Welcome to the February 23rd, 2026 meeting of the Weisetta Planning Commission. I hereby call this meeting to order. My name is Blake Cameron. I am chair of the Weisetta Planning Commission. Uh first on the agenda tonight is roll call. I would note that all commissioners are present except for Commissioner Severson as well as uh Director Sharp and City Attorney Schelzel. After that, on the agenda tonight is the approval of tonight's agenda. Does anybody have any um questions or proposed changes to the agenda for this evening? >> Hearing none. May I have a motion to approve the agenda as presented? >> So moved. >> Thank you, Commissioner Plant. May I have a second? >> I'll second that. >> Thank you, Commissioner Vanl. Further discussion? >> All those in favor? >> I opposed. The eyes have it. The motion passes [clears throat] and the agenda is approved. [snorts] Um, next on the agenda tonight is the approval of the consent agenda which consists of two items which is the approval of the meeting minutes from February 9th, 2026, our last meeting and approval of the planning commission report and recommendation of denial of subdivision by preliminary plat at 190 Gleason Lake Road and 121 Glee Haven Road. Does anybody have any um questions or proposed changes to the consent agenda or wish to pull an item for further discussion? Um hearing none, I would note um that we were handed a um an item um tonight that will be entered into record. Um uh other than that, uh motion to approve the meeting minutes and planning commission report and recommendation as presented. >> So moved. >> Thank you, Commissioner Elg. Second. >> Second. >> Thank you, Commissioner uh Schwabi. I almost called you Commissioner Bonnie. [laughter] Sorry. Further discussion. >> I [laughter] All those in favor? I opposed. The eyes have it. The motion passes and the consent agenda is pro is approved as presented with the modification of the note of the inclusion. Um, next on the agenda tonight, uh, we're going to roll right past old business because there is none. We're going to roll right into new business. Um, which is a discussion of planning commission representation at council meeting. Um, Director Sharp, apologies as I scroll through. I meant to look at the page number prior to the meeting. So, this before you this evening uh is an item that we talked about briefly or was brought up as a future item at our annual training session in January of this year. Several uh since my arrival with the city of Wisetta, several planning commissioners have mentioned uh a potential recommendation for change to the bylaws of the planning commission, which requires that a planning commissioner attend all council meetings. uh we have foregone that for the beginning of this year. I do have a draft schedule included in uh the packet in case we wish to continue but I wanted to open it up for additional discussion amongst the planning commissioners on what they would recommend so that you're aware of what the process would be. We would bring forward a formal if there were a formal recommendation for any changes uh we would bring that forward for city council to consider and ultimately they would be the ultimate deciding body. I have essentially three actions that you could uh choose this evening which would be to direct staff for recommended changes that you would have based upon your discussion. uh direct staff to provide any additional research that you would like or background materials at a future meeting for additional discussion at a later date or essentially a a no action or a null action of you the commission does not find uh that any changes to the bylaws are required specifically with the bylaws it's section 3.6 six and I've included all of the bylaws for background uh so that you were able to peruse them at your leisure, but the uh 3.6 specifically has planning commission representation at city council meetings. What had occurred in prior discussion at the workshop, albeit light, uh, as it wasn't a topic of significant discussion because that wasn't on our schedule, was do we want to or does the planning commission potentially want to recommend that commissioners rather than being assigned a uh, council meeting at the beginning of the year and having that representation uh, fluctuate throughout the year, choose one to two council meetings per year based upon topics that are going forward. or that are of particular interest or note to the planning commission so that they're able to follow a specific specific application all the way through. Other items discussed specifically by staff as a recommendation regarding this were that attendance should likely be in person rather than just digital. While the digital age does provide uh a great many benefits, there are a lot of things that can be learned from attending in person and seeing how the meeting functions. Uh as an example, we had an intern start today. You will see them attend a planning commission at some point in their tenure here because while they can watch the meeting online, there is a completely different feeling energy to being within the room. And I would express the same um type of advice for the planning commissioners as to why we would see at least some attendance in person. With that, I would turn it over to the chair and the commission to have their discussion or direct staff for any additional research or questions. >> So, original intent, I'll just leave off here. Um feel free to jump in. Um, but original intent of what was put together was that commissioners would attend a council meeting and then somehow report back to the commission. Correct. >> The bylaws don't actually include a report back. Uh, I do not know