Good evening and welcome to the November 17, 2025 meeting of the Wisetta Planning Commission. I hereby call the meeting to order. My name is Blake Cameron. I'm the chair of the Wisetta Planning Commission. First on the agenda is roll. I would note that all seven of us are here this evening um and go forward from there. Um so next on the agenda tonight is approval of tonight's meeting agenda. Does anyone have any questions or changes to tonight's meeting agenda? >> No. >> May I have a motion to approve the agenda as presented? >> So moved. >> Thank you, Commissioner Vanly. May I have a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Commissioner El. Sorry. Um, further discussion? All those in favor? I >> I opposed. Nay. >> The eyes have it. The motion passes and the agenda is approved. Uh, next on the agenda tonight is the approval of the consent agenda which consists of the meeting minutes from our last meeting which was September 22nd, 2025. Uh, does anybody have any uh changes for the consent agenda or wish to pull an item for further discussion? All right, hearing none. May I have a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented? >> So approved. Severson. >> Thank you, Commissioner Severson. May I have a second? >> Second. Schwabby. >> Thank you, Commissioner Schwabby. Further discussion. >> All right. All those in favor? I I >> opposed. The eyes have it. The motion passes and the consent agenda is approved. Um since we don't have any old business tonight, we'll move right into our uh public hearing item. We have one public hearing item on the agenda tonight, which is a variance for 401 um Lake Street East. Director Sharp, is that you? Perfect. take it away. >> Just one moment. I'll present first and then you can. Uh thank you, chair. Uh so yes, it has been a little bit of time, but we're going to hop right back into this one. This application is at 401 Lake Street, and it is a required retail percentage variance. The applicant is StudioB on behalf of the owner, Fishbase LLC, the owner of the property. Uh to give the public a general location of the site, it's located uh pretty core central of Weisetta's downtown just across from the depot and at the northeast corner of Manitoba and Lake Street east. The site is guided as our central business district and you can see that spans quite a bit to the east and west. However, I do want the commission to take note that the zoning district of C Central central business district does not extend nearly as far. Uh that does come up as there were some questions from commissioners and the general public about just how far that district extended and where that retail component and requirement comes in. So, if you need me to, I can refer back to this map later in the presentation as well. Within the central business district, uh let me take one step back. The application is a request of a variance of 39% to reduce the required retail down to 11%. The there was an original variance granted when this building was constructed in 2020 that already allows the retail percentage of the ground floor for both the ground floor frontage and area to be at 22%. So the original uh requirement is at 50%. They have a variance bringing them down to 22. An additional variance would bring them down to 11 or a variance of 39%. In total, the principal code section is the one on your screen here that requires within the central business district that at least 50% of the building frontage and 50% of the uh building ground floor area shall be of a commercial or service commercial use. uh retail or service commercial use. The existing conditions um we're going to go through this a little bit because you'll see in the staff report or if you've reviewed the staff report, there were some nuances with gross versus net, but we'll get to those. The original proposal back in 2020 noted that there was going to be 2,250 ft. These are the existing conditions with 1,600 ft of retail in addition to the entrance, lobby, stair, elevator, and uh ADA accessible ramp. The proposed plan uh by the applicant is to split that space roughly in half for an additional conference room space in some in uh the northern half of that section and then brick and linen the existing tenant on the ground floor on the southern portion of that uh of the site. It would split it approximately at uh 720 square ft and 740 ft for each of them. Due to the nature of when the original application was reviewed, it was based upon a gross square footage of the space. So, this was original building. It's coming along. The interior walls and design are not fully flushed out for the interior yet. The there are still items that needed to be moved around and evaluated during the building permit process. And during that process, essentially walls, uh, walkways, the lobby, etc. were accepted as part of the retail ground floor space. And so what this did was net out some of that 2,250 down to around that 1,600 that you're seeing now for the actual retail square feet. But to ensure that the math worked out with the 11%, the 22% and all of the other square footages that we were evaluating, staff worked with the applicant to uh create this graphic that demonstrated that it was within five square feet of the original, which was likely due to wall thickness of the elevator, wall thickness of some of the uh interior walls, etc. that took out that square footage. So just to add comfort to the public to know that we're going back to that original. We are making sure that it is in line with what was there and that the this proposal uh does the math does work out as you're moving through that. [snorts] The key aspect that uh both members of the