There we go. Now we're on. >> That was loud. Sorry. Uh, welcome to the August 17th, uh, 2026 meeting of the Weisetta Planning Commission. I hereby call this meeting to order. My name is Blake Cameron and I'm chair of the Wisetta Planning Commission. Uh, first on the agenda this evening is roll call. Um, I would note that uh all commissioners except for Commissioner Elg are present at roll call as well as uh city attorney Shelzel and planner Headblown. Uh, next on the agenda tonight is approval of tonight's agenda. Does anyone have any questions um or proposed changes to the agenda? >> Hearing none, may I have a motion to approve the agenda as presented, please? >> So moved, Severson. >> Thank you. May I have a second? >> Second. Anonyy. Thank you. Further discussion. All those in favor? >> I opposed. Eyes have it. The motion passes and tonight's agenda um passes as approved. Uh next on the agenda this evening is the approval of the consent agenda and that is consists of one item which is approval of the planning commission meeting minutes from August 3rd, 2026. Um, does anybody have any uh wish to pull the the item from the agenda or have any comments? >> None. >> All right. May I have a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented? >> So moved. >> U Thank you, Commissioner Vanl. May I have a second? >> Second. >> Thank you [laughter] by your first name. >> Plant. >> Thank [laughter] you, Commissioner Planton. like Commissioner Chris. [laughter] >> That's just it would have worked good, too. >> All right. Um, further discussion. >> All those in favor? >> I opposed. >> Eyes have it. The motion passes and the consent agenda is um passed as approved. Uh, we're going to skip right past old business uh since there is none. And next on the agenda will be public hearing items. And we have two items for public hearing this evening. Um, one is a site alteration permit for restoration work on Trappers Cabin uh at Shaver Park and the other in other one is a variance application for parking lot expansion at 109 Bush Lake Bushway Lake Road. Planner Head Bloom, take it away. >> Thanks, Chair. >> All right. Our first public hearing item tonight is a site alteration permit for restoration work at Trappers Cabin. Um, as chair said, Trappers Cabin is located in Shaver Park. Um, so the city owns this property and owns this um, heritage preservation site and the city is bringing forward an application for approval of a site alteration permit for restoration work to occur here. So, a little background information on site alteration permits. um Wisetta heritage preservation sites are protected under their designation and when any form of alter I don't know why my laptop's deciding to move forward for me. Apologize for that. Um so when any work or alteration is proposed for a site, a site alteration permit is required. Um and ultimately the approval comes from city council. Um the review structure is to first be reviewed by the heritage preservation board um who makes a recommendation to the planning commission. The planning commission will then hold a public hearing on the application um and make a recommendation to council. Council may approve or deny or make modifications based on the recommendations and its own findings from there. Um and the purpose of site alteration permits are to prefer preserve the historical structure um of our heritage preservation sites and to ensure that no changes are made that will impair their historical integrity. Um and then these permits also facilitate transparency and allow for public input um regarding the city's historical sites. So, the proposed restoration and repair at the cabin um is fairly straightforward. Um this cabin is from the 18, sorry about that, is from the 1800s. It was relocated to this site in 2014 and designated as a heritage preservation site in 2021. Um since the cabin was relocated to this site, um further aging has occurred and the um the chickening the chinking between the logs have nearly completely deteriorated. Um and there are other proposed repairs um including replacing that chinking and then also um repairing the door frame and door of the cabin, window sill repair work and frames. And then um I believe there are there's one log identified as needing potential replacement. Um some of that work just due to the nature of this type of restoration work and how specialized it is in working with this old of a structure. Some of that work may evolve um or change depending on the contractor that's working on the site and what they find as things start to take form or are taken apart, etc. Um so the city council awarded the contract to Artisan Restoration LLC on June 16th of this year. Um and work is anticipated to occur at the end of September once permitting is approved. So this site alteration permit is part of that review and permitting process. The Heritage Preservation Board met uh last Thursday and they recommended approval of the um site alteration permit based on the following findings. um the deteriorated features will be repaired and only replaced where necessary for continued preservation and that areas of material replacement will match in visual quality and remain true to period of construction. Repair work and surface cleaning will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. So for the process and analysis um for the planning commission this evening uh staff pulled out the following questions to consider from the secretary of interior's standards for rehabilitation. Um so that's taken from the um National Register of Historic Places and our code for these heritage preservation sites at the