Uh, welcome to the um August 18th, 2025 meeting of the Wisetta Planning Commission. I hereby call the meeting to order. Uh, my name is Blake Cameron and I am the chair of the planning commission. Um, the first item on our agenda tonight is roll call. Actually, the second item, um, Director Sharp, would you please call roll? >> Certainly, Chair. Commissioner Ankeny, >> Commissioner Planton, >> here. Commissioner Schwabby >> here. >> Commissioner Severson >> here. >> Commissioner Elg >> here. >> Commissioner Vanl >> here. Chair Cameron >> here. >> Uh thank you Director Sharp. Um next on the agenda tonight is approval of tonight's agenda. Um does anyone have any questions or proposed changes to tonight's agenda? >> No. Um if not, may I have a motion to approve the agenda as presented? And so moved. >> Thank you. >> Can I have a second? >> Second. Sever. Oh, >> thank you both of you. Um, any further discussion? >> Um, all those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed? Nay. >> Um, the eyes have it. The motion passes and the agenda is approved. Um, next on the agenda tonight is the consent agenda, which is the approval of the meeting minutes from June 9th and June 16th. Um, does any commissioner um have any questions or comments on any item on the consent agenda or wish to pull any agenda um item for further discussion? >> I have a comment. >> Commissioner Severson >> on um page 21 line 44. It just says your name. It just says chair Cameron that wanted to needed to be corrected. Just noted for the record. >> Perfect. Thank you. >> Anything else? All right. Uh, may I have a motion to approve the consent agenda as a as uh presented with the amendment modified by um comm or the comment modified by chair uh Commissioner Severson. I can talk tonight. >> So moved. >> Thank you, Commissioner Vanl. May I have a second? >> Second, Schwabby. >> Thank you, Commissioner Schwabby. Any further discussion? >> All those in favor say I. I. >> Opposed? Nay. >> The eyes have it. So motion passes and the consent agenda is approved. Um next on the agenda is old business items and there is none. So we'll roll right into the public hearing. Um we have a one item on the public hearing tonight which is uh for public hearing tonight which is a variance request for 547 Harrington Road for Lakeshore Setback. Um so we'll start with the staff presentation. Uh is that you director Sharp or you planner headblum? Chair, I'll be taking this one. Perfect. We'll do a handoff very soon on a presentation coming up with a application you'll be familiar with. >> So, thank you for the introduction. Uh, as stated, this is a Lakeshore setback variance application for 547 Harrington Road. The applicants are uh Ryan Hunt and Partners, and then the property owners will present in a little bit. >> Kyle. >> Kyle. I know. That's why I paused. >> I don't know what happened. >> I didn't catch that. So, thank you. That's that's where the pause came in. I wasn't sure if that was a name that uh slipped in that I hadn't seen on an application. So, thank you for your patience. Project application is located on the west side of town. I chose to present with a uh slightly wider map for those who are unfamiliar of where this actual property might lie as it's just a smaller single family home. For greater context, this is on the west side of Harrington Road on the south side of Ferndale Road on the far western side of the community. Site is guided for estate single family. It's our uh second largest single family uh guiding and zoning within the city. It is zoned for R1A lowdensity single family estate district. The property also happens to be within the shoreland overlay zone and this has some specific ramifications and particulars for this application. I'm going to go into a little bit more of those details later with specific code language that I will try to explain and if commissioners have questions at the end of the pres presentation would welcome them. But it is essential part of this application that it is within the shoreline overlay to remind the commission as to what that means. It means that the underlying R1A zoning district and all of its provisions still stand. The overlay much as the name would in tone goes over the top and additional requirements apply. This application uh has been per the applicant's narrative. We've tried to summarize these points. I would encourage if you have specific questions about their purposes to uh uh direct these to the applicant. they will be making a presentation are present this evening so they'll be able to elaborate but essentially it was to aid in the future sale of this property uh at a future unknown date. The application does not include individual known uh proposed home details and so that is different than what the commission may be familiar with. However, it is a valid application so long as the request is clear and made to the city and still is able to present an area that would then function within if a variance were to be granted. Uh the stated purpose of this is that the applicant is stating or is seeking to improve where that buildable area were to be if the existing home were to be removed. And again, additional details here to follow. Can >> I ask a question? If you go back to the last slide, I'm sorry. >> Certainly. >> Is there any time limit in which that variance would expire like if you they have to build within a certain period of time or is it just approved indefinite? >> Chair Cameron, uh, Commissioner Steven Severson, this is something that I wanted to look up. Traditionally, we have placed uh a condition that a variance be used utilized within a year of the application. Within this, I would state that variances run with the land first and foremost. However, there have been several conditions that have been added to variances that they must apply for a building permit or show interest within that. With this, a reasonable condition could be a time frame if the planning commission so suggested. Otherwise, um it could also be left more open-ended. It appears the city attorney would also like to make a comment regarding that. >> Uh yeah. uh um uh commissioner and and chair and and planner I actually there is a there is a code provision about a one-year uh requirement so that might be what you're remembering commissioner and it's a little confusing uh because as uh planner sharp pointed out we we're dealing with two sections of code here the R section and then the shoreland overlay and but the general criteria for a variance under 905 requires that physical what I'm just pulling up the language now um uh substantially start construction of any building structure or alteration that's a part of the variance request. So um in this case I think if they they were to receive a variance they'd have to move on it within a year under 90503A. As a follow-up point to that, what we have seen is uh several applications have sought additional time that are granted typically on consent at a city council meeting if they are unable to meet that time frame. Just as a example in terms of how common that can be, particularly for larger applications that can take financing. We've done three since I've been here. I have not been with the city for a full six months yet. So, it is not an uncommon practice to grant that extension. um it would be a little bit more uncommon for a single family lot just due to the nature of typically they're bringing forward a project that gets held up at a building permit time frame. So little bit different context for you. Um so with the existing conditions just to explain uh very old home uh it is existing on the lot. It is a legal lot of record where the existing home on the property does not meet the required setbacks for the shoreland overlay. Uh this is located on a prominent bend within Lake Minnetaka. So there is uh characteristics to the property that make it uh simply due to its geography slightly unique and due to the age um is where the nonconformity specifically comes in. So, without wanting to contest the age, uh, Henipin County has one, uh, date in it. The homeowners have claimed that it's nearly 100 years old or around 100 years old. I'll let them elaborate on that. There may be substantial completion, uh, large areas of additions, etc., But uh essentially what the commission would find important from this is that the existing home in its current location is uh likely a legal non-conforming before the zoning ordinance and shoreland was applied. Before moving into the shoreland overlay and the nature of this actual application, I do want to highlight what the R1A setbacks actually require. These are met by the existing home. I also want to note just preemptively that they uh are pretty easily met by the proposed billable area proposed by the applicant. So, it applies with this application and where this really starts getting into the nitty-gritty. And we'll go into a little bit more detail on a table later that helps simplify this, but the shoreline overlay zone requires that you meet uh the four provisions here in front of you. either 75 ft from the ordinary high water line, a line drawn between the two closest riparian structures, which is what this is, and when you'll see in the next slide, the average setback of the two closest riparian structures, and then what's confusing about this is that D doesn't add an additional piece to that, but uh helps to further clarify. In this case, uh we've provided this table to help explain the different setbacks and how they apply for this lot. Uh when staff is reviewing an application for either a buildable area or a proposal, we would seek this information from an applicant. For this variant variance request, we saw the same information. Uh so in this instance, uh the 75 foot setback um is shown on the following survey. a 260 ft setback which is that line drawn and I I will highlight that as well. And then the average setback between those two structures is 244. What this means for the site and I should have tried to coordinate colors just a little bit better. Color blindness is not my strong suit here. So um what we have here is the yellow line and that's that is our uh pointto-point closest points item B from code. This is the setback that is required on that lot. One of the things I've highlighted with that and I wanted to just note for clarity as uh it had been a point that had been asked about is that sight line that's noted in the survey, it's included in your packet technically is the required setback line. So, wanted to note that on there to prevent um ensure clarity. The average setback line of 244, that's the average setback between the lot to the south and the lot to the north. So, the two single family structures on either side. And then, as you can see, that 75 foot set back to the ordinary high water line is far to the west. So these are the requirements and the analysis staff has done to determine essentially where the buildable area is which is highlighted in green. So everything to the east towards Harrington Road is the buildable area under the most stringent of those three setbacks which is what code requires in this instance. The other piece that I wanted to share with this slide was that uh where their request then starts to come in. They made a specific request for 152.5 ft setback. I'll show that on another graphical slide. This is again trying to summarize uh the slide to follow, but it essentially shares what the new proposed setback would be, what their variance is, and what the requirement is. I've got some additional clarity we can add to that, but we'll see whether that's required out of any kind of discussion. So, here's the similar slide with a couple of items removed. If there are questions, I do have some supplemental pieces to add to it if you need to um that highlight all those things, but I was trying to make things as simple as possible for the commission as I went through. The average setback line is still marked. The darker line uh that is the required setback is still shown. In this case, what the applicant is seeking is the 152.5 foot variance to shift where that line is towards uh the lake and then de facto by their application. What they've kind of looked at doing is defining where that setback would be off of the ordinary high water line similar to how the other setbacks are set up. So that's the proposed setback of 108 ft. The total required setback at the point shown is 260.5. To illustrate that point just a little bit better, added this slide to show where that required setback would be. And then what the request is is to use the 108 foot to allow for a setback in that uh larger area. uh that doesn't add substantially but does add some. Wanted to further emphasize where buildable area was and where non-buildable area was graphically. Um and then kind of show on an aerial where the two connecting points are on the closest points of those structures. So rather than the survey uh the commission and public could see it from an aerial which may be easier for some to read. Additionally, as part of the applicant's request, they have voluntarily added some information to the slides. They were two sight line lines that are not required on the application, but did add some additional context. So they took lines from neighboring property own uh neighboring properties, extended these out onto this property and created voluntary zones, the two red triangles you see here, in which they would self-restrict their building and remain out of. This would need to be a condition of approval if the planning