public and planning commission uh sought some clarification on in prior conversations what was what is retail and service commercial uses? And thankfully our code provides uh some limited definitions on that. What I've done in the blue text is take a staff interp or examples of other uh sites within the community. Again note that these are a staff interpretation trying to be general in nature so that we're able to highle categorize. Uh the determination from staff was that the conference room space uh was considered more of a uh office type use than what it was for a general service commercial or retail base or use within the site. And that's largely due to these definitions and then common definitions of what an office space would be used as. The really easy uh rule of thumb that staff was using with this was is the front door open to that space? Are they able to is are general members of the public able to walk in and interact in that space without uh without needing to be let in by somebody within the building. And the general use of an office or of that conference room is going to be for specific clients by appointment, but it wouldn't be open generally where somebody from the general public walking in off Lake Street would be able to interact with anybody in that room or that space. And so that's kind of the differential that was made and it is the difference between the lobby area which was unlocked this evening when I checked it out. Um, and so you can actually interact with that lobby space and that parking area as a general walk-in as the public. If you need these for your additional discussion, I can certainly come back to them. I do have a few photos to demonstrate what was uh other retail spots along Lake Street. So, I want to go provide those for the commission, let you review uh some of the examples from Lake Street over to this site and the adjacent uh properties as well. So, starting uh you know kind of core to our downtown and moving westward um we've got restaurants and uh clothing stores and then more restaurants and then more clothing stores seems to be kind of a trend along this stretch uh with some very boutique shopping along the ground floor principally and then a lot of times office on the upper stories. You do have intermittent office mixed into that. Um there are examples particularly east of this site where it's largely just office on the ground floor. Um some of these uh I wasn't able to determine exactly where uh that had been permitted as the retail provision had been around for quite some time. In other areas they were designed uh such as the swans where the entire building was taken uh as one large application and they decided to focus the entire retail into one core section and then do the other essentially parcel but other portion of their application as all office. So that site um with the Swans Retail all the way over to the Garta was a single application that came forward just for the planning commission's context to um determine how that setup had uh come about. In terms of comments and the engineering department has no comments on an application such as this. It doesn't affect uh roadway use or significant parking demand. Um, as I noted in the staff report, the parking is acting requirements for retail and office are identical in our code and so there is no impact to parking. Uh, the neighborhood notification process, we went through our standard process. The applicate or the applicant notified all property owners within 500 ft on November 6th. The city did so on November 7th. Was posted in uh the paper as well. At the time of the staff report, staff had not received any public comments. However, I do wish to note that on the table this evening, there is one public comment for the commission. It is included in uh the official packet in the rear of the room and will be uh entered into the public record for uh future planning commissions and city council. uh to categorize it. Uh they were uh expressing doubts that this would be a good decision due to the conversion of retail to office. Uh but I will let the commission make their own determinations on that letter. commission's getting relatively uh uh comfortable with variances but I do want to go through uh the primary questions to consider or the provisions for practical difficulty are essentially what they are. Uh these provisions are are they cons or would the variance be consistent with the comprehensive plan? Is it a reasonable use of the property? Is it created due to the plight of the land owner or due to the circumstances unique to that property? Would the variance alter the essential character and economic considerations alone do not constitute a practical difficulty with that. The actions being sought by planning commission this evening are to hold the public hearing and then direct staff to prepare a uh a draft planning commission report and re recommendation of approval or denial with appropriate findings. In addition, the applicant isn't pre or is present this evening and has a presentation that they would like to make as well. With that, I stand for questions. >> Thank you, Director Sharp. Uh questions for um staff. >> Yes, >> Commissioner Severson. >> Okay. Um so in the packet it looks like the the initial variance request. Is that what that is? >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> And that was and that's what you were describing was going from 50% down to 22%. >> Commissioner or chair commissioner. Correct. So the resolution that was the final attachment in the packet was the original variance request approval resolution. Okay. It approved several other actions as well but yeah >> yes