call the regular meeting to order for our city council meeting on Tuesday, August 18th. Um, members of the public may attend the city council meeting in person or may watch or listen remotely by viewing the meeting on channel 8 wtv and the city's website at weisetta.orgwv. Public comment during the public forum and or public hearing portions of the meeting may be provided in person at the meeting in advance or by logging into the team's call and raising your hand during the public meeting. When your name is called in the meeting, you will be seen and heard in your council chambers in the cable channel. You'll be asked to unmute and turn your camera on and then you may begin your comments. All public comments should include your first name and who the group you're representing is. Next on our agenda is the pledge of allegiance and I would ask you to stand if you're able and follow along. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you. >> Next on our agenda is a roll call and let the record reflect that all council members are present this evening. I will note that earlier this evening we held a workshop in advance of this meeting to discuss uh proposed updates to franchise fees and ordinance for uh utilities discussion of the 2027 preliminary general fund budget and property tax levy discussion of the section foreman's house project and next steps and then outlined our future workshop topics. Next on our agenda this evening is we need to approve tonight's agenda. I need a motion to approve the agenda as presented or does anyone want to make any changes? I'll move to approve the agenda as outlined. >> May I have a second? >> Second. >> Uh any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. I. Salong. >> Public forum. Um we do not have any items on the public forum this evening. But if you are in the audience and wish to speak to something on the agenda, fill out a card and give it to staff. Um there are no items for the public forum and no cards. Correct. Nothing. Nobody on teams. Okay. So, new agenda items. Um, does anyone on council have any new agenda items to bring up in the future? Hearing none, uh, we'll move on to the consent agenda. On tonight's consent agenda is the following. Approval of the check register, receipt of fire activity report, receipt of the building activity report. Adoption of resolution 402026 extending the PUD general plan and PUD CUP for Westway Condominiums at 2011 Lake Street East. Approval of the change order with Zenith Tech for the Panaway project. Adoption of 392026 accepting a donation from the Weisetta Garden Club. Award of a contract to Traverse Desoo Garden Center for the Lake Street Landscaping Improvement Project. Approval of the memorandum of understanding with the Wisetta Conservancy for the Lake Street Landscaping Improvement Project. And lastly, approval of professional services agreement with Sustaina LLC for Horiculturous Services. So, I would need a motion to approve the consent as is or are there any adjustments required? >> Mr. Mayor, I'll make that motion. >> Great. May I have a second, please? >> Second. >> Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Okay. Now, we're moving on to our new business item. Um, we only have one for this evening and that is to consider adoption of resolution 402026 approving the preliminary plat and final plat for Carpenters Point, third edition at 535 and 555 Bushawway Road. We're turning this over to our planner or Okay, thank you Haley, please. >> Thanks, Mayor and Council. Um the development application for review tonight is um an application for subdivision of 535 and 555 Bushway Road. Um the name of the plat would be Carpenters Point Third Edition. The owner and applicant um are Bushway Holdings LLC. So uh the actions requested tonight um is to consider the resolution that would approve this application subdivision for preliminary and final plat. Um the proposed subdivision would divide the two existing single family lots into three separate single family lots. Um and if approved, it would create the three new lots that would conform to the requirements of the R1A zoning district. The project site is located on the west side of Bushaway Road um with lake frontage um for both of the properties. Um and these are two vacant parcels. Um the full site is just over 6 acres. Um and uh the northern lot is slightly larger than the southern lot. Uh the current land use zoning uh land use and zoning and guiding um for the property is it's currently zoned as R1A, so low density single family estate. Uh the land use guiding for the property is uh single family estate. So uh 0.25 to um.5 units per acre. The uh density with the proposed application is I believe 47 um so in line with the uh density um projected within the comp plan. The property is also located within the shoreland overlay district and subject to the provisions included there. uh some relevant site history for these properties. Uh in 2019, the original single family home was demolished and a perpetual conservation easement was granted to the Minhaha Creek wershed district um for the purposes of flood plane management primarily. Uh the city also issued a grading permit which modified the average grade of the full site by approximately or just under two feet which is the maximum allowed um without council approval per our ordinance. In 2021, the city approved a preliminary and final plat application