commission and city council remove it forward and likely a graphic would be added onto a resolution if this were to be ultimately approved. But it is something that uh could be added to further restrict and ensure that there are uh restrictions on that those voluntary sighteline areas. The green area shown on this would then be the proposed buildable area for the variance. As per standard practice, staff reached out to the engineering department and other departments within the city. There were no substantive comments. There were comments from neighboring property owners. These are attached in the packet. There have been none since the amended packet went out. Uh unfortunately, because I'm not used to receiving comments on an application before I have one in, we did amend the packet after it was originally released as a comment had come in substantially before the actual application had been submitted. And so we amended the packet and that did allow us to put all public comments received to date uh available for you this evening and out for the public in the packet. Rather than go through all of the wordy slides, uh there are some standards that are that the commission are familiar with and then there are some that are a little bit less common specific to the shoreland overlay. The commission will be well familiar with these. Uh you may see in the near future as we're working with the advice of our city attorney to uh less paraphrase these but for the moment we're moving forward with the practice the commission is aware of and comfortable with these are is the proposal consistent with the comprehensive plan. Is the variance being sought a reason or reasonable? Is the plight due to uh of the land owner due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by that land owner? would the variance alter the essential character of the property and locality and uh the economic considerations alone do not constitute a practical difficulty. These are also pulled straight from state statute. So these are consistent with all cities across Minnesota. The additional criteria are pulled straight from code and they're here for your reference. They're included in your packet on uh one of the final pages. I think second to last page for your reference as you are deliberating. Um I will do my best to summarize these verbally so that you uh we can move through a little bit faster. But the minimum setback is from the ordinary high watermark and it must be 75 ft or I'm sorry, let me state that more clearly. The minimum setback from the ordinary high watermark must be 75 ft. The setback shall not adversely impact views of the shoreline or lake for adjacent neighboring principal structures. As a reminder, a principal structure would be the home, not a shed or pool or deck or boat structure or etc. Um, and then the reduction of that setback is based upon the specific need or circumstance unique to the property. In items D and E, just to add some clarity, D is a plan that usually comes in at the time of building permit. We have proposed already preemptively in your staff report to make that a condition of approval should the commission uh seek to recommend approval going forward. And then section E is uh likely an item that will end up on the list to speak with our city attorney about as it refers to the standard variance provisions that we've already shared with you. and uh section I'm sorry I want to make sure I get it. Yep. 905 and then 99.20 happens to be this section. So it's essentially stating that it has to follow the rules of the shoreland overland zone. this evening. Uh what we're seeking from action for the planning commission is to hold the public hearing, receive all public comments, close the public hearing, and the direct staff to prepare a uh draft planning commission report and recommendation with appropriate findings. With that, I'm available for any questions. The applicant is also present for a presentation as well. >> Commissioners, anybody have questions for Dr. Chaff? Yes, Mr. Schwabby. Um, so this house was built in 1929 and then the house to the north was built in 1976 and the house to the south in 2016. So the house to the north, which I think influences this whole thing quite a bit, had to be moved back far, how many feet was it? almost 300 ft to accommodate the fact that there is a a marshy area in front of the lake for them. So that set one of the parameters. Am I right about that? >> That is all correct, uh, Commissioner. >> Okay. And then the property to the south, which is 549, it is set back 189 ft. Is that right? I would want to check a slide that we've created to verify that, but we I think we included that in your packet. Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. I just wanted to ask you um he could have he could have built that h home at 75 ft. Is that correct? Did he have a choice there or was he required to be at 189 ft? >> The home would have needed to meet the home to the south. Just to make sure you're correct or that I'm speaking to the correct property. Correct. Can you please say that again? I'm sorry. >> Yeah, not a problem. So, you're referring to the 549. >> Yes. >> Harrington Road. Okay. >> 549. >> 549 Harrington would be required to meet the same provisions as 547. So, it would be subject to the greatest of the three setbacks similar to this property. In fact, so it likely could not have gone any closer than its current setback >> because of 553 >> because of both adjacent properties, but 553 being one of them. So it would have needed to meet the line drawn between those two points. It would have needed to meet the average and clearly it meets the 75. So I suspect with that home that it meets the uh closest point drawn between the two and likely to some degree benefited from 547 being closer to the lake than uh the home to the south. >> Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that. Do do you know if this riperian issue came up at the time that 20 that uh 549 was built? >> Uh chair commissioner uh Schwabby, this would have been because a variance was not sought for. It would have been a staff review item that would have been required at the time of building permit. If it had been a variance, the planning commission would have seen it. The city council >> Oh, it didn't require a variance. >> No, it would not have required a variance to build that. It would have been a review at that time. >> Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? I >> I have just one clarification to make sure that uh I understand. So, if if this variance uh isn't granted and somebody wanted to um remodel that house possibly with uh an addition, they would need to get a variance because of the setback rules. Correct. >> Chair Cameron, uh Commissioner Vanl, you you asked two questions there, so I'm going to split them apart. They could model remodel the existing home and not increase any of the non-conformities by this existing footprint. No additional height, not closer essentially no additional square footage even closer to Harrington Road because the it still wouldn't meet the required setbacks. >> You said add an addition that would trigger the need for a variance. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I have one more question, >> Mr. Schwabi. Okay. So, if we go by those lines that you showed us earlier, the site or the closest point set back, it it there's there's not a lot of building area behind those lines. Do you have do you have any thoughts about how big of a house could go there given >> Chair Cameron, Commissioner Schwabi, based upon some of the materials submitted a little bit later. Uh but also visual inspection of this property. There's a significant incumbrance to staying within the green shaded area on uh the graphic in front of you. uh it is difficult to state uh from a staff role what then what an appropriate variance might be whether that be what the applicant has asked for or somewhere in between that is where staff uh would note that this is a pretty significant encumbrance and I've tried to show that through the application >> and then essentially seek input from planning commission and council as that uh really falls into your category of the evaluating and making a judgment on the provisions of a variance uh that are standard throughout and those that apply only to shoreland. So there's there's certainly a significant number of tree disruptions. There's also grade issues that the applicant I think will be able to highlight within the area that's green. So the does that help address your question? >> Could I ask one more quick one? >> Of course. >> Okay. If the property to the north does not have an objection to 108 ft, um, does it change this at all because that person doesn't care if their sight line is changed? >> Chair Cameron, Commissioner Schwabby, the commission shall utilize adjacent comments. We mail out to all properties within 500 feet, but it is a judgment call on your part which properties may how how you utilize the information provided by those. The one item that I would note is that one of the comments included in your packet was from the property to the north. >> Right. >> Thank you. Appreciate it. >> Anyone else? >> Yeah. Can I just >> Mr. Severson, >> please? So this closest point setback, this is done for sighteline reasons, not Lake Minnotonka being too close to the lake reasons. Is that what I'm understanding? >> The intent of this particular measurement is not specifically called out. All three are called out into the intent of the shoreland overlay which is to pres preserve the Minnotonka shoreline for sighteline reasons for all of that. My read is that it is largely due to sightelines. However, that is an interpretation. Um the overall intent of the shoreland chapter is does not site this individual section as to how it needs to be evaluated. >> Okay. Shoreland does include specific provisions for setbacks, which is those provisions you saw you saw and your additional ones the commission hasn't worked through as commonly. >> Okay. >> But uh we do have a number of cases that we included in the packet that you've gone through and highlighted which ones were similar and have that information available should there be any questions on them. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else? All right. Well, then we will um uh next we're going to hear from the applicant. So, um applicant uh please come forward um introduce yourself and provide your name and address for the record and your role on the um applicant's team, I guess, which we know. [Music] Uh, commissioners, thank you for uh, allowing me to be here tonight. My name is Kyle Hunt. I am with Kyle Hunt and Partners. I am a builder on an everyday basis for the last 35 years, but in this case, I'm acting as a consultant for the owners, the Swanson family who are here this evening. Um, who live at two of them live anyway at 547 Harrington Road. My address uh office address is 18324 Minnetonka Boulevard in Deep Haven. Do you need a my home address for any reason? Okay. >> No, that's good. Thank you. Yeah, thank you for um allowing me to be here and uh thank you Alex for your work on this and your explanation. Um any questions that I should be thinking about right off the bat or should I just start in? I would just roll right in and we we'll uh we'll cue some questions up and and hit you at the end when you're uh after you're done. >> All right. I do want to plant one question. >> I check that. Commissioner has a question. >> Uh be sure to share with us how you landed at 108 ft. >> Okay. Why why that why that specific distance was selected. >> Okay. I will I'll try to get there. That was a school. Um, many of these slides that I'm going to show are maybe things that you already are aware of. So, I don't want to read this out loud. I think um, much of it might be review, but I do want to allow you to look at the slide. And if you want to acknowledge that I should roll to the next, I'm happy to do that. Some of them I'm going to be speaking to um, extensively. Can you hear me fine? I'm okay. >> Yeah, >> good with the with that first slide. Okay. Um, this is a copy of the survey. This is very similar to or maybe even the same of of what Alex presented. Um, it's just giving the basic um understanding of the 75 foot setback. uh what we were proposing as the 108 u based on uh the 152.4 being really a measurement that happened in the middle because Alex had wanted a measurement so that we could establish something even though the the line is skewed. It will cause the north half to be different size than the south half. Um it's harder to read on the survey. I've we've tried to use better um depictions by superimposing various aspects of what you can get online now these days to to represent this. Um this SLI slide uh essentially talks about the yellow line that's furthest uh to the right uh in your viewing of this. um that is the line that we're speaking about that is um the code setback based on uh 991.09. And so this representation of that just kind of gives you an idea. Here's where 75 ft setback is. And then the 108 was really established by just an idea of all of us, the family members, giving some input to um how how we thought about this home being here for it. It it it may have been remodeled in 1929, but it's it has a pre-life to that. So, it's it's been been there for a long time. Um, and as you you'll notice in some of the other slides, uh, and what Alex pointed out, there is a prominent bend. uh you couldn't call it a point I suppose but somebody somebody