if that was an old amendment. I have not found a copy of the bylaws that include something that required a report back. >> Okay. >> I do however see in past practice that that did occur. >> Okay. Unsure if that was at one point in the bylaws and was dropped or where that practice came from, but it is clear that that was a past practice. Yes. >> Question whether or not >> I have a question for >> Absolutely. Would the intent still be to have somebody attending every somebody present for every meeting, every council meeting, and one commissioner? >> Chair, uh, Commissioner Plantton, I think that's part of what I'm looking for you to discuss. >> Okay. I think the intent that I had heard and I'm trying to paraphrase and such back is perhaps planning commissioners didn't need to attend meetings that were light on business items and perhaps we could try to focus our attendance on items where we felt we gained value from learning on particular topics that may not even be planning commission related but particular topics coming forward or following specific planning items. >> Thank you. I would let >> it would appear the city attorney would like to weigh in on that as well. >> Uh chair and commissioner, is that okay? >> Absolutely. >> Yeah. Just I think the other idea that came out or or concept that we talked about at the workshop that I think's worth recalling is that um oftent times our city council members come from the ranks of the planning commission. Um, I think probably most city council members at one time served on the on the planning commission and I know council thinks of it that way sometimes too, like that is valuable experience for people who then go on to serve on council. So, I think that's another reason this may be in here. I would I would echo Director Sharp's comment that said I as long as I can remember that this bylaw has been in the uh planning commission bylaws as presented. it didn't have anything about reporting or anything like that. Although indeed I that's what my recollection too that that used to be done. Um and I think most of that practice predates u being able to watch uh meetings online on demand. Um and I think as that's certainly a changed dynamic. So I think there's the issue of should a planning commission member be at every meeting or should a commissioner be at some of the meetings? Should we try to focus on meetings where there's more substance? Although that'll I think will be a challenge because we don't always know what's going to be on an agenda until a cycle or two ahead of time. So for scheduling out for the whole year, we may not know. So those just to add to what director Sharp said about the considerations for your discussion and then direction back to us. >> Uh so I guess I'd like to clarify number three because it seems we're either maybe missing an option or maybe that captures it, but it seems to me an option would be to eliminate section 3.6 altogether, not requiring any attendance at any council meeting. So, I don't know if that's what number three is supposed to capture as well. [clears throat] >> Chair, uh, Commissioner Elg, I would say one would actually encapsulate that. That would be directing staff to, uh, amend the bylaws because [clears throat] that's what it would require to remove that entire section. Um whether that is changing that from must attend every meeting or must attend one council meeting a year or two meetings a year or however the commission sought to direct staff to amend that bylaw removal etc. All the options for any amendment are intended from my writing of this I apologize to be encapsulated in item one. Three would be the bylaws are as they are. We see no need to provide a re essentially speaking with the city clerk and myself. If you're not recommending that there be an amendment or additional research, then you've reviewed the bylaws and no changes and then there's no f further action required. >> Well, I'll share my opinion on >> Absolutely. >> Um I would recommend eliminating 3.6 six alto together and um eliminate any requirement of a planning commissioner to attend council meetings. It seems that anyone here can attend anytime they would like. Um but maybe a for example tonight's um consent agenda has an item I'd love to hear the discussion by the council on and I will likely attend that meeting. uh but to pick a meeting would be difficult because somebody might have already picked that meeting and uh you know I would I would still go but I mean it just doesn't create the coverage that one would expect it to to create in that instance. Um, and in terms of a uh training ground for council, I mean that to me is up to the individual. If uh if that's some pursuit that they have at some point, it would be behoove them to go to council meetings and watch, but I don't think it needs to be a requirement in the bylaws that that they do that. Um, I don't deny that there's value in seeing it, but seems to me that should be a um commissioner's choice. I certainly understand your point. Well, I have I have a question that I I um I wonder if there's been has there been times that the city council has asked during the city council meeting uh any anything from the planning commission member that was there? I uh I don't know the answer to that. uh chair and commissioner. Um I don't recall that and I would probably discourage that um unless it was the chair being you know directed to attend as a representative of the commission to report on something you've looked into like say a potential zoning ordinance amendment sort of a legislative policy thing. I think when it comes to an application I would discourage it because we have such a defined process under the statute