local level is informed by the same standards um for rehabilitation for those sites. Um so it's what's included in your packet and taken from code is a list of seven standards. Um staff pulled out the following four that you see on the screen um as it was determined that they're the most applicable to this request. Um so that is is the historic character of the structure being retained and preserved? Are the distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship being preserved? Um are deteriorated historic features being that are proposed to be repaired um rather than replaced? And where the severity of deterioration requires complete replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. And wherever possible, they will also match the materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary physical or pictorial evidence. And then the the last question to consider would be, is the project being undertaken using the gentlest means possible? So, the recommended or requested actions for the planning commission tonight is to first hold the public hearing um and then you may discuss the application um and then ultimately direct staff to prepare a draft planning commission report and recommendation of either approval or denial for the application with appropriate findings. >> Cool. Thank you, Planner Headlum. Um, commission commissioners questions for staff. >> No, I have some. >> Sure. Commissioner Schwabby. >> So, looking at the picture, the photographs that you have here, um, are the replacements going to look like this, that washed look, or what will the final thing look like when it's done? Because it says like 16 logs are being replaced. Commissioner Schwabby, Chair uh Cameron, great question. I the the bid and contract that was included in the packet um actually proposes 16 total linear feet of possible um replacement log. >> Only 16 ft. >> Yeah. So, it's one potential log that's been identified as possibly needing replacement >> and it will be a pine log. >> The bid says pine. Um, and that's something that has been discussed with public works staff and sta I planning staff was assured that the replacement log would actually be Tamarak wood to match the original construction. Um I'm not sure as to why the bid says pine does >> say pine >> but I was Yep. Um and I also forgot in my presentation to bring up the fact that there's a public comment related to that that was submitted after the packet was published um from a former heritage preservation board member and um a representative of the historical society. Um, and that comment is also raising concern over the same thing that you're bringing forward, Commissioner Schwelby. Um, I was planning staff was assured by public works staff that if a log is to be replaced, it would be Tamarak wood. >> We can have that in our recommendation, too. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Um, it inside the cabin, what's it like inside? You know, >> Commissioner Schwabby, I have not been inside the cabin. I've seen photos inside the cabin, but a lot of the photos that I've seen are older, probably I assume more in line with the time period of when the site when the cabin was relocated to this site. Um, so I don't know what the interior state looks like right now, but it does have the same exposed logs and um, visible chinking between the logs. Um, and from the photos that staff took on site where you can see the chinking between logs has completely deteriorated or is no longer existing. One can assume that that's also the state on the inside and that you could see the exterior from the interior of the cabin. >> Are there little critters living in there? I would think there would be. >> Not that I'm saying we shouldn't do it because of the critters. They find another place to live, but you would think there would be infestations in there. >> I don't know about infestations, but it's a logical assumption that there would be some sort of animal potentially accessing the interior. >> Okay. It was odd when I go back and look at it's this replacement thing. It It sure looks to me like it says 16 logs. Are we sure that's means inches there? Because it doesn't specify. >> Where are you looking? >> It's the 16. It says 16 LF, which is lineal feet. >> Where's Oh, thank you so much. >> That's okay. It's all good. Okay, I'm good. [laughter] >> Can I ask um how how often is the uh trappers cabin unlocked? Because I know standard it's in our neighborhood. It's always locked. So, how often is anyone ever inside the cabin? >> Commissioner Inkeny, that's a great question. I don't know the the answer to it. Um in short, my understanding is that it's continuously locked. Yeah. Okay. Other questions for staff? None. >> All right. Um, since you since staff is the applicant, we will just roll right to the public hearing. Um, so with that, um, I will now open the public hearing. Um, if you'd like to speak, please come forward to the podium. Um, do we have anybody online? No. All right, >> Chair Cameron, I apologize. I forgot to start the teams meeting. I am going to do that right now. But for now, we do not have anyone present for the public hearing item on this application. >> Do we ever have anyone on teams anymore? >> Usually not. >> Yeah, chair and commissioner. We rarely do, but um to follow our protocol, let's just give a few moments to open up and see if anyone has logged on or wants to log on and offer a comment. >> For sure. >> Yeah. >> If I could ask one more question, is it too late? >> No, we'll I think we can uh we can just take we can do questions while the public hearing is open. >> Okay. Well, okay. Okay. So, I