Welcome to the December 1st, 2025 meeting of the Wise Ed Planning Commission. I hereby call the meeting to order. Uh first on the agenda is roll. I would like to note that uh Commissioner Ankeny, Commissioner Elg, and Commissioner Vanly are not present at roll call and Commissioner Severson, Commissioner Schwabby, Commissioner Plann, and Commissioner Cameron are present. Uh next on the agenda, uh is approval of tonight's agenda. Um, does anybody have any questions or changes to the agenda tonight? >> No. >> Perfect. Uh, may I have a motion to approve the agenda as presented? >> I'll make a motion. >> Thank you, Commissioner Severson. Second. >> I'll second. >> Thank you, Commissioner Schwabby. All those in favor or sorry, excuse me, pardon, out of order. Uh, further discussion. Forgot that stuff. >> Thank you. [laughter] >> Very important step for discussion of the agenda. Um, all right. [clears throat] Um, all those in favor? >> I opposed. The eyes have it, the motion passes, and the agenda is approved. [snorts] Uh, next on the agenda is approval of the consent agenda. Uh, tonight's consent agenda consists of the meeting minutes from November 17th, 2025 and the U. Planning Commission report and recommendation of denial for required retail percentage of 401 Lake Street East. Um, does anybody have any questions or comments on any item on the consent agenda? >> No. No. >> Um, I've got one. It's small. Um, I'd like to note on page nine of the packet, line 28, um, I am identified as Commissioner Camerson instead of Commissioner Cameron. >> Okay, >> I did read it. [laughter] Right there. >> Very good. >> Um, any anything else? Uh, may I have a motion to approve the consent agenda as uh presented with the one change? >> I can make that motion. Thank you, Commissioner Plant. May I have a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Commissioner Severson. Further discussion? Never forget the further discussion step. >> All right. All those in favor? >> I opposed. >> The eyes have it and the consent agenda is approved as amended. [snorts] Um, next on the agenda tonight is old business. And seeing as there is none, we will roll right into the public hearing. We have one public hearing this evening. which consists of a variance and conditional use request for 220 um Central Avenue South. Um we will start with uh by hearing from the city which I believe is director Sharp and then we will allow then the applicant will have some time um to present as well and then we'll have a public hearing after that. Um so director Sharp take it away. >> Thank you chair. As stated, this is a application at 220 Central Avenue South for a lot width variance and a conditional use permit to construct a two family. Location is on the eastern side of town uh just off of Central. Zoomed in, you can see it's just southeast of the intersection of Circle Drive East and Central Avenue South. It is bordered to the north by condominium units and apartments and to the south by a duplex and single family homes. To the west uh is largely uh across the street is largely right ofway and to the east is a mix of storm water pond and natural wetland. The site is guided central core residential three units 3 to six units per acre and it is zoned R3A which is a single and two family residential district. Actually pausing there within the R3A uh zoning district. The uses listed or of the uses listed uh two family dwellings are considered a conditional use. We'll get into more of the conditional use standards at uh some slides towards the end of the presentation. The application details on their formal request is for a variance of 10.1 ft to the minimum lot width requirement which is 100 ft wide and they the existing lot is 89.9 ft wide. There's also a conditional use permit required for two family dwellings within this zone. Uh as a reminder for the commission and I'll go into this in further detail as well. Conditional uses are generally permitted subject to potential conditions to mitigate any uh impacts on surrounding properties or the community as a whole. We'll go through those standards in a little bit. The relevant code section uh for the variance is below. This is an uh excerpt from code showing that the two family requires a minimum lot area of 18,000 square feet. The subject property is 26,000 plus. uh the minimum lot area per unit is met. The minimum lot width of 100 feet is where the variance is being sought and the lot depth more than exceeds 100 ft. The existing conditions uh I didn't go by uh today to see whether there was uh still a home on the property, but um this aerial is actually from October of this year. So it is currently uh being used as a single family dwelling. The proposed plan is for uh a two family dwelling on the property that are attached only by the garage. There would not be access between the two different units to one another. They would be two independent homes of one another. The applicant has provide provided a series of plans uh for the interior of the home. Typically, uh the planning commission and staff would not uh review the interior of homes for a project such as this. However, ensuring that it is actually two separate units uh was something that staff reviewed for. These plans are included in your uh packet as well. So, I'm going to go through them relatively quickly, but this is the lower level basement area. This is the primary floor and dwelling. You can see that the home was designed to appear as somewhat of a single family home from the street uh while still having the identity as that two family home. And then they do have a second story as well and would meet uh the maximum height requirements for the zone. These are the elevations that really try to uh accentuate what you would see from the street. So that front elevation would be from central. The rear elevation obviously would be uh towards the wetland to the east and then the side elevations uh the top one on your screen would be to the west or towards the condos and the uh bottom elevation that you're seeing would be to the east uh so towards the single family home uh currently being used as a duplex. These are potential renderings provided by the applicant. uh materials and colors are not traditionally something the city would uh materials are something that city may get into specifically with uh conditional use. However, colors and things of that nature. We tend to stay away from our design standards have uh complimentary color requirements but don't get into exact colorations of a building. They also generally do not apply to single family dwellings or two family dwellings I should say as well. Uh the engineering department did provide a number of comments. These are included in your packet at length. I've tried to sum summarize them here uh for brevity of the presentation. Uh the overall uh requirements are a tree preservation plan, grading plan, uh storm water plan, [snorts] uh an official survey. Once you get to that, that'll be required as part of the building permit. Um and then uh the note that uh engineering has made is that the water line will need to be upgraded uh to a 1-in line rather than the 3/4 inch line that it currently is. Uh but the sewer service is currently adequate for the site. The applicant will need to provide details on whether they're planning on having two separate services or not. The city does allow