might try to um but th this makes this turn and if you look at how in one of the other slides that I'm going to present you'll look at how these lines start to make some representative uh border um and so we'll get to that here in a moment um this is a slide guide too that uh essentially gives you the buildable and non-buildable area, but just want to kind of hit the bullet points. And maybe you guys have read all of this, but I'll I'll just talk about it. Dick and Elaine Swanson are here this evening. They've lived at 547 uh for over 45 years. Um they're at a stage in their life where they're recognizing they need to uh think about uh making a change. And so they're looking at selling the property and we are caught with the quandry of chicken and egg. How do we look at selling the property? At the same time, how does a um how does a buyer recognize what are they buying? So one could make the argument, which I'm sure we'll hear tonight, that uh we should be bringing an exact plan. Well, that may not happen and could not happen at the present time. And so we're here uh with a request that might be considered somewhat or unorthodox, but I've seen it done in other cities many times. Um so I don't think you're being presented with something that's, you know, overly awkward. Um the the aspect of what we're trying to accomplish with this is to show that the line that you're seeing on the yellow line on this connecting the two neighboring properties recognizing that the property at 543 uh which is to the north um had to build the topography isn't really known are shown here, but the topography, if you've visited the site, is dramatically different. That home sits up on a knob, if you will, and falls off pretty quickly in the woods that you see that is between the home and the marsh area, which is really kind of this open green area. Um, Craig Swanson is here this evening, too. And he remembers growing up, and you correct me if this is a wrong story, Craig. Uh, remembers that at one point in time when that area wasn't being it's being pumped right now. I mean, that the city has a pump that basically brings water out of that marsh area so that it's not flooded, but that was ice skating capable when they were growing up. Um, just to give you some sense of how marshy that might be. So, it's it's a non-buildable area um even for the neighbors. And what we want to try to recognize is that although this code is in place, I'm sure when it was put in place, it was maybe to direct some unnavorly conduct. I I'm only guessing um and in because I've seen this in other parts of the lake and it's really the only other place that it is is in Orum. Everyone else has dismissed this because if you look at this in a hundred years, you're going to march everybody back to the street if you make them fulfill this obligation time and time again as as properties get modified and progress keeps going. Um, so I I I would say Alex and I were talking, I would say that you this would this would be a good code to relook at. Oro is relooking at it as we speak. Um, I'll go on to the next slide. Uh, this just gives you a little bit more information. Um, looking through at the properties. Um, I won't read all of that. I you've had that in your packet. Um, I'll let you consume that, but and there'll be questions along the way. This slide I think uh tells the the greatest story of uh what is happening in a couple of situations just on Harrington Road and on in this case this prominent bend in the shoreline as well as Lookout Point which is on your far right. Um you can see we've applied this yellow line just basically saying that's the yellow line that we're following and and Alex correct me uh is B is the portion we're looking at where we're we're looking at the two neighboring repairarian properties and we're striking a line from closest to the lake to closest to the lake. And so when you look at this, it's a configuration of all of that if you were to apply it one property after another. And so um the neighbor at 549 was able to take advantage of the Swanson's location when they built their home in 2016 and 17 when it was under construction. they were able to build closer to the lake because of how the Swanson home is positioned. Um, if you if you look at some of the possibilities of what that could have been, uh, it could be dramatically different. And if we move ourselves down to Lookout Point, um, just a handful of years ago, this uh, situation similar or almost exactly the same as what we're looking at here. I don't know if any of you members were involved in the variance that was achieved uh for the owner at Lookout Point, but they had you can see their yellow line basically took the lion share of the lot and left a little neck portion if you just think of just to the north. If you can see those property lines, probably would have been better to have a little bit different color there. Uh but essentially the lot would have been deemed unbuildable and they received I don't know how that went through planning commission but they received a five to zero vote in favor of a variance for how that house is positioned now. Uh, and you can see the neighbors, um, even the neighbor to the north, uh, and slightly east, their their line, um, cuts off part of their property as well as the next neighboring property to the north. A good chunk of their home is outside of that. But to note here is that the variance was granted for that property. And you can see how similar um the situation might be here. Even though that prominent bend uh may not be considered a point, it's acting like a point in how um this whole aspect works. So when we move, this is just a little honing in on what happened down at Lookout Point. You can just see it in a little bit more closer proximity. um just helps give you a little bit more of a visual. But that property, not only the the original structure or excuse me, not original, the proposed structure which is in red, the there is a boat house, if you will, um that was was left intact. And I guess with Weisetta that probably can be that way because they have a boat house. Um they allow boat houses which I think you're the only ones on the lake that do which I applaud you for. Um so I think Alex has explained this just as well as this slide does. Um what we're looking for in the variance. Um, Commissioner El, did we did I answer enough on how we got to the 108? It was pretty vague. It was not vague, but it was it was based on just the understanding of where where are we improving on the setback, moving it away from the lake, where are we likely not to remove significant more significant trees? Where does the topography help us gain the best position? Where is it still out of sight with the neighbors in the context of how I believe the code reads? All of those things were considered. And I I want you to remember that the the other um restrictive factor that's going to come into play that ultimately will help decide position, size, etc. of a home is the imperous service surface coverage which will be at 25%. And we are currently at 21.08% 08% with the current home, driveways, um, walkways, anything that had hard cover, we've collected so that you can see that this home or this property is under the regulation, but it leaves you with four around 4%, but you get to shuffle the deck on how you want your 25% to be allocated. But that is going to restrict how that possible building envelope could be utilized. And I'll I've got another slide at some point here that will help us with that. Um we believe that uh this variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the ordinance and our reasoning behind that is right there and we are improving the setback. Um the variance is cons consistent with the comprehensive plan. We feel it falls within that. There's the anomaly of having the neighbor and the uh to the north and the the marsh land imposes that line to be radically different than all of the properties you just saw in that other slide. Um, how do I play that video? It's in I have to click somehow on that picture. >> Oh, this is a video. >> Yes, this is a There you go. >> Okay. So, we we had um a drone shot. So, there there is a Can we pause it or is there any way to pause at times? Maybe. >> Sorry. >> Okay. I'm sorry. I can't control that. Right. Okay. Um I I just want to point out a couple of things. Um there is uh an arborvite hedge that you see behind the larger maple uh which is essentially the just the trunk the big trunk that you see is a is a maple tree and beyond that is a arborvite hedge that then the owners of 549 have planted as part of their landscaping efforts at the end of construction. Um, it's there. It's been planted by them for visual purposes. Um, we'll hear otherwise. Uh, but that it's there. And what I want to point out here is we're going to show you some shots. It's a little herky and jerky because that's how things go these days with how the drones work evidently. But I'm, if you can notice on the right hand side where the chimney kind of goes up and into the white space of the sli above the slide, that corner where there's a down spout, you're going to notice in a picture. So I want you to understand the drone shot is up at that elevation, which is at the fascia line, which would be where the gutter is at the second story of of the Swanson's home as it's currently built. So, if you want to run that for a second, you'll kind of see we're going to So, that there's the hedge and there is us turning back towards the Swanson house. And then we're going to go and we're going to hover that at that second floor elevation and we're going to look towards the neighboring property at 549. And we really can't see their house. We can't see their patio. We can't see much of anything. And the reasoning I put this here is that is this further restrictive line that we have put ourselves under voluntarily to help understand that we we're looking to honor the neighbor's visual uh at 549 and at 543. So hopefully that helps depict um what we're looking for there. Whoops. I guess I can control that. Um this is another I think helpful slide. Um it basically gives um many of the different uh pieces and parts uh to what we're talking about. Again, that white line that reaches from property neighboring property to neighboring property is the line that we're speaking of. The yellow area that has kind of this the yellow shading up to that line is our proposed building envelope that we would like to be able to construct in. And you can see it is not impinging on 549 which would be to the in this slide it would be the lower property into their visual area from the home. You're going to see just like if you stood out on their patio now, you could see the Swanson home possibly and you're going to for sure see the Uline home that is being constructed to the south. Do I have my directions correct? Um, any questions or again, I'm not going to read this to you because I feel like you guys have all of this in your packet and have have looked at that and I'm willing to back up on any of these, of course. Um, the practical difficulties here are not related to economic considerations alone. I think everything that I just showed on the slide presentation warrants that the reason for this variance request is not related to economic conditions alone. Will they have an impact on it? Absolutely. With no one's no one's saying they will or they won't on that. I mean you will. Um the pra practical difficult difficulties are all related to the unique aspects of how this property is on the bend in the lake shore and on the idea that the neighboring property is set back so far from the lake that it's an anomaly that I don't think this code would thought of when it was put in place. Um, all right. I just want to before I walk into these slides, um, make sure I'm in my right spot. If you don't mind take me taking a moment. >> Absolutely. Okay. Um, all right. Bear with me here just a moment because I'm now going to read, which I don't really like doing. All right. You're going to hear um from the owner's council later tonight that they would have you believe the landscape in place is of no importance to this situation. the reference that they make in their statement about the kitchen window view from Cozantino's which is 549 to the Swanson's nearest windows at 547. I just want you to recognize there what they're describing is window to window approximately 170 ft apart currently. The owners at 549 took advantage of the nonconforming setback of the Swanson's home 547. When they stated their new home, when they cited their new home uh at 549, it was under the pretense of knowing that this was a nonconformity and they ended up taking advantage of it. I I think it's rather bold of them to now say that they're going to speak against the Swanson's uh and use the aspect of this merit against them. I just think it doesn't make logical sense. The owner of 549's 549's attorney points out in his narrative that sections 991.01 of the code and 901.03 list to maintain and preserve property values is the general purpose of the intent of the ordinance. If this is so then it cannot be used as a manner in the manner that would not maintain or preserve the property values of the Swanson property. I have to believe this use was never intended when first written. It was intended to help not harm. In this situation with all the unique factors it is inflicting harm. The owner of 549's attorney would have you believe that the economic considerations are the sole motivation for