and under our code. Um, but I think on matters of policy, having a representative there makes sense, but that could be something we could plan for. Um, so that's a a longer answer to your question. I think the answer is no. I don't recall that and I probably would advise against it. >> I have a hypothetical question. Um, maybe rooted in reality, I don't know, right? But I think if we um hypothetically if we were to change um amend the bylaws to allow people to choose which event they wanted to and kind of to Commissioner Alex's point, right, we all have a choice anyways. If if there's something of interest that's passing through, um but let's say um there's a a meeting that a bunch of us have interest in and four of us show up for that meeting. Does that what kind of issues does that present? >> I've already checked on that with a city clerk. that does not constitute a meeting of the planning commissioners as you were not discussing official business. I would advise that you not sit and discuss the topic, but she did not feel the need to notice if you were to all choose showing up like any other member of the public. >> Okay, perfect. Part of the reason I asked that question and I'm going to step forward with one iteration upon hearing your discussion is that one of the things the commission could recommend is rather than trying to select meetings at the beginning of the year reporting an attendance or two attendances that you are or the bylaws simply state the planning commissioner shall elect two meetings per year or a single meeting or whatever discussion point you come about. And then there isn't the perhaps that could help remove that barrier of trying to have the crystal ball of seeing the items in advance. >> Yeah. No, for sure. I think and like as I read through this and just kind of reflected back on the workshop discussion that we all had, um I think kind of where like where I landed on was um I think like give everybody a choice, right? I think I think it's important that we still go to um city council meetings just to just to see the business and how the things that we do impact and and um you know what council does um and some of some of their decisions um and some of the discussions they have around them but rather than like force us into a rigid schedule right I think give us the option and I think like my my personal thoughts are you know either twice a year once once in you know once in the first half of the year, once in the second half of the year at a minimum or even quarterly. I I feel feel more comfortable I think about this the twice a year. Um and then splitting it up too, right? Like giving saying hey you got to do one one in the first six months, one in the second so that surely something in there is going to be of interest to all each of us right in that in that timeline. Um given some of the interesting things that have come through. So um I think that's kind of where I where I think how how I think about it. Um, but I'm just one person. So, >> I have a question. Uh, what form did that report take that the commissioners were reporting back to you after they had been to one of the um council meetings. >> So, Chair Cameron, uh, Commissioner Schwabi, the way that I saw the report back was to the other commissioners via the minutes. Um, so that's how I saw it and it was that commissioner presenting what they saw at the council meeting to the rest of their planning commissioners. Anything additional to add? Uh, that was prior to my time, so I'm just uh, chair director Sharp. That's correct. It was just like your normal discussion except one of you would say, "Well, I attended the city council meeting last week and they covered this and that and that and it was a quick summary of the meeting." Um, and if it was if it included um an item that the commission had made a recommendation on, you the person reporting might have spent more time on that. Um, but it was just a report back to fellow commissioners. >> Being one of those commissioners that had to do that, >> yeah, >> I was wondering if there was anybody among us that that had. And um like director sharp mentioned it was pre you know online meetings and so it it was helpful to come back and just do a a quick summary of things. It was um usually on something that we had had as a um item. >> Okay. >> And I would recommend either we get rid of it completely or we just keep what we had. um trying to pick two of them and knowing what's going to be on the agenda or schedule um just seems a little bit complicated. >> Um we've been able or I've been able to just switch with somebody if we um if it didn't work with my schedule, but I I would just think one or the other rather than having to pick one, you know, the first half of the year, one the second half of the year, trying to communicate if we're all going to be there, if we're not. um just seems a little bit more work, but I'm happy to do it either way. >> Well, it kind of turns out that you're going to go to at least one at the beginning and at least one at the end anyway. So, that sort of happens by default. Um >> I think with the reference >> three, right? >> Yeah. For the reference for this year right now, each commissioner would have three meetings. >> This says 25. Is this meant to be 26? Yeah, I didn't catch the 25 at the top of this page. Apologies. This is 26. So, all the dates are correct. I just didn't catch it right here. So, thank you. Um, [laughter] this is for 2026. I would amend that piece uh with the correct 2026 date, but all of the dates are correct for the year. And I've just put in a rotating schedule where each member gets three meetings per year for the remainder of 2026. With the two or