uh one shared service if we if they would like to. Um, however, it is usually easier to meter two separate properties. Um, and since they already need to upgrade to that upgrade to that 1-in line, uh, they'll figure that out as part of their utility permits rather than needing to figure it out at this stage. Neighborhood notification and public comments process. Uh, our standard process was followed for this. We sent out um the notification on November 21st. Um, there was the city letter on November 17th and it was sent to all properties within 500 ft. And then there's no neighborhood meeting required for a project of this nature. And then no public comments have been received formally at this point, though my understanding is that planning commissioners may have been contacted as well. Um, those are not formal comments directed into the city and so are not considered part of the public record until they are done. This will be slightly new uh for the commission. We've uh the city attorney and I have revamped the variance slide to assist planning commissioners with your review when reviewing a or uh evaluating a variance. Uh this slide and the wording was also semi-included within your packet so that you could gain some familiarity. But there are essentially two pieces that the code uh establishes and state statute establish for practical difficulties. The first is it in harmony with the general purposes intent of the zoning ordinance cons and is it consistent with a comprehensive plan? If it meets those two, you go into the your practical difficulties measure. One of the things that uh I've noticed in my tenure here is that the commission may not have been aware that you actually need to meet all of the following below, not just any single category. So the proposal uh must be reasonable. It must be due uh due to circumstances that are unique to the property and not created by that land owner. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality and then economic considerations are not uh alone do not constitute a practical difficulty. Conditional use permits uh as I noted I would go into a little bit more detail. Um, again, when considering a conditional use, these are generally permitted uses within that zone, but there could be mitigating factors that could be required that the city can place on a conditional use to uh essentially try to mitigate any negative impacts. The classic example is if you're using a a auto repair yard, they may be required to have fencing and or vegetative screening around it to prevent, you know, the view of wrecked cars from adjoining properties. So, that would be a standard condition that you would see on that type of use. Um the city code doesn't include any specific performance standards for a two family uh home in the R3A zone, but does uh provide these criteria for all conditional use permits within the city? Um again, compatible with the comprehensive plan. Uh is the use comp compatible with the area? Does it meet the code requirements? And if not, can conditions be mitigated with uh specific conditions? Would it affect property values? Would it affect traffic patterns? Um, and again, would though if it did, would these could these be mitigated with specific conditions? And then what impacts would the proposed use have on public services? uh specifically the water, school system, sewer ex the actions this evening that staff is seeking is to hold the public hearing and then direct staff to prepare a draft planning commission report and recommendation uh of either approval or denial with the appropriate findings. And I'll bring up those slides for the conditional use permit and the variance as you do your deliberations. With that, I stand for any questions. Thank you, Director Sharp. Questions. >> Good. >> Okay, I have a couple questions. >> Yeah, go ahead. >> Okay. Um, can you explain why a cup is necessary in this case because it's zoned for multifamily and that's what they're it's a two family. So, why do they need a cup for it? >> Uh, Commissioner Stevenson, uh, Chair Cameron, that's a great question. Uh, it's listed as a conditional use within our zoning ordinance. The reason for that is not specifically called out anywhere. From experience, my suspicion is that it has been a conditional use for quite some time to ensure that if there was something negative that a two family home could do on a lot that it would be able to be mitigated, but it would be fairly standard within a zone such as this for it to be an outright permitted use as well. >> And there's a few other duplexes along that street. Do those have cups as well? So, I've only been able to find uh Chair Cameron, Commissioner Severson, I've only been able to find evidence of a single dwelling in the city obtaining that conditional use permit. Uh many of these duplexes predate some of the requirements for it, however. So, they've been around for quite some time. Unfortunately, um, this section, well, not unfortunately, uh, prior staff updated the city code and put it all into a table quite some time ago rather than having individual districts each have their own code sections. And in doing so, it's actually a little bit more difficult to track when some of those changes occurred. Um we don't have a lot of the old copies of our code to see when that conditional use came in but as far back as the 1980s it has been present. >> Okay. And then is there a way to see what um because I know that it's the setbacks also was the other variance. What are the next or right that's the variance is the setback. >> Uh chair Cameron Commissioner Severson that's incorrect. It's only to the lot with >> lot. Thank you. Can you show me the um next or neighboring properties? Like how close are those next or neighbor houses? Um and what would that what would >> So you can see the backs of the condos here and then you can see the duplex that's just to the south here. Uh likely not meeting its required 10-ft setback. >> Yeah. Do do we have any history on that one? >> It's an older lot. um didn't look into product uh in in all candidness, it didn't look into significantly the history of the property to the south. Um this property was a subject property and I was trying to find as much information on it as possible. >> And can you just one last thing, can you show me the driveway where the driveway is proposed? So the driveway is the shaded section here with access off central. So it would go towards the north side of the property rather than the south. >> Loosely in the same spot that the current driveway is on. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> I have a question. >> Sure. >> So the h the home that you're saying is to the south, the single family home. I think it's a single family home. Or or was that a a duplex? It's uh Chair Cameron, uh, Commissioner Schwelby, it's being used as a duplex presently. I've actually spoken with you. >> Okay. And that f that drawing that you just had up here a minute ago or a photograph shows that it is like right on practically on the property line. So, the issue that we have here is I don't know, I guess you'd call it the width of that lot is going to put one of those buildings right next within five, six feet, 7 feet at the most of that house. What do you think? >> Uh, Chair Cameron, Commissioner Schwab, there will at least be 10 ft. Uh this applicant is not seeking a setback variance on either side. >> Um and the required setback on this property is 10 ft. So any proposed home regardless of what would occur with this would need to meet those setbacks barring a variance. >> And the neighbor to the to the south doesn't have any has not issued a complaint or a concern or written a letter. >> Chair Cameron, Commissioner Schwab, that is correct. They called to speak about the application and uh I provided them with some information and did not voice any major concerns or write a letter for the planning commission and city council's review. >> And same thing with the town houses then. >> Correct. They were all notified. Okay. >> Uh but no public comment has been received. We'll >> have a public hearing. >> We'll have a a public hearing in just a moment. >> I'll wait then on that. Anyone else? >> I do have a question. I've been wondering what you mean by vacated. Something has been vacated here. Can you tell me where it is? >> Where are you um referring to the vacated? >> Yeah. >> Where where did >> I'm sorry. I'm not quite sure where that is. >> Well, it's in your report that the property and it says right on one of the drawings by Okay, I can wait and ask the applicant this. It's on one of their drawings where it says that >> Oh, it's on the survey >> that you're seeing something. >> Yes. Yes. Yes. I'm not seeing a vacation, but it's likely a legal not notation of something that may have been vacated at some point. Um, but still shows up in title work then, >> but it's part of the lot >> without barring I don't know where it is presently. So, >> okay. I'll I'll check with the with the applicant. Yeah, I'm not seeing a a a vacation note on the slide here, so apologies. >> It shows up twice in the property description on um page 32 of the packet. >> Ah, I'll go to that. So, then that would be within the legal description of the property itself. Um that means that at some point 32 And that's foot for some reason >> in that upside down property description. Yeah. [laughter] >> Um >> and then it's also if you it's on that picture as well right on Central Avenue. Scroll down just a hair >> right see the text that's coming out. >> It says center line of vacated Lily Avenue. >> It's vacated. So what that would mean is the city would vacate a portion of something which then return uh some form of property rights usually roadways, drainage, utility, easements, etc. and then those defer to the adjacent properties. Um without looking specifically into uh why that was vacated at the time, I wouldn't be able to answer any specific questions about it. Uh it does not affect the variance or conditional use permit in this case. However, do you see there? >> Yeah. >> So, it's like an old road or something. >> Yeah. Chair, um and commissioner, if you do look at that property description, at least some of it is referencing, um at one time there was uh little avenue there now vacated. So, it would sounds like a street that was vacated at one point. I don't know that it's material to your discussion here tonight, though. Yeah. Thank you. >> Thank you, Director Sharp, counselor. Um, anything else, commissioners? All right. Well, thank you again, staff. Um, at this time, I'd like the applicant to invite the applicant to come forward and address the commission. Um, please state your name and address for the record. Um, and your role on the applicants team. Hello. Thank you all for coming listen to our spiel tonight. Uh so my name is Nate Hiddi. I'm the general manager of Custom One Homes here with Todd Pifka, the president. Um do you want my personal address or the company address? >> Company address is fine. >> 5097 Woodlane El Cove, Woodbury, Minnesota. Go ahead. >> Okay. Um, so Alex, thank you for that presentation. You covered a lot of things there that I was going to cover. So, um, also I appreciate your help in getting this uh all out and and meeting all the deadlines. Um, so in talking about the the project in uh at 220 Central with us being between the condos and on the other side being being a duplex on that side with the overall square footage and size and depth of the lot, it just it felt like it was going to be a better use of the space to make this a two family home uh to maximize the use of that of that lot. Um, you know, the lot width being uh 89, you know, that was obviously that would have been established more than likely long before the the 100 foot lot with uh minimum standard was put in place. Um, so again, to not take into account the fact that the lot is almost three times as deep as it needs to be, um, feels like it'd be doing us a disservice to not utilize that land space as best as possible. Um, and you know, the the survey, the plans, I mean, they're they're kind of used as a guideline at this point. We're not 100% sold on, you know, that's what the exterior absolutely has to look like, but generally speaking, that's going to be the the overall feel of the home. Um, in terms of the house placement, you know, we're we can we can move that around, too. As of right now, we do meet all the setback standards, so we're not asking for any of that. Our overhangs are good. They don't uh impede too far in the setback, as well. Um, obviously, there'll be some um some tree removal that we're going to be um taking care of there. Um, and we did get comments from from the public on the the condos to the north. Um, they have some comments on the trees and and a retaining wall and whatnot there. So, we're open to having discussions about what uh their ideas are there as well. Um, terms of impervious surface, everything that we have planned meets uh those requirements as well. Um, yeah, I I think that's those are the the nuts and bolts of it. If there's any additional questions. >> Thank you, Nate. Commissioners, questions for the applicant. >> Do each of the houses have a two-car garage? >> They do. Yes. >> Okay. Because the way the the way it came across on my computer, it looked like they were about that big. >> Oh, gotcha. Yep. You can see they kind of they do have two doors. Not that we're sure they'll have two doors, but they does show that there's two separated by a little bit. Yep. >> Okay. >> Um, going back to the just real quick, going back to the cup part portion of it. So, we've been in talks on this property for probably two years. So, uh, those talks started with Valerie when she was in Alex's position. Um, and she gave us her thoughts on it. I've got a bunch of emails going back and forth with her. At at that time, she said that we weren't going to have to have a cup at that time. Um, so we were kind of going into this under the understanding we're just going to need to do the variance. Then, Alex brought up that he he felt that we should apply for the cup um based on his interpretation of um, the zoning standard. Okay, that's good context. Uh, Commissioner Severson, you had a question. >> Yeah. What are what's your plan for filling this home? Is it like is it going to be sold as one unit and it's going to be too like what would you expect would be the typical buyer? What kind of neighbor would be moving into this? >> Yeah. So ideally in a perfect world scenario, we're hoping that we can begin to market this as a two family home, sell one, and then as and then we start construction and as we're building it, we sell the other one. That's perfect world scenario. Um