this variance. This is false statement. You've seen what is considered in front of you. That is not the sole motivation. The city of Weisetta and Henipin County have been assessing 547, the Swanson's property, under the pretense that the property is being used for its highest and best use for decades. To not allow relief from this obvious anomaly would break the bond of highest and best use. any future owner would be harmed if the and the maintenance to maintain and the preservation of the property value of the Swanson of Swanson's if it was not properly addressed. So I want you to consider those points when you review what's coming after me uh in my presentation. Um, I'm near the end here. Um, I want to go back to slide six if I can figure that out. Can you tell me when I'm at six? I don't have the numbering here. >> You're at six. >> There. So, I I just want everyone to see where the where you see the 547 out in the water at the subject property that we're talking about. You can see this prominent bend um in that and that that that gives you some sense of looking to the south, all of the homes are facing out onto I'm gonna say more of the main lake, right? because Browns Bay is off to the west and this is their their views are a bit more southerntherly. So, they're all trying to take advantage of their best views and they're running typically parallel with the shoreline if you notice that. And so, we get to this bend as we move uh around towards 547. And it's going to be an obvious conclusion that whoever ends up doing something on this property in the future is going to do what whoever originally came up with the idea of citing where the Swanson home was cited. they are going to follow suit and run parallel with the shoreline that is out in front of 547 which is significantly different than the shoreline in front of the rest of them. So there's going to be this bend and I think when you strike a line, if you were to strike a line from the home that is now built and received a variance at Lookout Point and you strike a line right on down to the Swanson house, you can see it even in your mind's eye. I I should have probably struck a line there, but in any case, you can see that it's consistent and even the Swanson home hits that consistency. Now, 543 543 to the north, uh Joan Joanne Levvenworth's property, who has written a lovely letter supporting what the Swanson's want to do. She has been there for many many years as well. And um because of tree locations and so forth, I didn't even bother to show a slide on what you can see back from Swanson's house to her house because you can't. It's all trees. Um, so I wanted to just end on the idea that we just feel it's it's reasonable to conclude that a variance if a variance was granted at lookout point for a very similar if not the same scenario. It seems reasonable to consider that in similarity to a vote uh for this application. And I'm open to answer questions. Thank you, Mr. Hunt. Um commissioners, any questions for the applicant or follow-up questions for staff? This might be something that staff doesn't know, but if we if we would provide this variance at 108 uh to 547, uh would that put 549 into a non-conforming state so that they would require a variance if they did an addition or uh or god forbid something happened to that house and they had to rebuild? Commissioner, can you restate the beginning of that? If you were to use >> So, so if we provide if we grant this variance to 547 for the Swanson's uh and a house is built there because now um that house is 10 ft or or more back is 549 non-conforming. >> Chair, good question. I understand it. I'm trying to make sure that I can answer it >> it it accurately and not definitively state something that I can't document 100% here. >> There's a potential that uh >> would be >> yes I want to bring up my presentation because it got an aerial that the orientation is correct that'll help. So, this is about as close of an aerial as what we have of these two sites, but we can try to bring one up. Uh, if you want to drop one into the folder for me. >> The property at 549 Harrington is oriented from north south at a slight angle with it closest point being on the northern side. There's the potential that by dropping this line back that they there is a portion of that home that could become within the non nonconformity because that is a line. There's likely a section that is retained as well. I wouldn't be able to state definitively that they are right up against that setback line. They may have built with some level of uh leeway built into that, but it is the widest part of the home and the closest portion of the loan uh closest portion of the home to the lake in terms of its orientation. We're going to see if we can drop an aerial in just for you to be able to see that uh a little bit higher zoom in value. >> That'd be helpful. Thank you. And certainly if uh the further back uh uh anything would be built on 547 that would that would uh bring this situation uh more to fruition in terms of 549 being non-conforming. Correct. >> Chair Commissioner, the further back that 547 would be built, >> the more nonconformity that could affect any future. Uh, now to address one piece of your question, they could do remodeling with an existing footprint. They have quite a bit of rights for an existing home. Um, I'm going to grab that photo and bring that up for you to be able to see as well. >> May I make a comment? >> Sure. >> I do have a copy of the survey um for 549 and this is only me speaking after seeing it. I don't have it with me, but it's at my office. And they they brought the home right up to the line currently. >> Just for reference, I mean to to help with with your question, Commissioner Van. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Chair, Commission, this shows it prominently that the uh prominently is probably the incorrect word. there is a a orientation to the house where it angles slightly closer. Uh, however, here's where I don't want to answer definitively and I'm glad that we were able to look. The land also extends out in that section. So, there's a unique circumstance there that is the possibility that I don't want to it's why I was hesitant to answer definitively. We would need to look at the site survey and do a full site review similar to how we would with this proposal to fully determine effects. >> Understand? Thank you. Anyone else have questions for the applicant or staff? >> All right. Um, thank you, Mr. Hunt. >> Yeah. One last comment. >> Sure. Commissioner Vanly, your representative example shows you exactly how if this marches forward over time with this kind of an ordinance, how you keep marching back to the point where everyone's going to be pushed up against the road um over time. I may not be may not be in our lifetimes or even in our children's lifetime, but sometime if this is left the way it is, that's what's going to happen. and someone's going to go, "Stop. That does this doesn't make sense." Just my comments. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. I appreciate >> Yep. Thank you. Um so now I'd like to turn turn to the public hearing. Um couple comments on the public hearing. The public hearing is a time for us to listen to members of the community about the requests we are considering. Um it's an important part of the process um to give the public a voice um and a venue to participate. Um any questions asked during the public hearing will be held until the end of the hearing and may be addressed at staff by staff at that point. Um so with that said um I will now open the public hearing. Um if you'd like to speak um please uh step up to the um podium um state your name and address for the record. Um and we'll go from there. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, uh my name is Christopher Pearson. I'm a lawyer with the law firm of uh Sanford Pearson Throne and Stre here in Wisetta 1905 East Wisetta Bulbard sweet uh sweet 200 uh 55391. Um I represent u Dan and Stacy Kazantino, the owners of 549 Harrington Road as we've just seen the property to the south. U can I just get a little clarification? I was told a little while ago that we had three to five minutes. I'm hoping that in light of the robust discussion so far, maybe I can have a bit more than that. U but >> we we generally try to limit the public um public comments to three to five minutes. >> All right, I will see what I can do. I will edit on the fly. >> Perfect. >> Um so um the Kazantos are unable to attend tonight uh due to a long-standing family commitment. Uh they did hope to be here but uh are not able to. Also, uh I'm so I I will be here on the behalf. We've uh submitted fairly extensive written materials and I believe those are in your packet. Um the renderings that you'll see tonight were generated by the Mohen Hansen architectural firm uh here in Wisetta. Actually, I think they're just across the border into over on Boulevard. Um my plan was to make five points. In light of the time, I may make only three. Um so I need the clicker. There we go. We'll skip this one. Those are the five points and we'll go jump right into it. The first point I want to make has to do with section 991093 of the code. This is the operative and controlling section at work here. I'm going to I'm going to take the time to read it to you because I think it's very important that we understand exactly what it says. The required setback setback distance may be reduced by variance if the following conditions are met. And then it lists five lists five conditions. One of those conditions is that the setback shall not adversely impact views of the shoreline or leg for adjacent neighboring principal structures. Now my reading of that statute is you have to satisfy each of those five conditions. It says if the following conditions are met. So if we don't satisfy B, we don't have to worry about all the rest of that stuff, all the balancing of of of factors and the whole 905 um analysis. So to me, the key question is does this proposed variance will it likely affect the views adversely of the in my case the Kazantos or the Levvenworths who who weren't here. So um let me go here. This is the view from the kitchen door of the Kazantino's property. Now, does it impact the view? Let me go, let me first note the white structure. The white area you see on the left there, that is uh the area in which a structure could be built given the setbacks that are being sought. Okay. Uh that's a 35 foot structure as as allowed uh by the code. So that's from the front door. This is a little bit out onto the patio. Okay. I don't think there's much question that this is impairing the adversely impacting the views of the Sorantinos of the lake shore of Lake Minnetonka. Now, if I can make a request, can we go back to slide six um in Mr. Hunt's presentation? because a a a big deal was made out of the fact that if that line the set the setback line running along the the south here continued, uh then what they're proposing would would be just fine. But that disregards the whole idea that the the the bend in the in the in the shoreline actually takes place right there. So if an equivalent setback were imposed, it would be behind the Swanson house, the red house. It would bend with the shoreline. All right, enough of that. Let's let's let me go back to my materials. All right. So in my book that view those those renderings mean that the proposed variance does not satisfy part B of the ordinance and therefore the variance cannot be granted. That's the plain reading of the statute. That's what it says. All right. Now, on the off chance that you don't think that's controlling or as controlling as I do, let me switch to another point and I this is a simple point and I think uh I think Mr. Hunt mentioned it that is that approving this variance would be inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of this ordinance by hurting the value of the Kazantino property. Section 90501 allows granting of such variances only when the variances are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this ordinance. And as he mentioned, code sections 999101 stating the purposes of chapter 9991 and 90103 stating the intent of part nine of the code lists maintaining or preserving property values as a general purpose or intent of the ordinance. Now, I understand his argument that goes both ways. >> Mr. Pearson. >> Yes, ma'am. Can I interrupt you for a second? >> Yes. >> Um, the purpose of this public hearing isn't to rebut um the commentary of Mr. Hunt. It's to just provide commentary repres I understand you're representing your clients, but I'd like to understand from your client's perspective their concerns, not the rebuttal to uh Mr. Hunt's comments. >> Well, very well. But this point was that we are considering the intent and the purpose of the ordinance. Okay. My third point is the e the economic considerations issue. Okay. Economic considerations alone cannot constitute practical difficulties. That's the language of the code. Now I I want to the phrase call a spade a spade comes to mind. The owners want to be able to market the property to people who will want to tear down the existing home and build a new one. And having a variance in place like the one sought would make it easier to sell the property and sell it for more. I get that. I understand it. I don't fault them for for trying. And I also understand, you know, claims uh like it'll be simpler and less expensive for a new buyer if this variance is already in place. And it's difficult to agree on a sale