it wasn't caught. I don't know the details anymore than my colleagues here do, but we have to when we know something isn't compliant, we have to make sure that it is. Um, there was another question about timing or something like that. You answered it when you said even though a building had been built, the garage had to call all the way come down. So, it doesn't matter. there's not like a statute of limitations. So again, I I think as staff, we would encourage you to focus on the criteria for variance. If they've met that that criteria, recommend approval. If they haven't, then you would recommend denial just as you always would. Chair and Commission, just to elaborate briefly on uh the city attorney's comments, one item with every building permit is there is a condition of approval that you must meet all sections of code. So that is a provision in any building permit that's ever issued. Um so just because it wasn't compliant, there still is conditions of approval added to the permit. Could you explain that one more time? I didn't totally get that. So, a standard caveat on any building permit is that you must still be in compliance with all sections of city ordinance or code. And that is on the bottom of every permit as they're issued. So, the condition is a catch-all that every city I've ever been in has ever had on their building permits for the reasons such as this. So conditions of approval are uh would make the permit subject to the city ordinance regardless. Uh that being said, as I noted, it is a catch-all in many ways as well. Did that answer your question? Yeah. Thank you. Uh we've closed the public hearing, sir. That was your time to talk. Um, you going to say something? No, I'm just looking at these questions. No, I with a new I mean I go back to my original Yeah, I think so. I think I I I just I I'm inclined to to grant the variance. Um, personally, um, I again I think it goes back to mistakes were made on both both sides, right? And it start started with the plans that were submitted were not in compliance. Um, and that's on the builder and the designer and then um, whoever at the city level reviewed them um, didn't catch that and that's on the city. Um, I think I go back to Commissioner Al what you said where, you know, we're we're talking about a foot and and I, as a, you know, as a homeowner, right, I'm I I feel that foot, right? Like I'm but I don't think that um it deviates from um comprehensive plan. I do find that it's relatively reasonable. Um I would agree. I I think you know I think in this case right like my my personal feelings are I would be inclined to grant the variance. I would too and I would I I would add let's look at the three questions again. Is this proposal consistent with the comprehensive plan? It was approved. It got built at that point. It was believed to be consistent with the comprehensive plan. It may be one foot larger now. Does that make it any different? Has that changed the scale of the house? It looks pretty much the same, I'm sure. Uh, by all standards. Uh, still knowing it would take some significant reconstruction, but um, and then is it reasonable? Yeah, maybe if it was three feet, if they were asking for three feet, we might say that's not reasonable. But can there be some give here that you know 12 inches is not you know a huge amount. Um number three you know it's not unique to the property. Yeah they chose to go from side to side. That was their decision. Not a decision I would have made but that's there's nothing unique. They've got the biggest property on that block. Um but the first two I have to say we can um have some question there. Was it is it consistent with the comprehensive plan? Well, it was a foot ago and they're asking for a variance. Everybody asks for a variance in this situation. It's doesn't seem like an unreasonable variance. So I would be more inclined uh to support it as well. Again, if it was, you know, they were pushing up to the borders by, you know, like a foot, yeah, that'd be a different story. But I have one more comment, Commissioner Swabby. Well, in my opinion, what we're talking about here is a foot of the eve, not a foot of the main house, not the whole roof. I don't believe for a minute the whole roof would have to be redone, but it's not in compliance and I believe that the builder should do what he can in the most practical way to take a foot off of that eve. That's what I believe and I would vote to not approve this. I would agree with that. Perfect. Thank you. I agree. Um the the plans originally were not compliant and it states on the bottom of all the documents for our planner that they need to be compliant. So it it got through and it got caught. That's like saying, "Oh, I can rob the bank if I don't get caught." But it got caught and it should be made compliant. It is awful. Um I feel bad that you're going to have to redo the roof. We had an entire building we had to move two or three feet back years ago because of this. We're not