that was the it was a variance in 2020 to go from the 50% requirement to the 22% >> is has been granted. >> Do you know what what the the reasoning was at the time? Like what did they want to do with it at the time and what do you know what happened? >> Yep. So the practical difficulties are actually outlined in that but I can go through them briefly uh for uh expediency. Essentially it was due to parking demand. Um it was due to the fact that the ground floor parking took up such a significant area and they needed that for the uses above and uh it was due to the fact that uh essentially with the design of that building it left very little and so that lobby area and stairs needed to be the other remaining retail open area for the site. So they were with uh brick and >> linen um occupying one space that wasn't identified at the time but a retail user was identified in that approximate space. >> Um what what's the parking like is there parking in the building? >> Yes. So let's go back to the >> Yeah, that that maybe is where I was not quite That's a parking lot back there. >> This is all underground parking. There's actually access to another level as well. Is it public? >> Yeah, >> I believe so. Yes. Okay. >> I walked into it this evening. I didn't see that there were any signs that said that they weren't, but I don't know that I think it's meant for their users, not public as in public parking for all of downtown. Okay. To clarify. >> Yeah. >> So, so in the back of that building, there's a separate Is there a separate garage? Like, how do you get into that parking lot? And is that at the at the at the street level? >> Yes. So, if you were to >> Yep. Go around the back. >> Go around this corner, you go back 35 feet or so, and there's an entrance to that garage. >> Okay. >> Right here. >> So, whatever this distance is from like here to here, you'd take your vehicle and come around the corner or come this direction, you'd be able to pull into the garage here. >> Do you know why they decided to do that? I I couldn't answer what >> why did they put why did they put parking in the building versus use this the building space for other things. >> Apologies. Uh they utilized the parking in the building to meet the parking requirements of the building. >> Okay. Got it. >> So the demand for the square footage that they had required x number of parking spaces >> and that was a large determinant factor on how much parking they added. >> Okay. And then they came back in 2020 and got the variance to have the retail space and now they're asking to cut basically cut the retail space in half. >> Chair Commissioner Severson, just to provide a brief clarification, they didn't come back. That was at the original building approval. >> No, but now they're coming back today. >> Yes, that's what I mean. >> That is correct. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. That Thank you. >> Other questions for staff? All right. Well, thank you, Director Sharp. Um, at this time, I'd like the applicant to uh ask the applicant to come forward and step over here. And, uh, I believe you have a presentation to st share with us. Um, if you could please introduce yourself, state your name and address for the record and your role on the applicant's team. >> And then one note, you could use the clicker. >> Oh, great. >> Advance your slides. >> Can everyone hear me? Yes. Hi, I'm Erin Foley. I am an architect with StudioB. My address is 4525 Pillsbury Avenue South in Minneapolis. Uh this will just be a quick presentation on kind of the general approach of what we are proposing here for this variance. I will note that the current building owner is not the original um owner of when this was built and so this variance is not looking at the building as a whole but just at the retail space on the ground floor. So looking at existing plan here of what the space is that Alex already shared with us. You can also see the elevation existing elevation along Lake Street there. So kind of looking at the segments on this elevation of the existing lobby to enter and these three bays that are the existing glazing kind of looking into the retail space of Brick and Linen. The proposal as Alex noted would be to reduce this retail space to the corner lot. So they'll still have frontage along Manitoba and they will have the far left bay on Lake Street here. The existing lobby will remain and then the new proposed use which will be conferencing for Walley Capital which is the tenant on the third floor um will take up this kind of middle two bays here on the street frontage. There would be a new restroom provided for the conferencing space. uh in this conferencing space is to service clients of all I capital who work with them. Um there's kind of minimal conferencing on third floor to service their needs there. And as Alex went through kind of some of the contextual analysis around on Lake Street. Uh we think with this proposal we are keeping in mind that retail is critical to the space. So, keeping a retail component here, but there is this mix of office of professional um business along Lake Street further to the west with more of the retail further to the east. And that is kind of where we are at at this spot. So, any questions I can answer at this time? >> Thanks, Aaron. Um, questions for the applicant. I have some questions. >> Commissioner Alga, >> uh, Brick and Linen will be reducing their footprint by about 50%. Was that at their request or will I capital Capital's request? >> So, Brick Linen currently is having some difficulties on their end. Um, so they are looking to subdivide their space. So, this is one solution to subdivide their space. They are still