just want to go to the part where it says uh I'll get there if I'm not mistaken. I'll find it sooner or later. But it says there are there going to be three portable toilets or am I reading that wrong? >> It's just one as >> three three weeks. >> Three weeks one toilet. >> One toilet for three weeks. Oh, I >> I was wondering why they would need three, but obviously they don't. >> And two weeks of travel time and mileage, >> right? Right. Exactly. They're going to need it. Okay. chair and commission. Apologies for that. Um, we have the team's meeting started and looks like there's no one waiting to join. Thanks again for your patience. >> No worries. It's all good. All right. So, if we should be good. So, then I will now close the public hearing. Bring it back to commission. Uh discussion commissioners thoughts. >> It sounds like a perfectly reasonable thing to do to preserve that cabin because I don't know that it would hold up forever. W will putting any additional staining or why I already don't have to ask that question. I already know. Thank you. I like the idea. I I think it looks like something we should be doing and approving. >> Not that I know a lot about restoration, but it seems like uh uh a well thoughtout approach. I would I would suggest that we capture in our recommendation uh the use of a Tamarak uh log uh as part of that recommendation. >> I would I would agree to that >> that we should >> Yes. >> Yeah. as opposed to a pine log, you might as well make it as uh you know as possible restored as as close to possible. I think um planner Headblum the other piece just random thought right, but I think uh Commissioner Hanken raised a good point, right? It might be good to um if we're going to put some money, you know, put money into it to um maybe have it open for people to visit or something on some sort of regular periodic schedule rather than just have it closed up. >> Chair, that's actually something the Heritage Preservation Board expressed interest in potentially having after the work takes place is an event um to open the cabin. Commissioner Inkeny can chime in if she'd like since she's on Heritage Preservation Board. >> I had the same thing. I think leaving it open um when it was first put in encouraged people to gather inside the cabin and not respect the inside and exterior of the cabin. So now it's locked, but y >> we're hoping to once it's restored to have a weekend where people can go and see it. >> Yeah, for sure. I think that would be my my feedback to the Heritage Preservation Board, right? Is is, you know, maybe it's once a month or something like that, but >> it's just got to be we have to figure out how to um staff it. >> Yeah, for sure. >> Anyone else comments? I think we're feels like we're all fairly aligned on this. >> It's nice to see it being restored. >> All right. Uh would anyone like to make a motion? I mean, I guess I can um I'll make a motion to uh direct staff to prepare a draft planning commission report and recommendation of approval um subject to the condition of inclusion of a if a log needs to be replaced that it is Tamrack. >> I second that. >> Thank you, Commissioner Anthony. Uh further discussion. >> All right. All those in favor? I >> opposed. >> Eyes have it. The motion passes and the uh draft of the planning commission report and recommendation of approval will be on our next meeting in two weeks. Um next on our agenda tonight is a public hearing for I guess right I think it was 109 Bushway. Is that right? Scroll through. Uh 109 Bushway. >> Um there we go. for a parking lot expansion. Planner Headblown. Back to you. >> Thanks, Chair. Yep. So, the second public hearing item um for this evening is a a variance application um for a parking lot expansion at 109 Bushway. The applicant is Summer Hill Commercial Real Estate on behalf of the property owner Alaskan Properties. Uh so, the actions requested tonight is approval or recommendation of approval for the following three variances. The first is a setback variance, which would be a 9- foot variance from the required 10-ft setback. Um, which would allow for a 1-oot setback from um the Sorry, there's a typo there. It's a one foot setback from the property, the north property line. Um the second variance being sought with this application is um staff is referring to as the landscaping variance which is a variance from the required screening um and landscaping surrounding exposed parking areas of four or more spaces. Um so this would allow the proposed limited screening and landscaping um according to that one foot set back. Um and the third variance uh with this application would be a variance from the limitation of compact parking stalls in parking lots under 40 total spaces to allow 10 total compact parking stalls in a parking lot of 38 total spaces. The project location um is on the east side of the city just southwest of the Bushaway Road and Weisetta Boulevard intersection. Um the property has direct access onto Bushaway Road. The current land use and zoning information. Um the property is currently zoned as C3 which is service district service district. Um and then the 2040 land use guiding is for mixed use and commercial residential use. The existing site conditions there are some photos here. Um and then the applicant also provided a existing conditions uh site plan with their application. So that's what's on the screen. Um shows a the current parking lot configuration um with a the north property or the north parking lot line setback um within the required 10-ft setback area and then parallel parking along that uh edge there. the current use and parking