with the four additional meetings that we would have had had I created this January one, it would be likely that some commissioners would need to attend four times and some would >> the junior members would have to attend an extra meeting. [laughter] >> Staff would do their very best to uh determine 10. >> Oh, wait. I think that I'm one of those. [laughter] But no, I I've actually been to a couple of of council meetings that were as brief as some of ours have been. 10 or 15 minutes and we're gone. And if that's what it looks like it's going to be on the agenda, seems like a lot to ask somebody to schedule their day around coming here at 7 o'clock at night. >> I would agree with that, >> particularly in the summer. >> Yeah. [laughter] And and if there's no feedback we're giving that anyone can't find online, I'm not sure what what is the purpose of us sitting there other than just learning and what and attending, which I'd rather attend something with some meat in it than a procedural we have nothing on the agenda. >> That's my I think that's where I'm I'm uh sitting as well. kids. Uh there used to be a purpose. >> Um and I'm not sure there is a purpose anymore. And it would take a lot less time for each of us to be uh individually uh uh get our individual uh knowledge about what happened if we went to the site, fast forwarded to the section where they talk about our stuff. And if you're interested in the budget or the police report, you can listen to that as well. But um uh from my standpoint uh I think that following along ourselves probably makes the most sense. >> So what makes the most sense us? Uh I think I think I think amending this to no longer have a requirement and and uh uh each of the commissioners if they want to follow along what happens in the city council based on what we've done here they can do that uh online >> or go to the meeting >> in person or go to the meeting >> whatever they like. >> Question are any of the other commissions um asked to attend on a scheduled basis like this? on a scheduled basis. There used to be other commissions. I think HPB did as well. Uh they're one of our older commissions. That practice has fallen off of their bylaws. They are asked to come for significant actions that they have taken to present. For instance, we quite literally have parks and trails tomorrow night at the workshop. So, most commissions do come forward to city council about once a year to make a presentation, recap, things of that nature. uh it's usually a representative sometimes the chair makes a presentation and staff is actually then the technical expert and secondary on that presentation typically [snorts] >> well I don't know if we can >> go ahead >> I don't I mean there seems to be a growing consensus to eliminate 3.6 six altogether. I don't know if we're ready to make a motion to suggest that or is there some other iteration that people are interested in. I'm similar with Commissioner Plankton. Either get rid of it or leave it as is. And to to your point, if it's a 15minute meeting, what's you drive here at 7, you know, clock at night? I might actually uh h have suggest that we change the bylaws to indicate that the um that each planning commission member uh is uh uh suggested to uh follow along city council meetings for uh significant planning commission agenda items and and leave it as a suggestion. But but uh note that we thought about that way. It would note that we thought about the fact that the planning commission should be paying attention to what the the city council is is doing. >> So you're saying amend 36 to to say that the there's an expectation that they f that planning commission members follow along city council members or city council meetings, but there isn't >> when there's significant >> when there's significant planning commission content. >> Yeah. But not there no attendance requirement. >> Correct. >> And it's recommended and you choose which one you want to go to based on >> you. You don't have I think what Joe Sorry, Commissioner Vanoy was saying. Um sorry, >> I'm over it. [laughter] >> I think what Commissioner Van Loy was saying was that there's no expectation to attend at all. Um if you you can watch it online or you can attend in person. Either one. Um did I get that right? >> Yes. Okay. I I still think that it should be in there that it's highly recommended that the planning commission members watch uh the city council meetings on a regular basis. They can just watch it. I mean, I watch almost every one. I mean, I zip through it the next day and get to the stuff I want to hear, but um it's interesting to see how their views are not always exactly like ours. Mhm. >> I think there's value there >> as well. Right. >> So, I'm not I'm not sure if we have to craft the the language here, but I think it is I I I think we're in violent agreement uh that it's uh that it's recommended, whether it's highly recommended or or if there's some other words. Uh, I think it is an indication that the planning commission should be paying attention to what the city council uh how they how they react to the uh to the items that we send to them. >> So, yeah. So, I think then what we're looking for is just a motion to direct staff to >> prepare an amendment. >> Prepare an amendment. Thank you. That indicates right what what you were just expressing. >> Yes. I'd like to make that motion. >> All right. [laughter] Is that enough? Do you need more? >> Uh, chair chair and commissioner. >> Yeah. So, I think and I'll this is a question for everyone including director sharp. >> I mean, we you could direct staff for us to prepare that amendment and go straight to council with it because remember council's the one