similar to this one that created the two existing parcels from a previous configuration of four parcels. Um the purpose of creating the two lot uh configuration that exists now purpose at the time was to allow for two new single family homes after the demolition of the original residence in 2019. The image on the screen is a depiction um highlighting the area of the conservation easement across the site. Um so this is a perpetual conservation easement granted to the watershed district from the property owner. Um it's an agreement between the watershed district and the property owners. Um and the city's not party to this agreement, but there is public benefit to it. Um and as you can see uh by the highlighted areas, it kind of flanks the property on the north, east, and south sides. Um restoration work that um is referenced in that agreement which was included an excer excerpt of it was included in your packet. um restoration work that was completed with um the adoption of this agreement um was done in 2019 um and completed in combination with some of that grading work that the city approved. Um, and this conservation easement, like I said, is perpetual and remains intact and would continue to remain intact intact on the proposed lots um after successful sale of those properties. So, the proposed preliminary plot tonight um is depicted on the screen. Um, and as stated earlier, this subdivision would divide the two existing single family lots into three separate single family lots um that would conform with the R1A zoning district and Shoreland Overlay district requirements. Um, part of a plat approval um includes park dedication. Um, the subdivision would result in the creation of one additional lot from the previous existing two lots. um making the uh agreement if approved subject to a cash and loop fee of uh 12,500. This chart shows the lot requirements of the three proposed lots um and the fact that they are the proposed lots fit within the requirements of the R1A zoning district. Um you'll see that the lot coverage and the impervious surface requirements are not filled in in this chart. Uh that is because there is no physical construction or homes being proposed with the approval of this subdivision. Um so future homes built on the properties must also meet those lot requirements um for lot coverage and impervious surface. Um and setback requirements both for the zoning district and for the overlay district. Um and all of that would be evaluated at time of building permit. Um so what should be um looked at now is the lot size, width and depth um that are being proposed. Part of um staff analysis and what the planning commission and council reviews um with a plat application is to see how these proposed lots fit into the surrounding area. um particularly how the size of the lots fit into the surrounding area. So this chart shows um neighboring properties along Bushaway Road um and it shows that these proposed lots fit within the average of the lots included in that neighborhood um and often exceed um some of the sizes of the surrounding properties. Uh so this is uh a depiction of um conceptual grading and possible home locations on the three proposed lots. Um this is something that's a part of a standard preliminary plot application. Um but as the council is familiar with these types of applications, often these are conceptual home plans. Um and again not being proposed at this time. Um so what should be reviewed is is whether or not um these lots are able to be built upon um is kind of the intent and purpose of this graphic. So for product project considerations uh staff uh provided comments and also sought comments from um outside agencies. Uh the following list on the screen is um some of the considerations that staff brought forward to the planning commission um for their report and recommendation. So, um, in considering the topography and grading on the site, staff recommended that future grading of any portion of that site, um, across the three proposed lots require city council approval. Um, and this would address the unique circumstances of the lots being proposed and the intent of city code section 9164D, which is that section um that requires any grading above 2 feet to be approved by city council. Um, for tree preservation, um, with applications for subdivision, uh, each lot will be responsible for trees located on individual property. So each lot um being created would um then be subject to our tree preservation ordinance and evaluated at time of development. Um tree removal is expected to occur um with this application when the homes are built. Um but again there's not um concrete information for staff to evaluate um at this time with this application. Um similarly storm water um and ensuring that uh the three lots once they are built upon meet the requirement of um not exceeding 20% imperous surface. If they were to exceed 20% impervious surface that would be something that would be evaluated at time of building permit um and sent towards a variance application. Um the utilities on site um there are existing connections to sewer and water available for all three proposed lots. The city engineer noted that there's a potential need for a private lift station on one or more of the proposed lots, but again that would be evaluated um in specifics with a building permit at that time. Um and then another consideration of this proposal would be