price if you don't know the buildable area. And who's going to pay all the design and engineering fees if the buyer can't get all approvals needed? But those are all economic considerations. I don't see any non-economic considerations here. The idea that mo of motivating concern is a reasonable use of the property for a future owner, it it doesn't hold water. There are all sorts of purchase agreements entered into every day that are contingent on getting certain approvals or changing purp purchase price based on the size of a buildable area. Any prospective owner of this lot should go through the development process just like any other prospective owner of any other lot. Why treat this lot differently? This reasonable use of the property for a future owner in my mind is just another way of saying that without this variance we can't market the property as effectively as we could with the variance. I believe economic consider considerations alone drive this application. Now next point there isn't a need for the variance as large as the one sought. And this is this is why we say that if you look at the buildable area proposed by the applicant the proposed building area essentially everything colored up there. Well, let me go there. Let's go here now. I'm going to go back. All right. The yellow area as it would be without the white overlay. the structure is their proposed buildable area. Okay, so it's 100 108 ft from the high water mark and 20 foot side setbacks. If we go here, what we show is if you consider a different a hypothetical build buildable area that is pulled back from the west to the east at the lake shore to a point defined by the yellow or the red line on the left of the yellow area. That line is defined by two points and those two points are the intersection of the sight line to the Levvenworth property to the north with the 20 foot existing setback variance and the sight line of the Kazantino uh property, the sight line where it intersects that same 20 foot uh setback on the south. If you were to draw a line there and in anticipation of a question, Commissioner Vanloy, that's the rationale. It's further back and it but there's no magic necessarily in that particular line other than the fact that if we trim that by that additional set back from the lakes shore and we take a little more up from the setback on the south side then and there that's what I that's what it would be in that case um That green structure is one of the proposed houses that was in the applicant's um packet, their application of a house that could be built or couldn't be built without the without the uh variance. But if you see if you take that green structure and move slide it back slightly to the east and slightly to the south it clearly fits in this much smaller buildable area. So the idea that we have to have this setback way way out of the 108 ft is is questionable at best. Um, >> I'll give you 30 more seconds to wrap it up. >> Okay. Well, the point of that is you can build a very lovely, very, very large house in the in this much smaller area. So, to close, I think to me, I think the biggest issue is that this is as how far this varies from the typical development process. Where are the construction plans? Where are the grading plans? Where are the hard coverver calculations? What are the elevations? The Kazantos are essentially being asked to consent or not object to something that they don't know what it is. You know, what is going to be built in this variance? Isn't a variance a function of what's going to be built in it? What it's going to be used for? You know, in the development world, these things are dealt with all the time by purchase agreements that are contingent and have upscales for or upgrades. if you can get a larger buildable area. Um and finally um to me development is a process and this is a variation from that process. We should be pushing hard to find out what's going to be in this buildable area. Um and if it's we we all know that if this is approved the city is going to be asked again and again in the future to do the same thing which leads to development by peace meal and which maybe won't be done by people as honorable as Mr. Hunt and Mr. Swanson. So uh with that um I will conclude. I I'm happy to answer any questions. I ask that this presentation and and my materials be made part of the minutes and uh thank you very much. >> Can I ask a question? >> Thank you, Mr. Pearson. Uh sure. >> I do have a question, Mr. Pearson. >> Yes, ma'am. >> So, in this rendering number five, I'm I I want to make sure I'm reading it right. Are you suggesting a variance of 114 ft rather than 108? >> Thanks for the question. I would like to address this. It is not the job of the Kazantos or my job tonight or anywhere in this propo in this process to essentially make a counter offer to what is proposed. Okay, we're saying that's a hypothetical line further back that would accommodate at least one and maybe more of the of the possible houses that were submitted. That's I'm going to stop you right there because that's out of scope anyways for this because what they've asked for is 152. And so our job is to decide whether we recommend approval of that 152 or recommend denial. There's there's no other there's no other measurement that's under consideration tonight other than what they've asked. >> I I I thought that's what I was saying. They were they've asked for 108 ft of a front setback for a setback. >> Yeah. Sorry. 108 whatever whatever it is. Yeah. Help me out. So what I'm saying is we're not here to propose something. >> No, >> we just we think there's something less than 100 ft that would that would suffice. And I would like to add if it's all right, the Constantinos are not out to make this lot unbuildable. That's not their goal here. They understand that there will probably be some variance granted because the circumstances merit it. They just think this one is a step too far and they would like to see the development process play out and be complete. So they're not being asked to consent or asent to a variance without knowing in a vacuum without knowing what's going to go in it. >> Perfect. Thank you, Mr. Pearson. Anyone else? >> Awesome. Um, Director Sharp, do we have anybody on teams with any comments or questions or anybody? I'm sorry. Anybody would like to speak? >> Perfect. >> Yeah, please uh step forward to the step up to the podium and introduce yourself and um state your name and address for the record. >> Excuse me. Dick Swanson. I live at the moment at 547 Harrington Road and a lot of this discussion is above my pay grade. So I'm not quite sure I understand at all. However, that being said, uh the one thing I did want to encourage is all of the council me or the plan commission members to come out and I'd be glad to meet with them if they'd like and view the site because you cannot begin to understand what we're talking about here from a survey. Uh for instance, the u the part of the land that uh some of our folks that the opposition I guess would like to see on is probably I can't imagine anybody would ever build down there. It's below our driveway down below in the narrow part of the land. So uh we have stakes we have staked out the variance line. So it's very if you come out and see the house you can see it and with a couple of folks in the past I've walked them over to Kosentino's and stood at their viewpoint which is their inside swimming pool and look along our line on the variance request and you can't see anything of our house. So, uh, we have, uh, agonized over drawing those lines, as tight as they are, and we think we've done more than enough to observe all of the nicities of being neighbors and good residents of. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Swanson. >> Chair, at this time, there's no one wishing to speak on teams. >> Cool. Um, anybody else present that would like to speak? All right. Uh I will now close the public hearing. Um commissioners, do you have any um any additional questions uh for staff or the applicant at this point or any questions that were raised um during the public hearing that you'd like staff to address? >> I have one. >> Commissioner Schwabi. So there is not another opportunity that the Constantinos would have to see the plan to see the final drawing presentation of what of what this new building would be like. >> Chair Cameron, uh, Commissioner Schwabby, there would be an opportunity if they would like to come into city hall to view plans during a building permit project. However, at that time, if a plan met all building codes, all zoning codes, it would be allowed to be or permitted to move forward, >> including if we recommend >> or any conditions as recommended and thus approved and immortalized within the resolution essentially. So, it would need to be subject to all of those pieces. They would have the availability to view them. Traditionally, architectural plans are copyrighted materials and cannot be sent out. They must be viewed uh here on site and are made available by staff. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> And that wouldn't include if they come forward and ask for additional variances. Correct. Right. So the new homeowners or the new land owners say, "Well, this doesn't meet what I need or it's not enough or I need something else." And they would still have to come back here and at that point building plans would be available. My understanding, >> Chair Cameron, >> potentially this same situation. Chair Cameron and Commissioner Severson, correct? Any additional variances, they would need to be able to provide whatever plans were required to review that variance to the planning commission. And those then would be public documents that could be shared on the website, similar to this application or any other application. >> I have a question for staff. Do we have um a topography plan or anything to see how that drops off? I know um the property the Levvenworth's to the north. It drops off quite severely. Um >> there was one in in here that had >> a survey. >> Yeah, there was one of the surveys has um >> has uh lines on it elevation. >> Chair Cameron talking about Commissioner Planton. Yeah, we'll bring that up just shortly. >> Okay. >> 549 is rather is um a little flatter. You know, the sites change and become much more hilly as we go north. It's the um it's this one. It's the second survey document >> that's in the packet >> page 38 >> um 39 Okay. Thank you, >> chair. We're also bringing up a aerial that we have with the topo from Henipin County. >> Okay. >> On it. the survey will be significantly more accurate. Uh it does show uh good representation with the vegetation um on the aerial that would add some additional context that we'll have for you shortly as well. Um question for you staff. um in terms of uh the nature of the request which is you know I guess I I would think I think of it as you know they're looking for a variance without a a building so they're really looking to for a variance on a building envelope or building pad. Um is that something we've done in the past to the best of your knowledge as a city level? Chair Cameron, to my knowledge, uh, and looking back through the past cases that were presented in the packet, no, we've had building plans. Okay. >> It is a valid application to accept without >> for sure. And I think, you know, Yeah. Okay. I Well, >> Chair, I might just add to, you know, I haven't done the research that staff has in past applications. Um, one analogous situation though is a subdivision application where we often don't have building plans and the criteria in the subdivision application actually calls us to look at them if they're there. So, um, yeah, I think staff staff deemed the application complete. Um, it's obviously something that would be nice to have on one level for a lot of these questions, but um, I think staff deemed the application complete. Okay. >> So, this is the Henipin County view >> chair. That is correct. >> Okay. >> For illustrative purposes, uh, good for discussion this evening. >> Right. Directionally correct. >> Anybody else questions for staff or the applicant before we pull it into discussion? All right, commissioners. Um, thoughts. >> I'll make some comments. >> Sure. >> It is without question that this property will require a variance at some point. My first question was why was 108 ft arrived at? Because when I first looked at the table, I thought perhaps the variance uh was for 108 ft and the setback would be 158 ft, which seemed more reasonable if those two numbers had just been flipped. Um I'm also challenged uh with this process. We've already discussed it many times that it's really difficult um you know without knowing what the future project could look like. Um so that I mean that's challenging for me. It seems like the process um would be better if uh it came with a proposal for a property that was seeking a variance of 108 ft from the 209. Um, and I uh if you go back, what what was the uh we'd need a certain plan? Uh I just don't like >> contingency of requiring a plan. I' I'd rather have the plan in in hand first when uh considering a variance request of this type. Um, so this is challenging for me. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Thank you, Commissioner. >> Commissioner Stevenson, >> I I would say the same thing. And as I was writing down notes at the very beginning, is it reasonable? Is it plight due to the land owner? Would it alter the characteristics? And I just don't think I have enough information to answer any of those questions because now I think you're right, um, Elg, that there probably will have to be a variance on this property at some point. And and you're right, there's based on where the the homes are, the the buildable area is so small that you'd have to you'd have to get a variance. But now I think there could be a variance that comes in and says, "I want to tear down the existing home and I want to use almost the exact same footprint and it's not going to be that much different and it might come back a little bit." That I would say that's very reasonable. Um, and they're they're not going to take down very many trees and I'm going to use all of the same hardscapes. we've seen those types of applications that have come in before and we go okay I can visualize that this is just going to be the same the same plot and the same plaid and the same the house is just going to be different. Um, I think we've also seen um where it didn't make sense to do it that way and you had to grant a variance and maybe it could go back farther, but it still um it still makes sense. But altering the characteristics, I can't say yes or no it would alter the characteristics. Maybe the neighbors would be just fine with it in the same space because there's not going to be any other disruptions. Um, but I I just because I can't visualize it. I think it's un I think it's unreasonable to come in and say we want a variance, but we don't know what it's going to be used for, what the building is going to look like, or any additional variances that are going to be needed on this property. >> Thank you, Commissioner Stevenson. >> Well, to say, >> Commissioner Swami, go ahead. >> Well, um, I went over there. I met Mr. Swanson one day he was out gardening and I asked if I could walk around which I did and he did show me where the stakes were in the ground where this 108 foot setback would be and when I stood there and looked over at the Constantina's what's their name again Constantino's place I all I could see was part of the patio there are a lot of arborvita that that were placed there. I but I couldn't see any part of the house except some of the patio that is out on the back. Um I think you have to have a starting place if you're going to start drawing up plans. And it seems fairly reasonable to me that they are taking where the house is right now and putting it back toward the road by a little over 16 ft. So to me, they're certainly going out of their way to find a way to make this work so that they can get to work on a plan and and even get to work and have a sale because the house is going to come down. And how does a buyer know or anyone who wants to spend a lot of time putting together a plan, how do they know what to do if they think that they may be way over at the record setback of 260.5 ft? It the proposed setback seems very reasonable. That's primarily what we're at here, right? Chair Cameron, uh, Commissioner Schwabi, the I believe yes, if I'm understanding your interpretation or your statement correctly. >> So, the builder, Mr. Hunt, wants to know if he can proceed knowing that his line is going to be at the 108t mark. >> That is correct. >> Seems like a reasonable request to me. Um, and if I look at I don't know if this is the point at which I should be going through this, but the primary questions to consider regarding a variance. The first one is it consistent with the comprehensive plan. I think it is. Is it reasonable? I think it's very reasonable. It actually puts the house back an additional 16 ft that um the neighbors would not have to look at. Is the plight of the land owner due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the land over land owner? And that's absolutely correct primarily given the location of the of the property to the north. Would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? I don't think it would it would vary it at all except to put the whole house back 16 feet which would be a good thing. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute a practicality. I do not think this is just about economics. It is a beautiful piece of property and to for anyone to design something that may have to be on a small bottleneck area of the lot would be very difficult in in my opinion. Um and so then there's also the shoreland overlay district. The minimum setback ordinary high water mark be at least 75 ft. That's covered. That's okay. The setback shall not adversely impact views of the shoreline or lake for adjacent uh neighboring principal structures. Well, it may be for a little bit of that patio, but I stood there and I could not see the house at all. Num uh C. The reduction of setback requirements is based upon a specific need or circumstance which is unique to the property in question and it is and which if approved will not set a precedent which is contrary to the intent of the city ordinance. However, any structure built as a result of an issued ordinance shall be considered in determining the proper setback of future construction on adjacent lots. Um, I'm actually not even seeing a problem there. Does anybody see a problem there? Any of the other Okay. Okay. And then here's the part that's not over D and E. A shoreland impact plan must be submitted and approved as required and set forth in section 991.19 of the city ordinance. and the conditions of chapter 905 da da da of city ordinance are considered sat satisfactory met and we won't know that until there is a plan. Is that correct? >> Chair and commissioner. So 905 were those criteria you were just reading through. That's the general criteria. >> D is the one that staff has suggested if you did move forward would need to be a condition because that's one of the requirements they would need to submit and get approval for that. So the variance would be contingent on that if you went that route. >> I could I would like that. I I well I I personally could see approving it based on D and E um being followed through on. Does that make sense? Did I >> uh chair and commissioner? Certainly D. Yes. >> Okay. Certainly D. Can I say D and E just because? Uh well E is the general standards of the for a variance that you were reading through earlier. Yeah, that's 905 there on your screen that you just read through. So I think if >> ba based on what I heard you said, those 905 criteria for a variance uh the applicant has met. That's what I heard you say. >> So I I guess what I'm saying is I'm I'm basically in favor of this as long as D is met. Thank you, Commissioner Schwabi. [Music] >> Very thorough. Thank you. Um, >> did it take too long? >> No, no, >> no. Uh, >> it's only 8:00. We got four more hours till midnight. >> How many? Oh my god. >> It's a beautiful thing. Let's Let's set a record, shall we? >> Sleeping. >> If you go back one slide just to the other. Uh uh as I started thinking about whether this variance is reasonable, um uh the the flip side would be uh have somebody draw up a plan that may or may not be what gets built. Uh or a plan that may or may not change the uh uh the house that's there. um and and and go through the process uh at a later time. Um I don't think it's uh I actually think it's quite reasonable to have an understanding of what the land uh holds and and what might be available to somebody if they're if they're looking at building. Um uh on a personal note, right, I'm thinking of of of having an outbuilding and my question is should I pay to design and and and have a complete uh structure uh defined uh when I have no idea whether it's going to be something that's going to go forward or not. A lot of time, a lot of effort when this would provide somebody with an idea of of what's in place. From my standpoint, I'm not sure why they went to 108. Um uh but the fact that their proposal includes the the red triangles that would uh uh basically ensure that the line of sights from the existing the line of sights to the lake from the existing properties um um would not be built upon. I think uh provides uh a lot of insight into the fact that they are looking at making sure that it uh uh meets the comprehensive plan that it that it stays in line with the the view of the uh uh of the existing um uh neighborhood. uh and and and certainly from a variance standpoint are giving a uh not an indication of exactly what's going to go there, but whatever goes there as long as it uh as long as it meets the rest of the requirements uh of a building permit uh uh would be allowed. Uh so I actually am also uh I went out and looked at the site. I don't think you can go any further to the to the north. There's an unbelievable drop off there. um uh and south I I think that uh you're seeing that they're already knocking against that notch that um uh that is in the property. Uh so I think it's a uh one a reasonable request in terms of of a go forward path and a reasonable uh uh nod to the neighbors in terms of cutting out all of the possible sight lines that that uh that could be that could be a consideration. Thank you, Commissioner Vanoy. >> Okay. Um, you know, with all these lake properties, there's always these challenges because each one of them is unique. Um, and I guess that's what makes our community unique. Um, this is a lot that has a lot of constraints on it. Um, I I too have been to the property. Um, I've been seeing it from the lake view. Um, I was also involved with a home um very close to that property. I know the time and expense and the dollars involved with drawing up plans to see if something may work. Like you were referring to, Commissioner Vanly, you know, is it the cart before the horse or the horse before the cart. Um, the proposed variant setback is further back than the home that's been there for 40 years, hundred years, you know, whichever one we're going to say. Um, and the fact that the applicants, they're longtime residents. um they're volunteer volunteering voluntary I'm not coming up with the right word um adding their own conditions um to the application to preserve those sight lines and I think that is very neighborly um if it goes much further back I'm very worried how close it's going to get to the setbacks right now we've got a really nice healthy distance um on the north side and the south side to the adjacent properties um so I do think it's consistent with the comprehive ensive plan when we look at adjacent properties um adjacent lakeshore um variances that have been granted u for legacy homes on um property. I think the variance is reasonable and I do feel like this site um there is a plight to the lot. It is unique to the property. It is not created by the land owner. Um and I don't think the variance would you know change the character. Um there's a lot of homes that are a little closer to the lake. Um if you consider looking even in um Graze Bay or um Maxwell Bay, other bays, the homes are much closer to the waterline than we have in Weisetta. I I just feel like um this is a reasonable variance and um I would be in favor of granting it with um the conditions that um the voluntary restrictions that um were offered are part of the variance. Um and of course then with part D, making sure we have that lakeshore or uh shoreline overlay um district um report attached. >> Thank you, Commissioner. >> Um I'm going to, you know, I think I um I have a lot of I think some of the same concerns that um Commissioner Elg and Commissioner Severson have. Um I I too um think that a variance for this property is like fully is fully justified, right? But I think I have too many questions about um just granting a blanket variance because typically with variances, we're going to attach conditions, but we don't know what conditions to attach um to that variance. Um and so it's the sort of the law of unintended consequences. It scares me, right? Like if we if if our re if city council goes ahead and grants this and the um the whoever buys the property decides they want to build a structure that maxes out the envelope and put in a permeable driveway so they can maximize hard cover. I mean there could be a giant house there taller than much taller than what's there today, right? Because they're not touching 35 ft currently. So I think um I think that's kind of my hang-up in this is um you know the the as as today right as defined today by the current rules like that buildable area they would have to clearcut a whole bunch of beautiful trees right and so that kind of takes that out of the process or they'd be back here asking for a variance to for the from the tree ordinance different subject not going there um but right so for Sure, there's some hardships associated with the property. Um, it it's what makes it unique. Um, but I think where I go to then is, you know, so now we're just going to allow give this big vast space without being able to attach any other conditions to that space, not knowing what's going to get put there. And so that's where I kind of get held up on this. >> Can we pull up the plan again or the site plan with the red triangles? >> This one. >> Thank you. Yeah. >> Right. So, like that area, that building area with within setbacks, right? Like that's all hardwoods up there and not buildable either, right? I mean, it is, but it isn't. Um >> I'm just curious what what really could they do in terms of setbacks or anything else that would be a problem for the for the neighbors? I mean, where where would the problem come from? So, they come up with a house. It may very well be taller. This house only has 10 foot ceilings, >> right? Yeah. I mean, it probably will. >> It could it could be taller. It could be considerably