that would make this amendment that consider it. We would want to make sure they understand your rationale. So, we would reflect that in a cover memo. we could bring that back to you first. Uh so you can see the language, see our little summary of it, and then move it on to council. So it would be sort of a two-step process or we could go straight to council with it. >> I don't know. Were you contemplating one or the other, Alex? >> Director Sharp. >> Thank you. Uh >> that was a joke. [laughter] >> Um it really depended on how the discussion tonight went. if we had a really clear indication from every commissioner on what that was going to be. That's why I put in potential for two for additional recommendation. If the language is still a little bit fuzzier and we don't have anything really clear, I think I would recommend a two-step process where we bring it back before planning commission at your next meeting uh as a potential action item. We likely wouldn't make this the only action item if we don't have a meeting. So, it may be postponed depending upon uh subject matter of applications that the city receives, but we would bring it back for action at a future date. Uh based upon what I'm hearing this evening, >> I think that'd be my preference. >> That would that would be my suggestion as well. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Can I just make one more comment based on what you said earlier that there is value to being in the room and seeing what goes on and people who speak and if it gets loud. >> I think that we all know how that goes. you know, we sit we're up here twice a week. Twice a month, too. Yeah. Twice a month. [laughter] >> So, um and if and if it's important for the council to know that that we feel like we understand what happens in the room. um in case that's an issue for them because it was what you brought up in the beginning as primary reason >> that actually we know how it feels to be in the room and just watching it on TV um wouldn't make any difference to me I'm quite sure >> understood the only other item uh that I think we will postpone for this meeting but at the next meeting uh I would look for a representative similar to how other commission commissions bring forward and they bring uh changes to their bylaws or to their recommendations for parks and trails etc. We would look uh and I noted that in this memo but I don't think for the site tonight's action we would need that designation but I would look for a member of the planning commission to come forward to help explain that. so that staff is portraying it to the best of our ability, but at the same time, I think that there would be significant value from the city council and for the commission uh to present that as your united recommendation. And at at this time, we'll craft some language and you'll be able to uh review that at your next meeting. >> Okay, perfect. And if I I'll just I'll throw it out there. I I can take that item um and do that unless one of you feels strongly that you would rather do that and in which case I'm totally good with that too. So if and you know we don't have to decide that tonight. We we'll have uh next meeting we'll figure that out but just I'll put that out there. Right. So if one of you feels strongly like you want to you want to be that person totally cool with it. But otherwise I can I can run point on that. >> Thank you. >> Cool. All right. Do we do we so we don't need a motion or do we? >> Uh yes chair. I I think we have a motion. Okay. Um that I don't think we really need to change, but it was a motion to direct staff to prepare a draft uh amendment to the planning commission bylaws um changing section 3.6 to uh reflect the discussion we heard tonight and I've made some notes. It'll be >> okay. >> Great. >> Perfect. Uh >> second. >> Thank you. Motion from Commissioner Vanly and a second from Commissioner El. Further discussion? >> All those in favor? >> I >> I opposed. Nay. >> The motion. >> You're a nay. >> I'm a nay. >> Okay. >> But that's okay. >> Sure. >> Um the motion passes and the um we will uh the draft will be on the agenda for our next meeting. I'm a nay. I just I would prefer that there's a requirement to be with some of them, but that's that was my that was my nay. >> Um and that doesn't need to go on the record. Sorry, I didn't want that was more for Commissioner Schwabi then. Sorry. [laughter] Next item on the list. Um is uh other items. Um I think I so I'd like to lead other items off just with a um thinking about like items we want to run through city council or through city government. Um, I think there was a lot of like um a lot of like kind of side discussion just with regards to city zoning um and some of the just the difficulties I think that that are placed but with the how current zoning works or reads um that I think it's something that and feel free to jump in here too, right? People that have have thoughts on it, right? But I think what I think it'd be good to put to somehow get that on the radar screen to start nutting down and drill and pulling some of that apart, right? Because I think what we saw for Glee Haven for that subdivision that we that we heard two weeks ago, right, they're zoned the same as like central Weisetta. Um, and they're two very different neighborhoods that should be zoned, I think, differently, right? And there's some practical some difficulties that come from having them zoned the same. um that you know I think could be eliminated with with with maybe a review and update of zoning. I that so my thoughts right I had a I had a hard time with some of that. So >> yeah, I agree. I think uh uh to add to that, right, I think R3 and R3A are are uh very