under lease until 2029. So they are looking to kind of shrink a little bit of their footprint so they can maintain a presence there. >> Do you have a uh schematic of the third floor? >> Um >> I'm curious as to why they need three new conference >> provide one with me. >> They've been there since 2020 conducting business. I would think that they had sufficient offices and conference space. I can provide that information to Alex and send it on to you. They have just done a fit out earlier this year of the remaining portion of the third floor. So, they had just moved into um kind of the other half of that. So, they've got quite a bit of office up there now. >> So, is there a different tenant on the second floor? >> Second floor is Compass Realy. >> I ask a question. Commissioner uh Commissioner Allen, are you good >> at the moment? >> Okay. Uh Commissioner Schwabi, >> um has there been an attempt by the owners to find more retail space? I understand that Brick and Linen doesn't want all of their retail space, but given that the city wants more retail space, was there attempt an attempt to find more? >> Um my understanding with the the owner is that they have reached out to other people. I think with the amount of space that would be left over with reducing brick and linen to what they are, it's kind of limiting to um an additional retail space coming in. I will note that with the proposal, it is definitely flexible to in the future expanding back out to a retail space if Walley Capital moves on to another space or gets conferencing somewhere else that this is not a permanent change to that building. It is just a kind of subdivision of that first floor space. So, was Walleye the original tenant there or the owner? >> The original owner is Loathbach. It was a Loathbach building and they were the original owner of that space and built that space. >> And how long has Walleye been there? >> That's a great question. Um, I do not have information. >> Okay. Can I can I add on to Bonnie's question? >> Um, so to to clarify, you did engage a realtor and try to >> Yes. So, there is a retail uh sorry, a realtor with um Walley Capital, Blake Hastings, and they have been working on kind of trying to find someone who may be able to lease this out, but I think they are having difficulties as well with just the size of what would be left over, the brick and linen only containing kind of half the space. Commissioner Severson, >> can I ask a follow-up question to that? Can you describe the efforts that they've undertaken? Do you have any >> I would I do not have the specifics on that. So, I can definitely get some more information if that's requested for kind of who they've reached out to. >> But Walley wants to use the space for itself. Right. >> Correct. That's what their variance would be to use that space for themselves as kind of occupying that space, providing brick and linen to downsize what their current space is. >> So the walleye business has grown. >> The walleye business has grown. Yes. They've also expanded in the third floor. So they are now taking up the entire third floor. They were previously about maybe 2/3 or half of that. So they've expanded to take up the entire third floor at this point and they are looking for additional space. >> Okay. and an entity related to Walley is the building owner. Correct? >> Yes. That should be Fishbase um LLC. >> Okay. So, um Walley is on the third floor, >> correct? >> Who's on the second floor? >> Compass Realy is on the second floor. Okay. >> And they have the entire second floor. Anything else for the applicant? No. >> Cool. Erin, thank you so much for coming tonight for your time and your presentation. >> Thank you. >> Um, now I'd like to turn to the public hearing portion. Um this is a uh this is an opportunity for us to hear from members of the public and the community about the requests that we're considering this evening. Um it's an important part of the process just to allow people to speak and be heard. Um so any questions um that are raised during the public hearing will be held until the end of the hearing and may be addressed by staff at that point. Uh so with that said, I now open the public hearing. Um, if you'd like to speak, uh, please come forward to the podium. Um, state your name and address for the record. Uh, and let us know if you're connected to the applicant in any way. Um, hi, my name is Jeff Sitzoff. We have several properties. My office is 319 Berry and we have 315 right across the street, Five Swans. Um, I had originally kind of thought it was all gonna the retail was going to completely gone, which really wasn't very comforting news. Um, so I'm glad to hear that it's just a cut down at at worst. Um, and I don't just to throw out there, I don't think that their parking is there's any public parking inside because there that's all for the tenants. Um, been a great neighbor. Um, it's a beautiful building. Um, I saw the letter that you guys must have got from Anthony Chu. I kind of just say amen to that basically. Um, just wanted to note they've already had less there and I remember when that went through less retail to make make it accommodate. We were pretty supportive of all that. Um, obviously I'm biased with Five Swans because we like retail down on this end. So, it's and uh get more things down. Hopefully the if TCF project ever goes and we got some condos going in down at 2011 and we did a we went through that and gave retail so we didn't get huge variances there. Just to note that um White Zeta has a design and I my wife's part of it. It's a retail group aside from the chamber design district and it goes from east to west and it's really nice to have all the businesses all the way from down uh the hotel all the way down. That's been growing. It's been very good. But I do like retail down on this end. So that's my bias there. Um, we talked about the 2011. They already got less than ideal for from our point of view. And I just think that you got to take in consideration. I'm not really telling you what to do at all, but um what the right concept for the city is best to keep the retail presence. And I would think that they could find a shop to take that space. Uh because we is a great place for shopping and the you know the snowbirds go in the winter a little bit but we found it just a wonderful place to have a retail business and I'd like to think they could fill it. That's all I got. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you Jeff. >> Dr. Sharp. Do we have anybody um on teams who would like to speak or has a question? >> Not at this time. Sure. >> Okay. Um All right. Well, that said, then um I'm going to uh close the public hearing and bring it back to um commission. And uh do we have does anybody have any questions for uh staff or the applicant at this point? >> Commissioner Schwabi. So, I'm sure we all did, but I went down there to take a look at the site, that whole block, in fact. And the first large building is a red brick building. Kushman, Wakefield, Morgan, Stanley, and a few others. There is no retail there on all of that frontage. Um, so that's 445 Lake Street, [clears throat] the red brick building, and it looks like it's all money managing of some kind or real estate. And then there's 415, which is DM Companies, which is a pro property management company. I do not believe that's considered retail. Is that right? So that whole building 415 is um no retail on that street. And then there's 407 which is the Weisetta Masonic Lodge that is not retail. You then cross the street and you have five swans and Maril Lynch and Vision and Garta. I I don't know does five is that particular block uh correct in terms of the amount of retail the five swans mel lynch and vision and garta >> I'm just wondering how we're applying this rule >> isn't the five swans one the one you said that they just focused it all on this end but it's still the right percentages >> is that right >> I thought that's >> chair Cameron Yep uh commissioners so there's a aspects of some of the properties, not all of the properties that you've been talking about. Um, the Five Swans and the Garta site, they came forward together as uh one large proposal on two different parcels to utilize their retail uh percentage and or frontage percentage and area percentage all in one parcel or one side of it, but it came forward as a single proposal. Additionally, some of the properties you noted are not within the central business district. They're further west where uh Ventana and um uh Weisetta Blue and um some of those sites are actually in an office district. So that starts to transition outside of the central business district the further west you go, the further east you go, they are good examples of other sites that have some office on the ground floor. I noted during some of the photos that I was showing it can be difficult with some of these sites because they've been office for quite some time to see how that had been approved. Um they aren't recent buildings however. So in recent construction and in recent uh reviews they have consistently been applying that uh 50% retail and that has been a consideration in all of those applications. So, are you saying that some of these buildings like 445, um, Lake Street, 415, 407, were they were they built before there was the requirement or was that just not being applied at that time? Because that that 445 is a very large building and there's no retail at all. Commission, do you know which one's 445 in terms of the names? Sorry. We have >> It's got Morgan Stanley, Kushman, Wakefield. It's It's at the beginning of the block. It's the very first building and then you work your way down to 401. >> Let me see it earlier. >> Um >> Oh, I don't Well, >> you're talking. >> Yeah, [clears throat] that's the Masonic. I >> Yep, that's the Masonic. And this one I I >> I've been unable to determine I was trying to do some research as to how this one ended up with office on the ground floor. Are you talking east or west of this site? >> East. >> So there is some significant um office mix in that one. There's also dental clinics on the upper story. There's a mix of different uses within that building. um how specific building permits ended up and where the individual uses on that ground floor were determined. I haven't been able to fully determine um >> probably legal >> possibly. I don't know. They may be legal non-conforming uses. They may be before the code. The code was put into place quite some time ago. So, it looks like that code section was amended around uh 10 to 11 years ago. They could have been there long before that without looking at the individual tenant spaces for each tenant. And then sometimes if an office use was replacing an office use, it would be allowed to go into that same space. It can get very difficult to track whether they're and I'm hesitant to label them as a legal legal non-conforming. Um, I would need to look individually at each office space and their square footage before I could feel comfortable stating that >> because there is not a whole lot of retail down there. It would be nice to have more retail down there. >> I hate to give some give something up um when we could actually use so much more of it. Can I mean I understand that what happened years ago is just what happened years ago and can't necessarily fix that. I