regardless, we're going to start construction at some point, but in um in an ideal world, yeah, we'd sell into the first one and then the second one would be for sale during construction. Okay. Right. Are you asking what type of buyer or are you asking >> I'm just curious. Is it going to be sold as two separate homes or is it like one person's going to own it and rent out the second half? >> Two separate homes is our is our plan. Okay. >> But either could be either could be true. Um, I have a question. The lot size hasn't changed since you bought it. Um, yet you're citing that as a practical difficulty. You had you first considered a single family home and what made you um change the plans and need to request a variance to a two family or two home? >> Yeah. Yeah, you're correct. You're correct. It did not change. um our plans changed with how we wanted to approach this this particular lot. Um and again, upon review of the standards and the ordinances and the zoning, uh it it seemed like it made more sense that this lot was a a two family uh home because of the condos on one side and the duplex on the other. um felt if you know if I'm a if I'm a buyer typically you know you're not going to want your single family home in between multifamily not saying that's always the case but I would say that would be a little bit of a deterrent from going with a single family um on that on the lot. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. We initially were planning for a three-unit, but based on the square footages, we weren't loving how that was laying out. So, we went to a two-unit. And that was those were the talks that we had with Val again. >> Okay. >> A couple years ago that that's we didn't start the process until we kind of got a little bit of a sense of uh support from her and that, you know, this wasn't going to be an impossibility. Um so when when we got that what felt like support and that this was going to be something that was doable, we went down the road further and got plans done, surveys done, um existing condition survey, proposed survey, um to try to push this along. So by by making it a multifamily multif family dwellings as opposed to one, does that mean that each of these will probably be smaller than a single family home would have been? >> Uh I mean possibly, but the square footages of the home are still pretty large. Um >> what are they? Again, I can't recall >> top of my head. I would have to even look myself, but I want to say we were somewhere with the basement, we're somewhere close to 35 to 4,000. And this is information I used to have at the top of mine, but I don't at this point. >> That's That's to complete big houses. >> Yeah. So they're so they're Yeah. So they're generously sized as well. >> Okay. I just wondered if maybe it was that with two dwellings on one lot, they would be able to be priced more in accordance with the neighborhood. The neighborhood is not high-end homes there, >> right? >> They're nice. >> Yeah. >> But they're not high-end homes and on that block anyway. >> That's correct. Yeah. >> Do do you have is that part of your consideration that you could sell them for less money then? Um >> because if you put just one on there, you're probably looking in the millions. >> Yeah, we'd be we'd be looking at that regardless. Yeah. Yeah, we'd be looking at that regardless. Um >> so we haven't established what a our our budget is, I guess, per se at this point. You know, there's square the square footage factor, there's the finish factor. Um but but yeah, certainly the plan was to to not just put two small homes. We wanted them to be, you know, to fit our our standards. Um, at Custom One, you know, they were going to have our certain feel, our certain flare. Um, and and and we didn't want to skimp on the square footage, and we felt based on this lot being as deep as it was, that we could accommodate both. We could we could make the two family work while still delivering a product that, you know, we felt met our standards >> and in line with the neighborhood. >> Correct. Yep. Okay. Anyone else questions for the applicant? >> All right. Well, thank you, Nate. Appreciate your uh coming in and your time tonight. >> Thank you all. >> Um uh now I'd like to turn to the public hearing. Um before we get begin, a couple just a couple thoughts. Public public hearing is time for us as a commission to listen to members of our community um about the requests that we're considering. Um it's an important part of the process um to include the public and to allow them to participate and add their perspectives as we consider um the request. Um any questions asked during the public hearing will be held um until the end of the hearing and may be addressed by staff at that point. So with that said, I now open the public hearing. Um, if you'd like to speak, please come forward to the podium. Um, and uh, state your name and address for the record and let us know if you're uh, connected to the applicant in any way. Hello, and thank you to um, all the members of the commission for the work that you do. Uh, my name is Jeff Nelson. I live at 1037 Lake Street East. Um that is about seven houses or if you're walking about seven houses away from this particular property. Um my wife and I moved into our home about three and a half years ago now. And um over that period of time, I've realized how because of the traffic flow in the area, there's some unique things that you may not be aware of, but um all of the homes on that southern part of Central, all of the homes on that east part of Lake Street on Wise Avenue, Lal um and then there's Reno and a couple of other small side streets, but all of them, so there's more than 50 homes that have to exit that area by going right by this property. Um the if you're going south uh southeast, you can go out Lasal to get to Bushway, but otherwise there's not another way that you exit that whole area. Um so my main concern uh if this uh variance were to be permitted is that it just adds further congestion to an area where there's a lot more congestion than what I realized when we bought our home. uh back there. I mean, it's certainly a beautiful area close to downtown. Um I appreciate much about that. It's simply the the heavy traffic was something that I had not anticipated would be the case for that area. Um so on the on like I say on the basis of the high traffic level and the particular location of that property and the fact that the variance being requested is a significant variance. It's not like it's just a foot or two, but it's more than 10% variance from the um current legal standard. That is the reason that I would request the uh commission consider denying the application. Thank you again for your time and for your work. >> Thank you, Jeff. Um, I'm going to do this. Too tall for this. Um, good evening. U, my name is Greg Hogan. I'm at uh 120 Chvy Chase Drive in Noisetta. Um and I'm a co-owner of two of the adjacent condo units and representing Marshwaminium Association and our HOA. And I have been in contact with Nate. I I did talk to him last week, but I I felt it it can only be described in some photos that you guys see what we're talking about. Um our decks when you look out on the deck of of this property, um I I'm 6'6 in height. So if I stood at the bottom of one of these decks, it's at least seven foot high in terms of the hill and