uh they're significantly different in terms of of the the properties. Uh but the standards in the zoning are essentially the same except for onesie Tuesday. I think height being one of those. Um, so I would also suggest especially as the comprehensive plan uh is coming up uh that that uh we that I I I think it's a good idea to u make city council aware that um that that we see some difficulties there that might be addressed through that process. >> Cool. Anyone else? >> All right. Um I sort of inserted that item. Uh, Director Sharp, uh, planning commission meeting schedule and review of development activities. >> So, I'll start with our city council meeting. Uh, that's tomorrow night. Welsser Lamborghini will be on that agenda. So, want to make sure that the planning commission is aware. Um, we will have uh typical discussion on that one. Just as a reminder for that application, that is uh only for the items that planning commission reviews that they are acting on tomorrow night. There will be future only city council items which include the final plat vacation and development agreement and slash pud agreement. So those items will be on a future date. The actions before city council tomorrow night are the preliminary sub or preliminary plat variances deviations uh that you previously reviewed. Next planning commission meeting is scheduled for March 9th. Currently, I do not have applications submitted, so we might end up getting an evening off in March, which would be well warranted. You've been working very hard over the last couple months. Uh we'll see what comes in. I think the deadline is Wednesday for applications. Chair, if it's permissible with you, I'll move on to other uh development review activities. >> Absolutely. Keep going. Uh so going through a brief list because it's been a little while since I've gone through and updated on a number of the open projects. We've got Wells Fargo obviously under construction. That is still slated to be completed by the end of summer 2026. We have not heard anything otherwise. Uh they appear to be well on schedule. Windows are going in. Spaces are being able to be uh heated and finished on the interior. Uh, Moments of Weisetta, as you're aware, did apply for an extension in October or so of last year is when I notified uh the commission about that. When they came forward, they'd stated that they uh had planned on building potentially in 2026. We have not heard from moments as of yet. However, they have notified the city that the property is up for sale. So, we'll see where whether that project proceeds uh or whether they are looking to sell with those approvals in place and the project would otherwise remain the same. Uh 2011 Lake Westway Condominiums, they applied for an extension last year as well with the city council and were granted. Uh they have stated that they do still intend to move forward in 2026. uh they needed to secure financing and they had some health and transition in the family uh that was managing that property. They've since done that transition. Staff hasn't heard from them since uh early fall, but uh they could still be getting all their items in a row for a reminder when they would need to renew is actually fall of 2026. So, we may hear things through building permit. If we do were to receive a building permit process, I'd bring it up during a development activity at that time. Already touched on Waler Lamborghini, so I'll skip over that one, but if you've got questions, feel free to reach out to me directly. Harbors of Weisetta or otherwise known as Kantissimo, you've seen it as both names. It has four different addresses. Uh some onetta Boulevard, some on Holdridge Lane, is seeking an extension on tomorrow night's council meeting. They have stated that finding financing is difficult and are looking to for a third extension. So for commissioners that were not on uh the commission in 2022, this is a less familiar project. Feel free to reach out to me if you have questions, but they actually received final approval in 2022. So it's uh it's been lingering for some time. Uh, city council has asked that the applicant be present to assure them that if an extension were to grant be granted to March of 2027 that they would be able to move forward with the project because otherwise they are looking for additional proposals. With that, uh the only other one that I'd want to make you aware of um and I'm sorry I'm blanking on the address, but it is the for sale home right on Weisettto Boulevard right around the corner here on Broadway. uh has sought a demo permit. I think it's 701 Lake Street uh or I'm sorry, Lake Street, Weisetta Boulevard. Um they are seeking demo permit and they are seeking a home permit. We will be working with that developer as it is their first time operating within Weisetta to put together a staging plan. With all of the additional traffic we anticipate on Weisetta Boulevard this summer, we could see where this could get difficult because it is a very narrow and tight site. What I will ask is for a little bit of patience. However, at the same time, they aren't allowed to do any street activities. Uh deliveries must be on site, etc. So, as you see something, feel free to report it to us. We're going to need more eyes on the street than just staff. Um that will be a challenge for them to get right, but we are uh appreciating that they're wanting to work with us early. >> What's at that site now? >> It's a single family home, and they are proposing a single family home. >> Okay. So, it would be a demolition of an older home built in the 1950s. >> How about uh 200 Lake? Any update there? >> Sorry. >> 200 lake. Um we are moving through a second stage of