having to move any walls with this application. We do not need to touch the foundation. It is just the roof on one side. I do feel like you could re-engineer the trusses somehow on that one side. Just enough. Um we're not impacting mechanical, electrical, it's just the overhang. And they're very generous overhangs on the design of the house. I find it hard to believe that walking by this and seeing the the human eye is going to take 12 inches off and say, "Whoop, the design doesn't look great." I I just disagree with that. The plight of the builder and the landowner is not due to unique circumstances. That lot, you tore down everything and it's a big lot and it's built to the edges. Um, I do feel like it alters the character of the area. it is it makes the homes closer together and that's one thing we've been trying to prevent um in that R3A. So, and if you look at question number four, economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. I get it. It's gut-wrenching. Um but that plans are non-compliant. But that's why they ask for variances, right? and they have the right to do so. They do and I and it's an ins and my opinion is they don't meet the criteria for variance based on that. All right. Anyone else? Further discussion. I'm going to ask Director Sharp to call a roll call of vote. We haven't had a motion yet. Actually, we need a motion. You're right. You sure do, Chair. We'll bring Let me Right. Yes. We'll bring up the uh First of all, sorry, I forgot my process. Can I get a motion, please? on his game today. No motions. I'll move. I can do that. So, um I would I would move that we direct um staff to prepare a uh um planning commission report and recommendation um for approval with appropriate findings or sorry with appropriate findings reflecting a recommendation of approval on the application for review and adoption at the next planning commission meeting. It's going to go one way or the other. So, there we go. Can I have a second? I'll second that. Thank you, Commissioner Elk. Now, Director Sharp, would you take us to a roll call vote, please? Yes. Commissioner Inkeny, deny. Commissioner Planton, nay. Commissioner Schwabby, nay. Commissioner Severson, nay. Commissioner Elg, yes. Commissioner Venoay, I. Chair Cameron, I. Um, with that, the, uh, motion fails. That's right, Chair. So now I would recommend you ask for another motion uh making a recommendation the other direction. Yep. Anyone could I can I can make this motion too. Yes. You Yes. Cherry K. So So just procedurally so everyone's clear that motion was to direct staff to prepare a draft report recommendation of approval. It failed. So we still need to prepare that report and we need direction from you. So, the chair should ask for a motion to direct us. I'm going to make a motion to direct staff to prepare a report and recommendation with appropriate findings reflecting a recommendation of denial on the application for review and adoption at the next planning commission meeting. Can I have a second? I'll second that. Thank you, Commissioner Vanl. Director Sharp. Commissioner Anthony, approve. Commissioner Planton, approved. Commissioner Schwabby, approve. Commissioner Severson, I. Commissioner El, no. Commissioner Vanoy, nay. Chair Cameron, nay. That motion passes. Um, so we will look for that uh report and recommendation in our next meeting on the consent agenda. Um, thank you uh members of the public um for your participation in this meeting tonight. Um, and that concludes the public hearing portion of our meeting. Um, other items, Director Sharp, moving to the agenda. Thank you for your patience. Uh, in terms of development activities, the commission has likely seen uh some of the fence fences going up at 641 Lake. Uh that project is uh still not issued a demolition permit as of this afternoon, but they have started by putting the fences up around the project project. Uh their plan right now is to demolish a portion of the building, but it is not substantial enough that it required planning commission review. So you may recall this site is the former Caribou site, I believe is what it has been the car building. Yeah, the carriage building. Y um as soon as that permit is issued, we will be uh making sure that that goes out in the weekly newsletter and informing the residents because it has gotten a fair amount of interest. Uh they are making or the proposal is to make the building slightly taller but still within compliance standards of the district. So the section being demolished is the oldest section of the building and less than 50% of the total building area. Other than that, there are no significant applications to report. Excellent. Thank you. Uh, next meeting is May 5th. Um, and with that, um, I think we're ready to adjurnn. Can I have a motion to adjurnn, please? So moved. Thank you, Commissioner Severson. Second. Second. Plant. Thank you, Commissioner Planton. All those in favor? I opposed. Eyes have it. The motion carries and we are adjourned.