the driveway access onto Busherway Road. The three proposed curb cut openings um were evaluated uh and reviewed by Henipin County. Ultimately, Henipin County is responsible for final approval um for curbcut openings into county rightway um and any work proposed in county rightway. The um official plat review letter that staff received from the county expressed no concerns um with the proposal to add what would be two new um curb cuts because with the previous uh subdivision there was not the second curb cut access ever created. Um but again no concerns were expressed um from the county in their official review. Uh this slide kind of speaks to what I said um about uh public agency comments um as well as city forester and city engineer comments. Um the city engineer comments were quite extensive so I did not include them in the presentation but they are included in your packet. Um, in summary, uh, the city engineer and the city forester came forward to staff, um, recommending conditions of approval that were ultimately, um, incorporated into the recommendation by planning commission and present in the draft resolution this evening. Um, and I will get to those in a future slide. Um, Henipin County, like I said, provided a plat review letter in support of the application with no requests or additional cons consider conditions of approval. Um, the watershed district also provided comments and these comments were received after the planning commission public hearing and their report and recommendation. These comments were included in your packet, but I did want to make note that the planning commission did not get a chance to review these comments. Um essentially they pertain to the conceptual storm water utilities and erosion control plans that were provided with the preliminary plat. Um ultimately the watershed district requests that the district staff be notified in writing before construction occurs um on the site and that could potentially be um an additional condition of approval this evening um with the resolution. Um the applicant followed the typical public neighborhood notice procedures for the um subdivision application type. Uh the city did receive two public comments on the application. Um one it was received after the packet was published so it's available on the dis tonight. Both of those public comments um pertain to a suspected eagle's nest on the property. Um and there was uh discussion of that potential eagle's nest during the public hearing um and planning commission meetings. So there's a condition added to um the resolution that was recommended um by the planning commission um and I have highlighted here on this side on this slide. Um so your the planning commission report and recommendation and then also the resolution this evening has a standard list of um conditions of approval. And then also these three um conditions for approval um that were either added um as recommended by staff or slightly edited. So this first one a um is largely a standard um condition of approval for this type of application but the highlighted portions are what has been added based on planning commission recommendation. Um and that includes um permits authorized by Henipin County and the watershed district. um any applicable permits would need to be obtained by the property owners at the time of development or or submission of a building permit. Um and then to address the concerns that have been raised about um a potential eagle's nest on the site, um it's typical for um land use approvals um and applications for subdivision to one of the conditions of approval is to follow all applicable laws. Um, but we did add in um specific language pertaining to um following any applicable laws or regulations that apply to a reported Eagle's Nest on the property. Um, so that would be something that the individual property owners would need to pursue um at the time of development. Um and then you'll see uh points B and C um are the recommended uh conditions of approval from city staff. So that first one um is from provided by the city forester um that the applicant must inventory all existing trees in the right ofway along Bushaway Road and provide a copy of such inventory to the city forester prior to the issuance of any building permits for the property. Um and then point C was provided by the city engineer um and pertains to uh the requirement that any additional grading on these lots uh require review and approval by city uh council. Uh because of that um code provision um related to the the maximum allowance for grading on a property. Um, and it's also worth noting that that was a condition of approval of the previous plat on this applica on this property. Um, so when those two existing lots were created, that was something that was also included in those approvals. And then the reason that city council has not reviewed any type of grading permit for these properties is because there haven't there has not been any building permits submitted at least to my knowledge um for these properties since the time of the previous plat. Um the primary questions to consider um for plat applications um and these are partial um or excerpt um criteria taken from from uh the city's subdivision chapter. Um the questions are up on the screen. I uh would be happy to um read them aloud um if if that would be helpful. Um otherwise it's it's mostly the standard um subdivision considerations. I