litigation where they have uh sought to appeal the decision made by the courts. However, there is positive uh outcome as well. They have sought that the city apply for a deed grant to clean up the site and they have provided the city with uh I've not done full review of the plans which is why I left it out of uh my update but they've provided us with preliminary plans that do show show compliance with the requirements from city council of full massing breaks from ground to sky. If the plans are uh in alignment with what was originally proposed and with city council conditions, uh staff would generally advise that the city council apply for that deed grant on their behalf so that the commission is aware how that would proceed is the applicant provides the materials. Staff reviews them, updates the application, makes the formal application to deed. If awarded, deed would then supply the funds to the city and the city would supply the funds to the developer upon completion of the cleanup. They need the developer is responsible essentially for all of the cleanup, all the for uh upfront costs, etc. And as part of an agreement that would come out of that application would then provide documentation of what had been completed and what had been cleaned up, where it had gone and what total costs of that cleanup were, >> what needs to be cleaned up. >> That was a formal former railroad storage site. So there is significant inclusion down into the soils uh of several different uh chemicals that you cannot essentially put housing on top of. >> Okay. The only areas that have been slightly remediated are under the footprint of the existing building. And because they are looking at expanding that building footprint and putting housing on it, they have additional requirements for not only the expanded footprint where no cleanup has been completed, but additional uh vapor barrier requirements for being able to put housing above. >> Okay. >> The benefit to the city uh would be that we would have a remediated site within the community. Right now there is uh contamination down to uh groundwater systems and so there is definite leeching that is occurring that would be corrected as part of that remediation. >> How was that discovered? Because you know we've been going through this for quite a while with that site. When did we find out that this was going on below the surface? One of the requirements for the project as it came through was in our code whenever you're uh moving through preliminary plants require it. Walzer has cleanup as well as an example. They are required to perform an environmental assessment. Uh they don't have to do an entire impact statement unless what they find as part of that assessment warrants the the additional study. as they moved through it, additional study was required in order for us to be able to essentially get to the point of being able to issue a building permit. That said, site next to a railroad with a known storage site back in the early 1900s was uh was a clear indication similar to how where Malberries was located. There's a dry cleaner. It's one of those that sets up the now you need to create or uh perform an environmental impact statement. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you, Director Sharp. >> Can I ask a question? When we had our uh planning commission meeting, you had talked about maybe uh some retail task force to talk about how retail is worked on Lake Street. if it's just a med spa or a bank open or is it actual retail? Has it has anything happened with that? So, uh, Chair Cameron, Commissioner, uh, yes, I have made council aware of that. It is on a council workshop for late spring, early summer. Uh I don't remember the exact date that that has it's been moving around based upon the city manager election and interviews uh and the workshops that they've had as well. It is on the schedule for 2026 and it is a priority that at least three city council members have uh come to me and interim city manager Joerger about. So it is a topic that they're aware of and at that point I think they're going to be directing staff to prepare additional research and background perhaps compilation of uh a study group that is to the side of that or they may make that as part a subset of the comprehensive plan. I think they we need additional direction discussion from city council to begin that work. Um, some of that work I've begun preliminary preliminarily to try to prepare for that uh upcoming introduction, but substantive has not begun yet until city council's directed staff to begin work on it. >> Thank you. >> The uh the new building that went up on Lake Street where the jewel and Caribou used to be, um, do we know what's going in there? Chair, Commissioner, there have been a couple rumors uh the community has told me of some users that have been very interested. At this time, we have not received interior buildout permits, nor have we received formal uh advice on whether a particular use would be permitted. So to explain how I would generally operate on that, until the city has received a formal inquiry of could this type of use go in this space or could uh or we receive a building permit, I tend to stay out of that for a uh even when I see it in newspapers. Yep. >> Thank you. >> Anything else for staff? Perfect. Um well that concludes the meeting the items on tonight's agenda. Um motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. >> Thank you Commissioner Venley. Second. >> Second. >> Thank you Commissioner Schwabi. Further discussion. All those in favor? I opposed. The eyes have it. The motion passes and the meeting of the um February 23rd, 2026 Weisetta Planning Commission is hereby adjourned.