the grading there. So it's been long standing. The the whole side of that property is probably buckthorn and various trees that have never been tended to. And earlier today, the comment was made, is there a house on the property? Yes, there's a house on it. Kathy Iverson, who used to be on the city council, sold this property probably two years ago and it's been basically left for u it's been si we've had to live with watching I mean nothing's been tended to. There's FedEx boxes in the driveway that haven't been picked up. So um my point on that is when you look at the property there the one one issue we have is we do not want any water runoff coming in the construction process and secondly through if this house is built we cannot have any water coming our way because of the hill and the slope it's only going to water runs downhill. Um, two, and it's hard to see, but there are right on our properties are at least three or four giant, really giant, taller than our buildings, ash bore trees. Okay, they need to be removed. I cannot access this property. Um, and there's no way I could get a crane in the back of our property there. So, if there's going to be development there, we need to remove those trees, whether they're on right on the edge. They're uh they could be your trees, they could be our trees, but they're either going to fall on your garage or they're going to fall on our condo. So, some tree work needs to be done. And I I don't really think that that tree inventory reflects the size and the and the placement of these property of of those trees. So um we'd like from a varian standpoint if that's the request we would like some collaboration and understanding. I think there needs to be a a retaining wall or some rock wall. um where I am right by our our decks. It's it's significant height and you can see it there. And something needs to be addressed. It isn't just putting in a driveway and and just leaving it the way it is. It there has to be some evidence of what is the plan there and then to the the trees. And the last one to me is given the depth of that property and I've walked it a lot because I had a good relationship with Kathy and her husband. I don't understand why the garage couldn't be pushed further towards the back. And I'm sure it has something to do with the views, but you could just extend the driveway um all the way down and put the proposed garage to the side there. And um we're we're open. We know it's going to be needed to be developed because it's an eyes sore right now. Um and u but we we want to work with you guys uh on some of those factors if that makes sense. Thank you. >> Thank you, Greg. >> Dr. Mr. Sharp, do we have anybody on teams with questions or comments? >> Chair Cameron, not at this time. >> Anyone else this evening? >> All right. Uh, with that said, then I'm going to close the public hearing. Um, and bring it back to the commission for discussion. Um before we start our discussion um does anybody have any questions for staff or the applicant um to follow up on? >> I have a couple. >> Commissioner Severson, go ahead. >> Um okay, so you mentioned that the floor plan is not part of the variance request in the CU so they can come back and make any changes that they want. Correct, >> Chair Cameron. Uh Commissioner, that is correct. the interior plan would other than reviewing to make sure that they're two separate units would not be a a standard condition that they would need to meet. >> Okay. And then the um lot width setback, same thing. We could grant the variance for whatever they're asking for and they can come back as long as it's within that particular variance. Correct. They can't go over, but they could go under. Like if they ask for a 10 foot variance and they only need eight. Well, uh, Chair Cameron, Commissioner, this would be for lot the actual width of this lot. So, in order to change that, they would need to plat and acquire property from somewhere. So, uh, it wouldn't be possible to alter or to do less or more of this variance with this lot unless it were changed. >> But they're what they're asking for. So, city code says that a two family property has to be 100t wide. And so since they're since it's not 100 feet wide, what they're asking for is a variance from that piece, not from any kind of setbacks. >> Okay. Um and then is there any issue with the driveway being shared among two potential owners of this property since they won't >> Sher Cameron, uh Commissioner Severson? No. For two family dwellings on a single lot, it's fairly standard to have a shared driveway. >> Okay, that's it. >> The lot wouldn't actually be wide enough to allow a second access onto Central. So it wouldn't meet those uh the standards where uh engineering would generally allow a second driveway access onto central. >> Commissioner Schwami, >> based on the topography, do you see any kind of an issue with runoff during construction or or after the houses are built? I mean, is is is is this new duplex going to be that much higher that it could cause a a flooding problem on these town houses? >> Chair Cameron, uh, Commissioner Schwabby, engineering would need to do further evaluation of a plan at a later date, but it is a fairly standard thing for them to do during their review process of the building permit. So, at a preliminary stage like this, it hasn't been evaluated. You'll notice in your list of uh items that engineering and forestry have asked for is the full storm water protection plan, um erosion control plan, grading plan, etc. for that to be further evaluated. But that's evaluated whether this was going to be a single family home or a two family home during the building permit process rather than during the variance process. >> Okay. >> Variance in conditional use permit process. So at this point, these are generously sized houses, each of them. Is it not possible to redo them a bit, rework them a bit so that they are within the guidelines of 100 ft from each property line? >> Uh, Chair Cameron, Commissioner, again, this isn't about the design of the home. It's the actual width of the property. >> The physical property is only fine. >> Okay. So, can you put >> It has nothing to do with the homes and the design on the lot. >> Okay. >> It's the use of a minimum lot width of 100 ft on for that or 482 family home on the subject property when the subject property is only 89.9 ft wide. >> Right. And there's no way to come up with 10 more feet >> without taking it away from a neighbor. >> You're not making it property and a legal out of record. >> Okay. Any other questions? >> Based on what we're charged to do here, >> um how much leeway do we have? It is required in the um uh in the zoning ordinance that there that in order to do this there needs to be 100 ft. There is not 100 feet. Do can we override that and say you think that'll be okay if they go ahead and do it? >> Um chair and commissioner. Well, that's that is the variance request. That's why they need that variance. Without that variance, they cannot do the the two family detached dwelling, >> right? >> So, in evaluating that request, you're going to look at the standards that are on the slide uh on your screen. Mhm. >> Um those are the questions you need to ask and and make affirmative findings on all of those things uh for that for you to recommend approval of that variance. And then if you recommend approval