just was wondering how it came to be if if the rule didn't come into place until more recently or not. But I did read this note by Mr. Chu, Dr. shoe about how how pleasant he finds his shopping in Excelsure, downtown Excelsure. Your main street is nothing but retail retail restaurants all the way up and down and it is charming. It is a wonderful place to go. We don't have necessarily both sides of the street all the way on Lake Street. Um but we have given up a lot of charm by having so much business and not enough retail. That's my my belief. >> And so u >> Thank you, Commissioner. >> Any other questions uh for staff or the applicant? >> Are we doing questions or are we doing comments? We're doing we it was that was sort of a little of both but I was trying to keep us in the questions part and then we can pull it back to discussion. >> Okay. >> I have one more question for Steph. I can't tell on this map if the TCF is developed. Is that considered retail? I can't see on the color is that >> so chair commissioner that's actually considered a PUD. So in the PUD zoning district, it sets its own requirements for much of that. We have utilized the underlying underlying zoning district for that in the past, but the uses have generally been prescriptive to the PUD. So the PUD for that site was that it was a TCF office space. The proposals that the planning commission and city council have recently approved did require groundf flooror retail in sections of that building. >> That's right. Okay. Any other questions for applicants and staff? >> Yeah. Um, Director Sharp, uh, are any of the the the there is a gap today from a retail standpoint once you once you buy ice cream, you you don't have a lot going on until you get down to uh uh until you get down to brick and linen. Um, but is is any of is is any of the properties between there uh uh up for up for redevelopment and um and if they were to be redeveloped, we would we would apply the rules given the C4 for retail uh on the first floor. Correct. >> That's too shar Yes. if they were re were to redevelop, we would require that they meet current requirements. Uh, additionally, if they were to do substantial interior remodel and removal, we would be evaluating during the building permit process to ensure that um, if it's existing office, it would likely be able to stay existing office during that building per permit process as a legal non-conforming or potential legal non-conforming. But if they were to remove that space and gut entirely, that could remove that status and then we would require a retail user >> in 50%. >> Yep. >> Thank you, Commissioner Stevenson. >> Um, can you go back to the how much the leftover retail space is that picture? Yep. And do we have any current retail that's about that space that you know of? Like is this really a small space or is this Thirsty Whale or um Ben & Jerry's or is there anything comparable to this space that you know of >> sizewise? >> Yeah. >> So Ben & Jerry's is probably going to be a little bit bigger because they've got a back room. Thirsty Whale I haven't been inside of yet. I know that I've only heard that they're relatively small. This is a pretty small retail space. There's no room for a back room in this. There's no room for additional inventory storage. Uh this would be very very boutique. You what's on the shelf is what you can purchase within the store retail. >> Uh it is how it is set up currently to note that there is no current back room or other storage spaces. They may have other spaces that are available within the building, but they haven't made staff aware of that. >> And the and currently brick and linen takes up that whole >> the entire 1600 square f feet >> that's in that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Cool. Any other questions for staff or the applicant? All right. discussion. Um, >> I have a number of thoughts. >> Let's hear him. >> You've been elected to go. >> All right. [laughter] First of all, make one thing clear. Brick and linen is really not retail. It's a service business. It's architecture and um interior design. The product may be for sale on the shelves, but it's largely display to show some of their design skills. So, there's probably a small element of retail there. To Alex's point, there's no room for backstock of items for sale. I've been a an astute observer and student of retail in small towns for more than 30 years and I am sympathetic to the retail um owner who is in this case sounds like they're having difficult challenges and are happy to reduce their size so their rent is reduced. I'm sympathetic to building owners who pay significant property taxes and want every square foot leased so they get maximum revenue from that property. And I understand small cities wanting as much retail as they can have. Why uh Excelsier is beautiful. I agree that the retail is um you know awesome. I can guarantee you most shoppers do not walk the full both sides of those streets with the exception of maybe um the holidays or some event that they have. Getting people to walk from one end to the other of a street as long as this is um a rare occasion that people would do that. You recall we tried, we've already had one space, Presbyterian homes, want to convert retail spaces to um rental uh homes because they just can't get retail in there. At the same time, I think a city should stand firm on preserving spaces for retail. I'm concerned that if Brick and Linen were to leave, they'd have a very difficult time finding a retailer to take that small of a space without space for um backstock and so forth. Um, so all that said, I'm sympathetic to the challenges of retail, but I think it's