taller. >> The further back you go, the higher it goes up on the >> right. Well, if it's if they you know, if it could be much taller, it could be closer to the closer to the side setback, right? they could kind of like they did up at on Park Street where we had that um overhang variance where they built all the way to the the sides and then left everything in the back. Um you know, so there I think that's right. That's the that we don't know the answer to those questions because there's nothing that's been proposed for the site other than we want to build a bigger footprint to be able to for somebody to be able to build build on, not us, >> right? So, um I I think if my for sure I think my thoughts would be different if if we if somebody came and said, "Hey, we want to build this house here and this is where we want to build it and here's why." Um and oh, by the way, right, we're you know, whatever. Right? I think that's a different conversation because now we have something tangible to look at and think about and say, "Yeah, we agree." Or, "Yeah, I agree." but with the condition of X or the condition of Y. I think we lose that ability to do that if we if we say here's a variance for this building pad. So now then >> it's it's just one variance. It's just how close to the >> but it's just how close to the water. But then now what it allows anybody to come in and do is as long as they're compliant with setbacks and building code, they can build whatever they want in that space. >> True of any house. >> Yeah. And truly, you know, have you seen Kyle Hunt's home? I can't imagine he would put anything up there that would be offensive. But >> I don't know. I just >> I mean, what's to say that it's his going to be his home, though? I mean, that's the other thing. >> Well, he is a builder. >> Understand? But the family may decide to sell to someone else. The family may decide the the new property owner may not decide not to engage or may decide to do something else. So, I think to me that's the question is that there isn't something to react to. it's only a variance when like what I was thinking is maybe the variance to keep the existing house footprint is the right thing to do and um tear down the house and build something brand new on that same footprint and we might not even need that additional 16 foot setback. Um but I think that's where I'm getting hung up and I I get that the plight of the landowner is unique to them and that's what you makes this property unique but That is the process when you have a home and when you have a property, you build the building plans and then you come and get those plans approved. Um, and that's just what I think any buyer or any person would expect to do versus asking for a variance first and then going back and making the changes later. I that's the process. The process is you build, you design the home, you get the variance if you need it, and then you move forward versus the other way around in my opinion. Now, you can dis disagree. That's fine. That's >> Yeah, I guess I would disagree on that because being an architect, it'd be hard just to design a house not knowing where it's sitting on the lot. Um sometimes with lots with some um restrictions like this, you can be very creative. And so, just to come up with a house plan that you found in magazines, say, "I'm going to set this on the lot." That's really something, you know, that you can't do in this instance. I was going to ask staff, did I see something in your or in the application about a height restriction or height considerations as well? >> U Commissioner and Chair, but we we certainly can address your question. I I think Director Sharp wanted to make a comment before we got too far away from from the chain of discussion here a moment ago. So to facilitate the uh commission's discussion here just as you are discussing uh particular house plans traditionally when adopting or moving forward with a variance application. The house plans presented are not part of the recorded materials nor are they a condition of approval. So when granting traditional variances for a setback variance, let's say from a side setback where 10 is required and they want to go to eight, the house plans and what they are planning on doing with that don't reside with that house. Any future house 100 years down the line, as I've stated as part of the presentation, the variance runs with the land, not with the property owner, not with a set of plans, unless for some reason those plans were a condition of approval. Traditionally, those plans are not a full condition of approval. Generally, a plan like this would be where voluntary additional areas and a plan would be attached to a resolution as an exhibit to show those voluntary areas or to show something additional that would be added as a condition. There are conditions that are added such as what Commissioner Plantin is uh referring to on let's say overall height for instance. If you can relate the overall height of a structure, which 35 foot is permitted within this R1A zone, the commission could place conditions to further reduce said height to try to mitigate visual impacts. The difficulty the commission is facing with this is how would that impact with a particular house plan and we return back to that discussion that I'm not attempting to facilitate the discussion within but do want to make sure the commission's aware of. In my years, I've unless there's something very unique about an individual house plan that is causing an individual variance, those are not a recorded document. And chair, if I can just elaborate on that. You know, the problem with tying a variance to a specific uh house plan is that over time, you know, the variance will run with the land and the house has a certain life and when it goes, they'll they'll the new builder will need to know whatever setback is. So, what you're deciding now is not just for what will be built after the existing house is gone. If that happens, it's, you know, indefinitely until a different setback rule is in place or a different variance is granted. >> Okay. >> So, so just a clarification that that is a sidebar at best. Um, so if they if someone has included a plan with a variance request, do they have an opportunity to change the plan? Can they can they uh um because because ultimately the variance goes with the land >> commissioner uh chair Cameron Commissioner Valite the plans would be supplemental for the commission's review at the time of variance would be able to change subject to any conditions of any granted variance. So to answer your question yes they would be able to alter but only subject to conditions added. How how enforcable are these red areas that are being um I guess self-regulated at this point? >> Yes, chair and commissioner. I'm glad you asked about that. I think if your findings include the significance of those red areas and you would want to make that a condition of approval, we would do all we could to make sure that they were legally binding in the best way possible. So I would consult with my real estate team about the best way for for recording that. But we would ensure that that would be an enforcable restriction and only based on the fact that the applicant is um offering that uh we we don't require that uh under code as far as I understand staff. Right. So, it's just something they're offering up voluntary voluntarily um which we would want to make binding uh if it is if it does factor into your recommendation >> to supplement that. Uh commissioner >> likely the graphic along with legal description of those areas would need to be developed rather than required at this time. Not knowing whether those are required, we haven't got the legal description. We've got the graphic at this time. >> Okay. And is that legally binding forever or for how long? >> Well, uh, commissioner and chair, I mean, that would be the idea, right? Just like the variance would run with the land, this would be it was a condition of granting this this, uh, variance on the setback. So, it would be factored into that that legal right. >> Um, I have another question. Um, it was brought up that there's other communities across the lake that don't have the um, riperian requirements. Is that something that's ever been considered? Why is that? Is that something that would ever be on the table? So that this point is sort of moved. >> Chair Cameron, Commissioner Severson, one of the reasons why staff did to that level of research to identify the number of variances in a time frame was to specifically evaluate is it time to look at a code amendment? As staff, I deter or I've always considered it a best practice and I've done it in multiple different communities. I'm in fact bringing forward some changes to code ordinance or to the ordinance uh here in Weisetta that when we run into a regular issue on a subject, variances are either regularly granted for that or plans are having to change on a very regular basis to something that not as supported by the community. Staff would bring that forward as a proposed text amendment. Uh potentially depending on what section it's in, have the planning commission or city council review. In this instance, we have evaluated three properties that fit item B. So apply directly to the requirements of here. It's not a I have an incredibly long history of >> uh sites. If this were not a if this were a slam dunk and the commission weren't debating at this time in the evening, I might start considering bringing something like that forward. At this point, there's not a commitment to doing something like that. It's something that the city could consider changing the ordinance in the future as with any of our ordinances. >> So, anecdotally, one piece to this, this is out of DNR best practices. Most of the other communities around the lake had this. In fact, communities outside of around Lake Minnetonka had this. I've had this in two different communities. Whether they applied well within those communities or not is up to that community. Director Sharp is what you're talking about the summary that you provided in our packet of the number of variances um shoreline setbacks that pertain to item B. We've got one. That is correct. Three, four, five. Okay. Thank you. >> Not all of those apply to item B. Only those outlined in the blue square pertain to B. Those others pertain to other types of variances. >> Thank you. >> And commission uh chair, if I may, just I just want to caution you. We're we're applying the ordinance as it is today. I think that's just a sidebar discussion about policy for the benefit of staff. Um but again we we have this is the rule that we're working with today. [Laughter] Okay, >> you do. >> Um, chair and commissioners. Well, your charge is to provide uh the city council with a report and recommendation. Um, we could talk a little bit about procedure, chair, but um we'd go to the slide that we always have, which would be to ask for a motion to direct staff to prepare a draft report and recommendation with the appropriate findings uh to approve or deny with certain conditions. Um if if you cannot resolve a tie vote tonight, the procedural options are to table uh this to your next meeting or when you might have uh everyone present. If we can't do that within the the rules of the the 60-day statute of of city action, council will just take it up when they have to to get it done. But our charge is always to see if you can build consensus. I mean, one of the nice things about your proceedings is uh council members often watch uh your proceedings. They read the minutes. They know the minority view and the majority view. So, they'll they'll have the benefit of your robust discussion here tonight. So, uh yeah, I don't know if you have anything else to add there, Director Sh, but >> uh commissioners, we are not currently up against a 120day clock. there is sufficient time if for some reason things were delayed. >> Well, if I may comment, uh, as I stated when I first spoke that this is challenging. Um, one could suggest that our interpretation of reasonable can be different. and my big stickler as was obvious why 108. Um but I don't feel that I can um I mean what's reasonable to you is may be different as to what's reasonable to me. So, I'm not going to st stand stand in the way here because there's undoubtedly going to need to be an a variance on this piece of property when something is built. Um, so why not get something in place now? I wish it was 150, but it's not. And um it's 108. Um, and I can live with that. Um it it seemed consistent with all those other yellow lines along that entire shoreline to me. Um so it doesn't seem really unreasonable. It it just struck me as why 108. That's all. >> Yeah, I I I agree. One of my one of my questions was why 108? But on the other hand, when I'm thinking about reasonableness, um if I were in the Swanson shoes, I probably would have put it on the existing uh on the existing footprint as opposed to backing it off uh 16 18 ft, whatever whatever them whatever the math was. So from that standpoint, I thought it was quite reasonable. I also think the um it was very enlightening to me when I was talking to them about the fact that if there was if if Kyle Hunt reached into his bag of tricks and said this is the house I'm going to put on that we would have argued a little bit about that house but that doesn't mean that's the house that would actually be built >> 100%. So, so from my standpoint, is it is it a reasonable request to back off 10 or 15 feet, whatever that number