of that, you still have to look through the conditional use permit questions which center around possible adverse effects. So you really have two requests that are both necessary for the project to go forward. The other thing I'd add is um you know you can attach recommended conditions and to your earlier question about all you know storm water runoff and all the the questions and and uh notes from engineering and forestry. I mean that could be easily added as a very reasonable condition that the applicant provide the city with all the information that goes to those those questions. So those are all the pieces you're you're wrestling with now. Okay. >> Did you have something else? >> There was just a spot where it talked about that our role in this as quasi du judo judicial. So I wondered if that somehow changed the way we're supposed to look at it, but apparently not. We can still go ahead and >> No, chair and commissioner. That's right. Yeah. this um what that means in this context is that you know if the applicant shows that it has met these criteria you should grant or recommend the council grant approval of these two requests. If if the applicant hasn't shown those things, you know, if there's there's one of these factors you feel that is not met, then you would recommend denial. Cool. Thoughts, deliberations, commentary? Anybody want to lead us off? >> So, I can start. >> Okay. Um, I'm looking at the picture on page 23 of all of the other properties in that kind of that block area. We've got the town homes to the north. We've got a duplex to the south. These lots are tiny. They're very, very long and they're very skinny. And I would have to imagine that whatever anybody is going to do in any of these properties, they're going to have to ask for some kind of variance because there's not a lot of room there. Um, so I think it is reasonable for them to come in and ask to make this a two-party or two family home. Um, and it's zoned for that. And you know, as you had said, Director Sharp, um, I don't even know why we're here to talk about a CUP when it's already zoned for this. And I understand the, you know, having some conditions attached to it. Um I I think you know the only thing I'm maybe getting hung up on a little bit is the width of the lot but at the same time the width of the lot is sort of driving the cup as well. So I don't have a I don't have an overall issue with it and I'm trying to think of what kind of conditions I would I would ask for to make it more reasonable but I think I think the proposal what they're asking for is reasonable. I think it the uniqueness of the property is not you know theirs. Although um they're trying to fit a two family home on um a smaller lot than maybe is necessary, but at the same time that is what this neighborhood is. It is a mix of dense more dense dwellings than you might find in another neighborhood. >> Cool. Thank you, Commissioner Severson. >> [laughter] >> Okay. Well, I've been thinking about this all day. >> I've got thoughts, too. So, >> Okay. [laughter] Um, well, I'm going to start at the bottom about the practical difficulties. the proposal, the application seems reasonable and it seems like a reasonable thing to put two houses on there, particularly the way they have them lined up where they're not even really sharing anything but garage similar uh back to back. They're not really I I don't think going to be in trouble regarding noise level and all that. At least it looks that way from um the renderings. Um well the plight of the land owner if he wants to have two two homes there um it is a plight that that he has. It is unique to the property but the landlord owner in his own way is making it because he's putting two homes on it instead of one. I don't think it alters the essential character at all. It certain certainly seems to fit in there. I don't know how much the economic considerations were a reason, but certainly they're going to have a higher profit margin with two homes rather than one in that neighborhood. Um, I think that it's going to be really important to address what the concerns were of the people who spoke up who live in the area that um the runoff during construction and afterwards that this is all done through the engineering department. Okay. And they would be involved in this. Okay. Um, the only other thing we really haven't discussed much is that the other neighbor is concerned about traffic. And I know there's a lot of traffic in that area because when I drive through it, there are speed bumps everywhere. So, I imagine they're there because there's a lot of traffic. Um, I'm not sure whether it's one family or two families going to make that big of a difference. Um, we're not talking about an apartment building with multiple units, many units. I I think it will will add minimally to the problem. Maybe it's something that the city of Weisetta needs to look at if it's really that bad. At any rate, I can't see any reason not to go forward with this. um have um engineering do what it needs to do, checking all these things out, particularly the water situation, and maybe the city needs to look at how how traffic is routed through there. So, that's what my thoughts are. >> Thank you, Commissioner Schwabby. >> Okay, >> Commissioner Flon. >> Yep. Um I have some thoughts here. Um I understand the concern on traffic. Um, traffic seems to be an issue in Weisetta, but again, I don't know if adding one home instead of, you know, there'll be two instead of one would be it. I do know it's going to just be a lot with construction. Um, and as far as, um, the water runoff, yes, um, I think our engineering department will do an excellent job in guiding um, the the project um, with the right water runoff and mitigation that's necessary. Um, so that would absolutely be a condition um with an approval on this. Here's that darn word reasonable. It it um you know what's reasonable? Um is it reasonable? Yes. I guess yes and no. Um the lot size here um you know gosh it's reasonable for one home. I think the neighborhood and the situation where this lot's placed is reasonable for two and multi. I I understand that. I that's one thing I like about this neighborhood is the transition from multifamily housing to single family. It's got some diverse housing um options for everybody. So, in that regard, I I I do like this application. Um, but I have a hard time um saying that the plight um is due to the lot. When the lot was purchased, it was 100 ft wide. It is still 100 ft wide. So, we're trying to do something um which the applicant stated was to maximize um the lot Will the variance alter the essential character? I think I've addressed that. I don't think it will. Um, and economic considerations are really not the sole factor, though I do think, um, it is part of the consideration. So, I've got some yeses and some nos at this point. Um, and same with the cup. Um, I do think it's in comp plan guidance. I'd say yes. Is it compatible with the area? I'd say yes to that as well. Does it meet the proposed code requirements? There's a no due to the lot width. So, there's the one. No. Would it propose um would it affect property values? No, I don't believe it would. Um and would it adversely affect traffic and other public service? Traffic? I think it will during construction. Um but I don't think so. And um public services will be addressed by our