important for Weisetta to maintain its uh desire to have retail, and I would not be in favor of reducing it to this small of a remaining retail space. Thank you, Commissioner Al. I'll I'll I'll provide uh a couple two two more cents. Um, I think the city uh in 2020 uh uh made sure that the space was usable for the tenants um by by reducing significantly the amount of space dedicated to retail while maintaining a frontage on Lake Street uh so that the the average shopper wouldn't understand that uh uh that any retail was given up, but rather just that there's a couple of uh or one or two quaint shops that would uh that would still be able to fit into that space. Um I think that uh with uh a view of of of what's coming uh with uh hopefully the TCF building being redeveloped um the uh and and anything else that might come down the pike. uh keeping uh a retail focus uh would be key. So, I don't uh I I'm not in agreement with uh having having half of the space just be uh uh walk-in conference rooms as opposed to uh some way to do retail. >> Thank you, Commissioner Vanl. I'm happy to make some comments. Um I'm going to go back to the criteria in which we're supposed to kind of look at these projects and you know when I look at does the property owner have a circumstance which is unique to the property which is not created by the landlord and I guess no that this property doesn't you know pose any you know unique or unusual circumstances. Um then we go to the next one is a variance reasonable. Um I'll go back to Commissioner Elwin. Um other projects that we've had, he so eloquently has said reasonable is in the mind of every one of us. It's it's different for every one of us. Um so I don't know in my mind um it's reasonable. Um is the plight Oh, I already went through that one. Um sorry. Um is it consistent with the comprehensive plan? And I don't think it is. Um I think we're all kind of feeling that little angst that we do have in our comprehensive plan and our zoning um the retail there for a reason. Um with the variances alter the essential character of the locality. I even though we don't have a lot of traffic down there for retail, I think we owe it to the retail that's there and the future projects that we try to keep as much retail as pro as possible. And so, um, I would have a hard time approving this, but I'm interested in listening to the other commissioners as well. >> Thank you, Commissioner Blandon. >> I guess I would follow on with my fellow commissioners. I agree. I think it's nice to have retail. We've already given them a 50% break and it's nice to have something be besides Five Swans to to go down there and hopefully in the future we'll have more retail cuz I think I believe the applicant but once we give them the additional 50% I find it hard to believe that we'll go back if they move out to more retail. Thank you, Commissioner Aeny. >> So, I agree with all of these statements and basically I think we have to take the long view here. The long view is what do we want for Weisetta down the road and it isn't to little by little give away more and more space uh to non- retail customers. So, I would not be in favor of voting for this. voting I on this. >> Thank you, Commissioner Schwahi. >> Yeah, I I would agree with everyone. Um and and particularly because if you cut this space in half and give brick and linen less space, then there's even smaller retail space left over. You know, we've already there's already a variance on here to have even less retail. So, I I agree with my fellow commissioners that I'm afraid that we're just going to kind of keep chipping away at um retail space and all of a sudden downtown Weisetta becomes a office space. So, I'd like to preserve what little we have left. >> Thank you, Commissioner Severson. >> I think I' I' I'd echo um what I think I've heard from all of you. Um, the one thing I did hear, um, I just wanted to take a moment to commend. I heard you guys say that, uh, staff worked with the applicant on, um, aligning on language and square footage. And so, um, I know that sometimes that can be difficult, but thank you for coming together and and and working together on that. I think that's great. Um, I think the the proposal as it sits right now, um, you know, if we look at the comprehensive plan and Weisetta's vision for a charming downtown area, I don't know that, um, losing retail space is isn't um, supports that, right? I think that um, you know, if we if we want to have a vibrant downtown, it's got to be a mix of professional and retail um, and not just restaurants, right? But um you know some smaller boutique shops or um you know whatever I think and I'm not sure what our current issue is with some of our vacant retail but um I'm I'm aware that there is some um but I I don't support um going away or reducing what little retail space we have currently down there. Um I don't I struggle with the reasonable piece of this. I think their I think their ask is reasonable. As your business expands, right, you you need more space. I think that that part of it reasonable. I think the piece that I struggle with is um wanting to cut an already um small piece of retail space down even further um in an area that doesn't have a lot of retail space right now to begin with. So, um the um and I think, you know, I think the one that sticks out to me just in terms of um standards and questions is would the variants alter the essential character of the locality? I think I've heard, you know, we've talked a little bit about it. I think that's a really small retail space that's going to require really small customer if we grant the variance and the tenant moves on. um trying to