know council has gone through um review of of several um subdivision requests in the in the last few years. So um that is the presentation that staff has. Um so staff asked that uh the council consider adoption of the resolution 412026 approving subdivision at 535 and 555 Bushaway Road. Um, and I am available to answer any questions that the council may have. The applicant is also present this evening um, and can answer questions that you may have. >> Yes, I think we'll go to questions of staff and then we'll give the applicant a chance to weigh in if they choose to. Or if not, that's okay, too. Um, questions of staff at this time. >> Go ahead. Do you have one, Miss McDonald? >> A couple. um planner headloom. Um the setbacks that you noted for the lakeshore um I I do recall those are sort of kind of by ex what exists today. So those those lines you showed on our first slide does that represent um conditions or is that kind of accurate of of what the setbacks would look like? Yeah, kind of that. Mayor and council members, um the setbacks are included on the preliminary plat. Um the the setback that's semivariable. Um that is in reference to the closest repairarian principal structure. That one is somewhat flexible based on the order in which these lots get developed. Um, so if the middle lot gets developed before the northern lot, that would change that setback requirement for that northern lot. Um, and that's just one example. It it really depends on on how the lots get developed and which one may be built upon first. >> So these lines that you're showing us on this slide is because of what's next door to the north and the south. >> Correct. >> Okay. Okay. And then my other question is of course about that eagle's nest. Um was it your your um your presentation really made it sound like it was a supposed eagle's nest. Are we are we not sure it's there? Um I council members I didn't mean to to to suggest that it may not be there. I've actually driven by and looked for it myself and I can see that there's a a nest there. Um, but I in terms of representing the city, I don't want to be the one to say that I was able to confirm that that was an eagle's nest because I'm not an expert. Um, and that would be up to the applicant or the property owner. >> Okay. And then is that tree where that nest lives in the protected water um water or through the through the easement or whatever it is? That's another thing that I can't answer definitively. Um I think it would be up to a possible surveyor to to find the exact location of the tree. Um, from a layman's view on the side of the road, it appears that it may be within the conservation easement. >> Um, and subject to inherent protections. Um, >> I did also do a cursory search of what type of requirement. Oh, good. That was going to be my next question. >> Needed for for um building near an eagle's nest. And it is quite extensive. if it's um largely within like 660 ft of a nest. Um and that's either an active nest or an abandoned nest depending on the time of year. >> Um and that's not to say that you can't can't build obviously and I don't know all the details. I'm not an expert in that area and it wouldn't be a permit that the city obviously issues. >> Um but yeah, that's not to say that the these lots aren't buildable in any way because of the presence of a eagle's nest. >> Got it. Well, thank you. That is what I was hoping you would say is that you did at least some sort of like cursory look of um you know because the whatever laws that may apply um seemed like you were like well maybe they exist, maybe they don't. But I'm glad to know that, you know, that you kind of looked into it a bit and saw that there are said regulations and so we're not just um hoping a a high power [laughter] um works to protect the the nest and the animals. So I appreciate that. Thanks. >> Other questions of staff? Mr. Pleish? >> Yeah, I um I had some questions too about the eagles because that just came to our attention here tonight. Uh, but historically, just to make sure I had it right, the this originally, as far back as we need to go, was four parcels that had just one house on it. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> And then at that point, uh, that house was demolished and it went to two parcels. >> That's correct. >> Which we're now looking to take those two and put it into three. >> Correct. >> Okay. Anywhere along the way, uh, let's say when the house was originally there, you probably don't know the answer, but I'm going to put on a record. Do you happen to know if there was an eagle's nest there at that time? I do not. >> So, I can presume probably they came in at some point after the house was demolished. That's just a guess. That's I'm just throwing it out there. Um, and in terms of the approval today, there's no construction that's going to come out of this. All we're doing is is saying these two parcels can now be viewed at as three. And so there's no legal disruption involved in us making that determination. Is that correct, >> Mayor and council members? That's correct. All that this application is for is for the legal subdivision of these lots. >> Okay. Thank you. Other questions of staff just had one. Um could you go back to the slide that shows the curb cuts or potential curb cuts? I guess it's not finalized. You mentioned there was three, but I only see two. Am I missing the third? Is one a shared