requirements for the site. So, the current use of the building is medical and office use. There's a dental clinic on the second and third floor and there is a med spa on the main floor. Um, parking requirements um for the current use um per our ordinance requires requirements um is 32 total spaces in one off streetet loading space. And that's based on the calculations um included on the screen. So the applicant indicated that they have four dentists practicing uh at this site and our code requires six parking spaces per provider for health clinics and then one off- streetet loading space. Um four dentists uh operating on the site equals 24 stalls. And then the personal service use of a med spa requires one space for 200 square ft of floor area. Um so that's where the additional eight stalls um is required. So that's a total of 32 spaces and the current number of parking spots um on the lot is 31 spaces and there's no dedicated off- streetet loading space. Um so their current parking configuration is considered non-conforming with ordinance requirements. The proposed plans um are included um on the on the screen. Um the proposed plan would extend the existing parking lot edge um north to 1 foot from the property line and then reconfigure the current layout through a one-way drive aisle that exits onto Busherway Road. Um the there would be seven parking spots added through a combination of angled and compact stalls and that would create a new total of 38 parking spaces for the building. So the table up here is a comparison of zoning requirements and then what is included and depicted on the proposed plans. What's highlighted in yellow is what requires a variance. Um but I can walk through the different um rows. So the first is related to those parking lot setback requirements. The requirement is that there's 10 ft set back um from all property lines. And the proposed um plans show unchanged conditions on the uh front, rear, and south side. And then the north side is the only portion of the property or the parking lot on the property that is being proposed to have a new setback from the existing conditions. And again, it's 1 foot from the property line. Um the existing conditions on site as well as the proposed conditions uh meet the impervious surface requirements per code. Um the parking spaces required by use. Again, we just um reviewed that in the previous slide. Um but with the proposal of 38 total spaces, uh they are proposing the applicant is proposing an overall reduction in that nonconformity. Uh the next row is related to the landscaping and screening of parking areas. So, uh our code requires screening of all exposed parking areas of four or more spaces. Uh the existing conditions on all sides of the parking lot include landscaped and screening areas of at least 10 ft. So that um setback area um across the property is landscaped and the proposed plans on the north end um with the 1-T setback uh proposed insufficient area for landscape screening. Um so that that is the second variance required. The third is the compact stalls. So our code requires uh up to 20 allows up to 20% of compact stalls in parking lots of 40 total stalls or more. The existing parking lot does not have um any dedicated compact stalls and the proposed uh configuration includes 10 compact stalls which equals about 26% of uh the total 38 proposed parking spaces. Um and then just to note that compact stalls um as defined in city ordinance are a minimum of 8 ft by 16 ft and that is also what the applicant has indicated um on their plans to be the size of the compact stalls. Uh and then this last row is about the degree of angled parking and drive aisle width. Our uh city code requires a 45 degree angle parking um minimum traffic lane width of 14 ft. And then in instances of two-way traffic flow, city code requires a minimum of 40 of 24 ft. Um the current conditions are a include a two-way traffic flow through the site and approximately 20 foot uh traffic lane width. And what is included on the proposed plans is a one-way traffic flow with a 14 ft lane width and um 45 degree angled parking. So that is another nonconformity that's worth noting um that is either being reduced or essentially removed um with the proposed plans. So the following slides um are will discuss the um primary concerns from staff. Um the city forester reviewed the application and provided comments um related to the proposed tree removal on site and then also concern for impacts to adjacent um trees on the property to the north which is the McDonald's property. Um in short, the proposed removal of trees on the subject property um do not meet the 10% removal and replacement threshold um per ordinance definition. So, because they're removing less than 10% of the total um number of inches of significant trees, they're not required to replace any of those inches on their property. where the city foresters concern came into play was um just across that north property line. There is a 41 41 inch diameter uh red oak tree that's considered a heritage tree and an 18in um diameter basswood tree which is considered a significant tree per our ordinance. um because they're on neighboring property. Uh staff was concerned about the applicability or potential applicability of Minnesota State Statute 56104 which prohibits injury to a tree on the land of another person or another property owner. Um and then just a little further explanation of the city forers's concerns. So, I'm going to reference um the the depiction included on the screen um which is a little bit difficult to see because the color yellow was chosen and I apologize for that