fill that and I so I do think that alters the character, right? And and you're taking and shrinking basically the the at least the Lake Street side by 2/3 just from a visibility perspective. You're going from basically three glazings down to one of um you know what's visible as retail and everything else would be um office space. So um I I don't find that I support it and I think I've heard all of us kind of say something similar. So, it feels like we're pretty aligned on that. Um, so all that said, um I think our next action then is um a motion um to direct staff to prepare a draft recommendation uh report a recommendation of of denial um with the appropriate findings. U so if anybody would like to make that motion, I guess I can too. [laughter] I'd move that um we uh we direct staff to prepare a a report recommendation of uh denial u with the appropriate findings for the um grants request at 401 Lake Street. >> Second. >> Thank you, Commissioner Severson. Further discussion. >> All right. All those in favor? I >> I >> opposed. The eyes have it. The motion passes and the um our report and recommendation will be on our consent agenda on our next meeting which will be in two weeks from tonight. Um Erin, thank you for coming as well. Um just take a moment and and public thank you for your comments, Jeff. [snorts] Um next item on the agenda tonight is other items. Um Director Sharp. So, we've got the review of development activities, but first I'm going to go through the fact that we have distributed uh the long awaited planning commissioners handbooking right now. So, all of the planning commission members have that. Uh feel free to peruse over your Thanksgiving break. [laughter] Uh it'll help you fall asleep with the trip to fan. >> Um in terms of development activities, we uh most of our projects right now are buttoning up for winter. So, everybody's making that mad dash that you see in Minnesota come late fall to get buildings as far along as possible. With Wells Fargo, you will see uh sections of that site development be able to be closed up and you will see interior buildouts starting to occur. Throughout the winter, though, you will see winter activity uh heating blankets, etc. to keep the ground thawed for them to be uh continuing some of that exterior work. So do expect to still see some disruption uh through that project. Closer to home right here uh adjacent to our corner, they are making the uh valiant effort to get that building closed up before winter and it will be a race against time. Most likely uh they will work to get the building closed up um even if they do hit winter conditions. Their end time for that project is approximately next spring for full occupancy. Uh, and I just woke walked by this evening um the and I'm right now unfortunately blinking on the address. The uh site that's just east of uh 401 Lake Street by a block or so that's been under construction. Um >> the old Caribou bookstore. >> Yeah, Carish Corner. >> Carish Corner. They I still can't get the address off the top of my head right now and I had it written down. um they are probably not going to be closed up or ready for full uh winter conditions before snow flies. Uh they're still preparing some site work. Uh there have been some delays that uh we're trying to work through with them as terms of their schedule because we were really hoping for sidewalk to be open in time for full winter. It's starting to present some level of doubts um as they are having a hard time getting some of their materials is actually part of it. With that, if there are any questions about specific development, happy to answer questions. Um, and then the planning commission schedule. Um, I can kind of step into that one as well. >> Quick, just quick question for you. Um, update on Moments. >> Sure. >> Kind of the site's kind of an isore. >> So, Cameron, Moments, uh, has paid their fees, so they have their approvals that have extended uh, through 2026. City police and staff are trying to work with the applicant on securing the site. Um what their intention is moving forward at this time. The best determinant the city has is that they did pay their fees to extend their approvals. Um so at this point we haven't heard anything active from the applicant about a timeline. uh they have been communicative in the fact that they've paid their fees but haven't wanted to be proactive with staff about communicate communicating next steps. >> So when you say they've paid their fees, they've paid their fees for >> apologies. Uh I uh so moments was passed due on some of their development fees and they sought an extension to their approvals because they hadn't acted on the approvals within one year of their approval dates. City Council placed a condition that they pay past due fees by October 30. >> City fees. >> City fees. Yep. Uh their city fees by October 31st, 2025. They did so. And so the extension uh went to November 1st of 2026. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Anything else? So, next meeting is two weeks from tonight on December 1st. Be in December in two weeks. It's kind of scary. Um, and then December 16th and we have items scheduled for both of those agendas. >> Okay, perfect. Um, all right. I think that's it then. Um, so thank you everyone, staff, public uh for tonight and that concludes our agenda. Uh, may I have a motion to adjurnn? >> Planton. So moved. >> Thank you, Commissioner Planton. May I have a second? >> I'll second. Thank you, Commissioner Vanl. Any further discussion before we adjourn? All those in favor? >> I >> opposed. The eyes have it. The motion passes and the November 17th, 2025 Weisetta Planning Commission is adjourned.