driveway or is it the potential that there could be three? >> Uh mayor there that sorry this is such a zoomed out and I don't even know that the resolution would be helpful if I zoomed in. >> Oh >> um but there are two driveways and two cut curve cuts there. Um and they are meeting the required setback for driveways um in this. >> Thank you for that clarification. >> Yep. Very close together. >> And then another question uh related to the Eagles regulation. you you mentioned there are regulation what who has jurisdiction over that >> mayor it would be um the US fish and wildlife um I don't know if that in terms of who issues the permit if that comes down to the state level or if it remains at federal um and there may also be dual permits state and federal I don't know I don't know the details of what >> yeah that's fine >> would be required um just that there may be something required >> we're we're making it known that if it still exists at the time of building then >> correct >> then the applicant would have to follow said regulations. Okay, thank you for that clarification. >> Mr. Cook, >> yeah, I have a question on this map here in regards to grading and the existing site conditions. So, um I think as I look at this this map, you've got the lowest floor elevation at about like right at like the limit of what we could do with the high water mark, meaning that you could put and I guess maybe this is a question for the applicant, but you could put a basement in here or maybe that's just the just a first floor on slab, but without any significant fill being brought and or site grading uh that and I know we we will have the ability to look at this and approve that later on, but I just want to make sure that we're not creating a problem down the road where like we get into a situation where it's like, well, we we need to do this in order to to build on this. So, as it looks, the the site conditions can accommodate what they're thinking conceptually from a buildable lot for a home that would somebody would want to put on these lots. >> Council member Cook, that's correct. And and largely that is what needs to be evaluated at this scale at for this approval. Um, and the details of whether or not a basement would require fill being brought in or what that grading would be um ultimately is going to be very specific to that building permit. Um but the way in which um that condition of approval and the way that our code is written um that that condition is based off of that would ultimately be reviewed both by staff in the typical process and by city council at the time. Um I don't think that a potential issue would be created um because ultimately what they need to prove to subdivide these lots is that they can meet um the requirement that the first floor elevation is at that minimum elevation point. >> Thank you. >> Other questions of staff? Hearing none, the applicant has a chance to offer any additional information that they would like to provide us. if you just state your name and who you're representing. Sure. >> Good evening. My name is Nate Brandenburg. I'm with the Maslin law firm. I'm here on behalf of Pushway Holdings. Um, as far as the application goes, planner at Bloom did a fantastic job putting this application together. So, I don't have anything specific to add on that, but I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> Any questions of the applicant? >> Thank you. Hearing none. Um, might have one at at the end here, but we'll see. it. Thank you for uh so I'll bring it back to the council for discussion. So uh staff is recommending approval. Uh received unanimous uh support from the planning commission. Um and they're suggesting that we include some of the planning commission's additional if you can put the slide where we had the Yep. That's what is before us. So who would like to begin uh discussion on this? Mr. Cook. >> Yep. I uh I I'm completely fine with this. Think it's um be good to see something happen with this if it if it makes sense to I mean these have been for sale as two lots or one lot for quite a while and uh it's a beautiful piece of property and I mean it be great if I could just buy it and leave it like it is, but I'm not going to do that. So, I think uh anything we can do to make it more economically feasible to uh to have something done here, I'm in favor of. I think um the we're not eagle experts up here and so I'll let the experts let that one play out and trust that that all uh goes according to applicable laws and all that. So, I'm I'm in favor of this. >> Thank you. Who would like to go next? Miss McDonald. >> I'll go next. Mayor, thank you. Uh, I agree with Council Member Cook on all parts. I think the planning commission did a great job uh reviewing this application and I support um their recommendation with the conditions that they suggested. I also feel good about adding that additional condition where the applicant needs to send a letter to the water district. I I'd be in favor of adding that to um this approval if it has support. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Mr. Puckish. >> Yeah, I'm in alignment with my uh fellow council members here. If I would have had an issue or question, it wasn't there to be had, which was the size of the lots, which uh they're perfectly aligned and they're right smack in the middle of what else is up there. There are, I think, five lots that are bigger and six that are smaller. Uh, so that's not an issue at all with regard to the Eagles. Well, that just that comes down the pike, but it shouldn't have any effect on whether we vote on this. So, I'm in support of this. >> Thank you, Mr. Sorenson. >> I'm likewise in support of this motion for all the reasons stated. I don't don't feel necessary to repeat them. I think they've all been said. Um, the only thing I would add is I think the plan commission did do a nice thorough job in asking a lot of questions and understanding this and I agree with their conclusions. >> Okay. I I have nothing further to add. I just have a question for Mr. Schelzel. If we were to include the condition about the letter to the watershed, would it need to be a a a D or could weave it into A because they're talking about MCWD? Um, mayor, uh, I guess I'd suggest we look at the draft resolution. It's on page 58 of the packet because that has all of our all of the conditions and they're actually numbered um, in the actual resolution. Um, you know, I think for the sake of simplicity, I would just say the con, you know, you would ask for motion to adopt resolution number 41-2026 as presented with the additional condition that the applicant send uh >> notification to MCD about what >> it's to to the watershed, right? >> Do do we have a a copy of that recommendation? >> Yeah. Okay. >> Oh, in right >> because M MCWD is the Mini Haha Watershed District, correct? >> Yes. I'm sorry I missed. >> No, that's I want to make sure I I got it right. >> Yeah. So, mayor, I I think you just asked for adoption of the resolution uh 41 2026 um as presented with the additional condition that's highlighted there on the screen. I think that would be perfectly fine. >> That's what I was looking for. Okay. Any other questions before I ask for a motion? So I would ask for a motion uh for adoption of resolution 412026 with the addition that a condition of the MCWD would be uh their district staff would be notified in writing before construction commences for inspection purposes. So I'd accept a motion for that resolution. >> I'd make that motion. >> May I have a second? >> Second. >> Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. >> I. That passes 5 to zero. And thank you very much for your time this evening. Next, we're going to move on to city manager report and discussion items. Um, I just have one thing that I wanted to add after you're done. >> Okay. Very good. Uh, thank you, mayor and council. Just a couple items tonight. The first I want to promote that our last Sunday music in the park is happening this uh this coming Sunday, August 23rd, on the Great Lawn, 4:30 to 6. So, if you haven't made it, please make sure you come out and do that. Um, I also want to highlight, it's about a month out, but starting in midepptember, there will be new city-wide speed limits. They're going to be lowered citywide. So, you may start to see some changes that are um citywide speed limit has been reduced to 20 miles per hour unless otherwise posted. So, there's going to be a couple of areas around town where you will see a few deviations to that and there will be um reduced um speed signs listed like notably Weisetta Boulevard will be 30 miles per hour for a main portion of it. Um I have to give the caveat that obviously that's on our own city streets. So, we we haven't changed speed limits on county roads or state highways or things like that. Um, but just wanted to make people aware that starting in midepptember they'll they'll hopefully notice those speed limit changes and to just have general awareness unless it's posted the speed limit is 20 yetta. >> Do do we have an inventory of the ones that as posted would would be because I think um that would help alleviate uh questions that have already started coming inbound and if we could post that. >> Yeah, absolutely. Yep. We can add that to our website. >> Fronted roads or whatever whatever the >> the exemptions to the 20our. >> Yeah. The notable ones that come to mind based on the last time I reviewed it are Superior I believe is um 30 m hour and the portion of um Weisetta Boulevard as it um changes from the county to city ownership and then as it heads further west it it eventually speeds up. But okay, >> those are the two main ones that come to mind as ones that would be 30 miles per hour. >> Thank you. Mhm. >> Anything else that you had? >> That's it. >> Um I just wanted to note um that uh one of our longtime businesses changed hands and uh we had a resolution out there um recognizing the 20 plus year ownership of Ben & Jerry's that changed hands in the last I guess six months and the business is an ongoing concern. But I know there was a big celebration where there must have been uh 30 plus 40 kids, you know, that had one time worked and scooped ice cream at Ben & Jerry's, you know, first job and whatever. And it was just a really nice community event seeing all these kids who got their first job at Ben & Jerry's that now have their own little kids. So, uh kudos to the family um for that transition and um just wanted to acknowledge them here tonight. So, that's all I had. Okay. I would accept uh has anything come in on teams for the forum? >> Mr. Mayor, there is not. >> Okay. I would [clears throat] accept a motion to adjourn this evening's meeting. >> So moved. >> I have a second. >> Second. >> Uh any further discussion? All in favor say I. I. Meetings adjourn.