city engineer. Um, so I'm still kind of thinking about it. >> All right. >> Would love to [laughter] >> let me share my thoughts. How's that? >> Okay. >> Can you go back to the previous slide? There you go. Um, so I think like, you know, starting from the top, I think, um, I do see it in um, I do see the request for the variance as being in harmony. Um, and the intent of the zoning ordinance. Um, I think it's I do find that it's consistent with the comprehensive plan. Um I as Commissioner Plant noted, right, there's kind of a mix of um single family and two family homes in that area. Um and I think a two family home on, you know, in that space would be is would be good. Um I I think that what they're asking for is reasonable. Um you know, I know there's been there's been a ton of development um there and south of there um over the last like five or 10 years. And in fact, the I think it's the four properties just south of the duplex are all new homes in the last uh I think they were 2018 2019 built. So I mean that and they're big houses, right? So you know I think that it would fit what they're looking what they're proposing, right? And what they're looking to do I think would fit right in um largely with the neighborhood and some of the stuff um further south. There's been a a ton of development down there too. um you know so and I think that'll I'll come back to that development piece on on the traffic part right but in terms of um the the practical difficulties um I think the application is reasonable um I do I think that like Chris or commissioner Planton sorry the piece that I turn over in my head right plight of the land owner they knew what they were buying when they bought an 89.9 foot wide parcel um and if their intent was to put two family two two a two family property on it then their due diligence at that point should have led them to knowing that they needed a 100 foot wide property when they bought it and maybe they did and and that was part of the variance was part of the plan all along I don't know right I think but that's the one piece I think I I struggle a little bit I don't think at all it's going to alter the essential character of the neighborhood or the locality um and I don't think what they're looking for is is based on um economic considerations I think I mean in any kind of development I think there are economic considerations, but I don't think that's not what they're asking for here, or doesn't at least it doesn't feel like it to me. Um, onto the CUP part. Um, I think it's absolutely consistent with comprehensive plan. It's compatible with the area. Um, other as Commissioner Plant noted, other than the lot width piece, it meets all the code requirements. Um, they're not asking for anything. Um Todd or Nate, thank you for noting the um uh EES setback. [laughter] Um and I don't think it was going to affect property values. Um from a traffic pattern piece, I think that's where, you know, the long-term use of it isn't going to affect traffic patterns. The short-term use during the development process will. Um but again I would note there's been um so much development in that area over the last five or 10 years right I think you know there's that I to Mr. Nelson, your comments about um traffic. Um my personal views on traffic in that neighborhood is a lot of it got caused was caused when they put in that roundabout and cut off the two-way access down at um >> lake >> lake. Yeah, lake lake and whatever that cross street is. I'm going to some friends of ours used to live down there. So, um, and in terms of, uh, you know, impacts on public services, you know, I think going from a single family house to a two family, um, property isn't going to impact, um, water, sewer schools. So, um, I I I, you know, I, like I said, I struggle with the whole lot with piece, but I I find myself, I think, supportive of what they're trying to do um, and what they want to do, and I think it would fit in really well. So, >> and I also really like the renderings. I think that they'll be they'll look very nice in that neighborhood. >> It is sort of tough. >> Can I ask a question? >> Yeah. >> Do you Director Sharp with those four, you know, newer homes in the last six to eight years directly south of that duplex, if you go to page 23? Yeah. Do you know if any of those needed any variances for sideyard setbacks? >> Uh, chair and commissioner, they were a specific project that came forward uh as one set development. Um, they were actually platted that way and proposed as a full development. So, they didn't require specific variances because they were proposed and created as part of a single development. Um it looks like from looking back at it that it was PUD like that was established for those to be constructed. >> Do you think if they were all single like individual property would they have needed setbacks or do they they so they don't meet the current code? >> Uh chair and commissioner that's correct. They don't meet minimum lot width. They don't meet minimum lot depth. They don't meet minimum lot area. they don't meet minimum uh setbacks for sides uh for any of the four properties if you were to apply the standard R3A zoning district regulations >> and then now this property that we're looking at meets all of that. So their only issue is that they are lacking 11 ft from the property itself, but the the home that they're proposing on the homes they're proposing on this site would meet all front back sideyard setbacks. >> Correct. >> Okay. I mean to to me I think that's better. I mean, I feel like that's a better alternative than having an application come in and they don't meet any of those other setback requirements than, you know, having the have, you know, push the sideyards out so far that, you know, they're, you know, you can like hand something to your neighbor next door through the windows because they're so close. Um because I feel like that could be another option is this gets denied, an application comes back in and they have all these additional setbacks on the sidey yards or the front or rear yards. So to me I feel like this is a better option. >> The other really May I speak please? >> Of course. [laughter] The other thing that I really liked about it right from the start when I saw the first drawings is that they're about as separate as two families sharing a lot as they can be because there's no common walls that I could see. And also they each have their own yard. So I guess that's not the right one to really show that. But um they each have some yard to show on either side. So sometimes that little extra space makes for pretty good neighbors. So on each side, left and right. Sounds They each have their own yard. >> I think it's a plus. I'd like to add a condition maybe to this as we're all thinking about, you know, making a motion one way or the other, but um that they meet with their their neighbors and talk about the um maybe fencing requirements or some privacy, you know, with vegetation screening or something um to assist with the neighbors to the north. Um um and I'm sure with the forestry and um engineering recommendations, they would get take care of the trees um that are diseased, also the ones to preserve um and protect and then also deal with the water mitigation. Um and I know some of that's covered um in the conditions that would be um anyway, but I would just like to