was, um with with the added uh restriction that these folks brought forward saying that they are not going to impede at all on their neighbors line of sight um in order to provide a build a buildable spot. I I I think that's very reasonable. Well, if I interpreted your comments correctly, do we have a consensus then? >> I'd be willing to make a motion or >> you want it. >> I can make a motion and see um make a motion of recommend uh recommending to staff to prepare a draft um planning commission report and recommendation with appropriate findings and I'd say the following conditions. Um, one of course is part D, submitting a shoreline impact plan. And then I think what we'd have to do is define um those um >> red triangles. I don't know what else to call them. Other >> pizza slices >> um red triangles of um that have been established uh for application review and adoption at the next planning commission meeting. >> I second. >> Perfect. discussion. >> Chair, I would just note for the record um your discussion, you've had you have a motion on the floor. It's been seconded. So, as we just discuss it and you go call for the vote, uh Commissioner Plant, I I I understood that. Uh and I think those those red triangles would need to be legally defined and delineated and be part of the the approval of the setback variance would run with the land. Um, and I I think um I don't know that I heard you say it, but I think the implication was a recommendation of approval. >> Right. Yes. Okay. Thank you. >> And got that. >> Can the city prepare those whatever needs to be done to these triangles to make them just so so we know exactly? >> Yes, chair and commissioner. We would we would work on making sure that was part of the final resolution that council would consider. >> Cool. Okay. >> All right. All those in favor? I >> I. >> All those opposed, nay. >> Nay. >> Um, the motion passes. >> Can I make a comment? Can I make a comment? >> I I did vote I because I, you know, um I think it it's, you know, your definition of reasonable, but I'm um I want to have it in the record that I think, you know, city council should consider whether or not it is they believe the setback is reasonable. Um, and to, you know, it makes me a little nervous. I, you know, even though I voted I, I just, it still concerns me about the fact that we don't know exactly what's going to be going on that we don't know who's going to be building it or buying it. So, I'd like that on the record. >> All right. Thank you, Commissioner Severson. The motion passes. Um and uh >> chair I think we made a note that that was uh five uh >> 5 to1 >> 5 to1 and with the nay at the chair right? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> 5 to1 with an A at the chair. Um the motion is passes and the draft report of recommendation of approval will be on the consent agenda at our next meeting and after that um go to city council uh for their consideration. Um thank you uh Mr. Swanson. Uh, Mr. uh, Chris Christopher, >> I'm I'm I've forgotten your last name, but I got your first name. Uh, Mr. Hunt. Um, thank you all and all of you for coming tonight. Um, appreciate your uh, your time and your thought um, to this process and your uh, care for the community. Um, definitely. So, um, all right. So, that concludes the public hearing um, portion of our meeting. Next on our agenda is other items. Director Sharp. Thank you, chair. So, as the commission is aware, we've had several uh meetings that have been cancelled. We do have some additional applications that are coming forward. Uh Excel Energy has resubmitted their application. Those materials are available on the website. The commission has been made aware of that. Uh they are uh without wanting to discuss or provide any additional details of that. I would encourage the commission to go and take a look. uh we will provide our staff report similar to this with additional details and uh further explanation and context. There are a number of projects that uh are still in kind of a proposed state. 200 lake is working with staff right now uh to potentially develop uh uh further applications for grant cleanup on that. So I would expect that that project u not occur still in 2025. Um the other items uh >> you said >> you said that was 200 lakes. So that's the uh the old DCF building. Is that the uh commissioner? That is correct. >> Thank you. >> Uh the other projects are coming to a wrap-up as the season ends. 641 lake as you've seen the sidewalk has been open. Uh but they are getting structural up. TCF Well, I'm sorry, Wells Fargo, I'm mixing up my banks already. Wells Fargo project uh is starting to bring in some of their larger rule or larger structural steel and panelized systems. So, you may see that buttoned up, but that one likely will not be completed in the 2025 build season. They will likely switch to interior work once they're no longer able to work. Uh we do have an item B as well that I can go on to >> the planning commission meeting schedule for 2026. >> Yep. And I can elaborate on that if you'd like or if we've got additional questions on development activities, happy to >> No, the um the proposed schedule for 2026 for at the city level is available. It is still proposed and not official. So because it dates are still being worked out. Uh two things with the schedule that I wanted to bring up. First, there are some training opportunities that I want to bring make available for the planning commission. Uh we can try to uh determine from you and I'd like you to contact me individually whether you're interested in attending in-person trainings. There's also additional uh published materials that I've provided to past planning commissions that I've worked with. They are rather dry, but they're very very good for looking up what is a conditional use permit, what is a variance. Uh these are endorsed by the National American Planning Association. Uh so if commissioners are interested in that, please reach out, send me an email, feel free to let me know here. Um I can send you details on that uh booklet as well. It would be good nighttime reading, but it's not going to be a page turner for you. It is also very broad in nature. >> Yeah, >> you're a little geeky about about planning. >> Yeah, I I do. I get I can geek out on it. Um, but what I will say on it is it is meant for a wide array of communities. So you will see aspects of it that are less applicable to Weisetta. So just be aware of that. There are also some training opportunities. We have some additional budget. So I'd like to know your schedules. We have some additional budget piece for the 2025 year because I wasn't here for the full duration. We had some vacancies in addition to me. So I'd like to be able to utilize that for those who are available. We would then look into if there is interest whether there are remaining items for this year or the items we can pre-book for early and into next year for the schedule because those dates are in flux. The clerk was relatively hesitant for me to share the actual dates until those become public because they have a the nature of getting out and starting to become the real dates before city council has fully decided on them. With that, the big item discussion that I wanted to bring up, and again, I'd like commissioners to reach out to me individually or if you have a larger consensus here, feel free to make comments on is the way that the current schedule aligns is we have predominantly planning commission on one Monday night and city council immediately following that. Many communities have that on off weeks that requires staff to have a night meeting every week. So, there are benefits to having back-to-back meetings and there are benefits to having them in off weeks. I am open to consideration. This may be the first our city attorney's hearing. That is what I'm realizing. So, I may want to consider his schedule as well in this. But I would very much welcome uh whether we switch weeks to off weeks in the discussion for 2026. If it doesn't happen in 2026, consider it as we're going through that 2026 schedule. Some of the benefits to having it backtoback, I would say, is that it does keep all the meetings for staff. It keeps with a consistent uh schedule that the commission has been used to for many, many years. Some of the negatives is that staff is also trying to get both packets out in the same week. And when we have significant items all concurring at once, we oftentimes have to focus on getting one out or the other. And often times the planning commission packet comes out a little bit later. And I've seen that in my tenure here where the planning commission packet comes out sometimes on Friday or a little bit more delayed and we'd like to get it out a little sooner. But we've got to get both packets out and ultimately the city council packet oftentimes will grab our attention for certain spans of time until we solve the next item and can get back to the planning commission packet. So even if it comes out as a this doesn't work for 2026, I wanted it in the planning commission's thought process for okay, let's look at a full year. Let's see how that's worked and let's make a consideration for 2027. So either way, please provide comments, reach out, see how things work. If you have initial uh thoughts or comments to either of those, I would welcome any uh this evening as well. I >> mean, it sounds like it's more your call. Oh, it's certainly within my purview. I think that it would disrupt um >> I think we'd be going second. >> Is that why you're saying we'd be going to second and fourth weeks instead of first and third? Okay. >> That may impact I mean planning commissioners that sign up for three years may put these on their calendar for >> three years. So, I mean this is an impact to your schedules as well. It's within my purview, but certainly not something that I could do without consideration of how that affects your ability to attend, how that affects our video crew's ability to attend, how that affects our city attorney, etc. So, I'm just trying to ascertain initial thoughts and comments. >> And is this a discussion? Are you welcome? >> They are welcome to, but I also do not want to force initial comments when you don't have any yet. you haven't been able to consider it. >> Um I would my comment would be I don't know that I have a preference around first first and third or second and fourth. So um I hear what you're saying about I think there's pros and cons to both, right? Cuz now you're going to be it's at the staff level you're going to have to be here one night every week instead of two nights one week and no nights the next week. So um but at the personal level I don't have a preference. >> I would defer to staff as well. I don't really have a preference either. Although I'm realizing I'm on for the city council tomorrow night and I really don't like the nights backtoback. So if it was every other, you know, the alternate week, I I'd be happier and and and just to to completely paint the picture, I'm exactly opposite him. I' I'd much rather have the backto-back meetings than deny. >> So there you go. >> Rip the band. >> That opinion and about three bucks would get you a Starbucks coffee. >> Yeah. I was >> that chair. I've got nothing additional. >> I was going to make a comment. Um, Commissioner Severson, I was glad that you brought up your point at the end because I think sometimes even though city council or the community might view what we're saying or or read the minutes, I think it's good because when you do have a five to one, it looks like everybody was aligned except our chair. And I think having those comments um is very helpful. So, I'm glad that >> Yeah. that you brought that up. I and yeah and I mean since we're discussing we're still in session, we're still have a quorum. I think um like I said, right, I I I I firmly believe there needs to be a variance on that property. Um I'm just not sure that this is the right one. And I think that's my hesitation. >> Um I I would fully support um finding a way to to build somewhere close to or, you know, like where that house is currently situated cuz somebody's going to come in and tear it down. Nobody's going to pay that much money for a lot and want to live in a house that's 100 years old, >> right? I love to >> totally understand. So, um, >> it's a low. Yeah. And Commissioner Elg, your your point about reasonable. Um, it means something different to all of us. I totally all really good points to consider. >> In fact, I thought the comment was reasonable just in >> that's a reasonable comment as well. >> Very reasonable. Very reasonable. Um, cool. Anything else? >> So, you're the we don't have a meeting next in two weeks. >> Yeah. When is our next meeting? >> Apolog September is 2nd and fourth anyway, right? >> Well, no. >> No. Oh, because it's five se it's five Wednesday or five Mondays. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. September looks, correct me if I'm wrong, eight and nine or eight for planning commission and 22 for planning commission. >> Eight and 22. >> Cool. Right. >> Ready to >> And we would have items for both. >> We will have items for both. >> Okay. >> Plan on being here. >> With that, may I have a motion to adjurnn? >> So moved. >> Thank you, Commissioner Benoy. May I have a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Commissioner Elg. Further discussion. All those in favor? I >> I >> I oppose. Nay. >> Motion passes and the August 18th, 2025 meeting of the Wisetta Planning Commission is adjourned. >> May I make