emphas emphasize that that maybe there would be some fencing or vegeta uh vegetative screening Okay, >> cool. I think yeah, I I heard what Mr. kind of Chris what you were sorry commissioner plant and what you were saying um about the um trees trees and some of that and I heard what Mr. Hogan was saying earlier um about there's some trees that need to be removed and there's some um question about who the trees actually belong to, but you know I think um I would hope that you guys would be able to figure out a way to work together on on that. Um especially with uh equipment coming in there to to do that. Um whether it's you know figuring out who owns the trees and or splitting the cost on removal or you know whatever that takes. for sure. The ashtrees and and the buckthornne, right? That's ashes that are diseased and the buckthorns. It's just flatout eyesore. Um, cool. All right. Um, it sounds like we've got a general consensus then. Do we not? >> Anybody want to make a motion? >> I could try. >> All right. Commissioner Planton. Um, I'd like to make a motion um recommending staff to prepare a draft um planning commission report and recommendation with appropriate findings including the proposed um requirements from staff on the engineering and forestry um along with a requirement of a discussion or I don't know if it would be a discussion but fencing or vegetative screening um as a conditional use of of this reflecting a recommendation of approval for this application. for review and adoption at our next planning commission meeting and this would be for the variance >> not the >> councelor >> and councelor tells us >> well chair yeah and commissioner I I think um I would just maybe suggest one amendment and one clarification to your motion if you would accept it is could be inclusive of both the variance and the c okay >> the conditions would attach to both and and I think um maybe just a point of clarification. I think we can work with your motion on on that, but I sound to me like the condition related to uh the wall and vegetation on the north side of the property and meeting with the neighbor that that condition be that >> the applicant meet with the neighbor to discuss handling those things. >> So, the condition is they got to have that meeting. Is that right? >> Yes. >> Okay. I think that's very workable and reasonable. So, if you would accept those two friendly amendments from councel. >> Accept those friendly amendments. >> Thank you. Uh, second. >> I'll second. >> Thank you, Commissioner Severson. The all important further discussion. >> No. All right. Um, I All those in favor? >> I >> I opposed. Uh, the the eyes have it. The motion passes and the draft report and recommendation recommendation of approval as amended um will be on the consent agenda at our next meeting and then after that adoption go on to city council for their consideration. Um thank you to the applicant um staff members of the public for coming tonight um and for your uh participation and thoughts um in tonight's meeting. Um, so then next item on our agenda is other items. Director Sharp. Chair, not a lot of development activities to update you on since our last meeting two weeks ago. U snow came a little early for those trying to button things up so they didn't get quite as far along as they would probably have liked to. U, our next meeting uh for city council is tomorrow evening. Uh there will not be any uh planning commission related items on that agenda, but the following meeting on December 16th will have uh your report and recommendation from 401 Lake Street East. Uh with that, open to any questions if you have any on development activities, but no significant updates to uh make you aware of. >> Do we have any applications for next time, >> Chair? We will. Yes. >> Okay. Uh it won't this uh the next meeting on December 15th of the planning commission will likely just be this item on consent. Okay. >> But we will actually have an application if the applicant submits it uh before December 8th. So it'll be a a larger review come the first meeting in January. >> Got it. >> So next meeting is just consent with a potent with an item potentially for early January. >> Correct. Okay. >> I have a quick question for the director. Um, I know I brought this up once before. I'm just wondering if anything is moving on the work that we did on Weisetto Boulevard of replanning that. >> Uh, thank you for the reminder on that. Um, so I've worked with and uh spoken with Henipin County and our city engineer and public works department. the work that was done on the Weisetta Boulevard corridor. They're Henipin County is planning on doing their work uh in 2030 or so. Um they need to come up with their plan for the corridor that we are encouraging them to utilize some of the work that the city had gone through. Um the next application the planning commission will be thoroughly reviewing will actually include some of the potential updates on Weisetta Boulevard. Um, so discussions have already begun on what that means, what the infrastructure changes would be, but there isn't a formal plan adopted by Henipin County at this part or at this point in time. They are looking to potentially submit an RFP for that design work to be completed uh starting in 2026, but then the work is scheduled to take one to two years of design work and public outreach or the city will encourage uh commissioners, the city council, and residents at large to participate in that process as >> Are they going to do it in a vacuum again like they did for Central Avenue by lens there? Um, >> sorry, you don't have to answer that. [laughter] The goal, >> my personal feelings on the matter are very clear >> to uh uh allow the citizens of White Isetta to engage uh significantly in that corridor study that ultimately it is their roadway. Um, but we have provided a lot of background work to them to try to guide them in the direction the city would like to see. >> What part is theirs? All ofetta Boulevard. uh Weisetta Boulevard from where it comes into the city of Weisetta west to around this location. I know it's uh >> Oh, really? >> It's pretty significant. It may stop just west of Wells Fargo where it transitions to uh city, >> isn't it? It follows County Road 101, right? >> Yep. >> Okay. So, that's like from B that whole section from BP all the way to London and then it goes north. >> Yeah. I knew that. I didn't realize it. >> There's Once you start getting to where the boulevards are added, the center of the street, that's where it uh really does that trans transition from county to city. >> Cool. >> Other questions? >> So, >> have we had any applications for a CBD shop? >> Uh, Chair Cameron, at this time, no, we have not. uh there's limited locations for them to locate within town >> to begin with. And so while we have spoken with quite a few people uh they have not secured a physical location and therefore no application has been received. >> Good question. >> All right. Uh so two weeks from tonight um with that uh with that said um concludes our agenda. Motion to adjurnn. So moved. >> Thank you, Commissioner Schwabby. Second. >> Second, Planton. >> Thank you, Commissioner Planton. Further discussion. >> All those in favor? >> I >> I >> I opposed. The eyes have it. The motion passes and the def December 1st, 2025 meeting otherwise planning commission is hereby adjourned.