choice. Um but the critical root zone is divine defined in our code which is that larger broader circle around these two trees um depicted in yellow. that critical root zone is um determined by a very specific calculation based on tree diameter or trunk diameter. Um and excessive disturbance to that area can affect tree health. Um so that this is an area that the city forester looks at during his review um to be able to determine a proposed project's potential impacts impact on uh trees and any um disturbance within this critical root zone is likely to cause harm or potential death to trees. So because the proposed parking lot um is well within this critical root zone of these two trees on the neighboring property, there's concern. Um and then the structural root zone, which is the smaller um circles around these trees depicted in red, is similarly um calculated and determined by a very specific calculation based on uh trunk diameter. um that area represents the basically the roots um of the tree that are responsible for keeping the tree upright. Um so this structural root zone is uh integral to a tree's structural integrity. um and any impact to this area essentially is certain to damage or potentially cause death to that tree. Um so city code requires any impact within a structural root zone to a tree in an ordinary case where it's on the property of the proposed project. City code requires that tree to be removed before any work occurs. and those trees would be counted towards the tree replacement thresholds. Um because these trees are located on an adjacent property, there was a lot of discussion um in terms of how this proposal would be permitted um should the variance approvals take place. Um, and that leads me to the recommended conditions of approval from our city forester. Um, and his uh findings for how the city would uh approach this type of approval if it were just at the building permit level. So should the variances be approved um this is this is how staff would look at that application. So his uh recommended conditions of approval for the variance applications would be that the applicant uh demon demonstrates a lack of alternatives um as required within the tree preservation ordinance. um that a tree replacement plan be provided in accordance with the tree preservation ordinance um accounting for the removal of those trees on the adjacent property and that the property owner of the two trees impacted so the property owner of the adjacent property um provide written permission for their removal uh and that be submitted with the eventual permit that comes for this project should it be granted the variances requested um public notice and neighborhood notice follow followed the standard procedures for uh variance applications. Uh public notice was published uh in the Sun Sailor and the applicants sent letters uh to surrounding properties within 500 ft of the site. Uh they were not required to hold a neighborhood meeting as uh those are not required for standard variance applications. Uh the city has not received any public comments on the application to date. Uh the following slides include standards of planning commission review and application requests. So variance requests um essentially ask that the the planning commission act similar to a judge in a courtroom and apply the relevant rules of the zoning ordinance um to this particular property and proposed development. The planning commission should recommend approval of the three variance requests by the applicant if the commission determines that it meets all of the standard variance requirements outlined in city code. And the commission may elect to include the conditions of approval provided by the city forester um in the report and recommendation on the application. So, the primary questions to consider regarding variance requests, just as a reminder, because it's been a while since the commission has seen a variance request, um, is the proposal, is the proposal consistent with the comprehensive plan? Are the variances being sought reasonable? Is the plight of the land owner due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner? And would the variances uh being sought alter the essential character of the locality and economic considerations alone shall not constitute as a practical difficulty? The actions for the commission tonight are to first hold the public hearing and then to direct staff to prepare a planning commission report and recommendation of either approval or denial with appropriate findings and any conditions um or recommended conditions for approval or >> Yeah. >> Thank you, Planner Headlum. >> Yep. >> Commissioners, uh do you have uh questions for staff? >> I have one. >> I do. Oh, go ahead. Oh, no, you go first. >> Planner Headbloom, I have a question on the parking currently. Um, you mentioned, I think, in the slide, that there was 32 stalls already. Um, and the packet says there's 31. >> So, is that 32 they're conforming? the Commissioner Planton. Um the the code requirements um for the for the parking at the site is uh just over 31 spaces is what that calculates out to per use. So when there's a fraction of a of a parking stall required on a site, you go to the to the next you count that as another um parking stall. So their parking requirements per ordinance would be 32 spaces. The existing amount of spaces on site with the current configuration of their parking is 31. >> Okay. >> Is did that answer your question? >> Sure does. So it's non-conforming. >> Yes. Thank you, >> Commissioner Anthony. >> Um, okay. So, I went and walked the property and I'm confused a little bit. So, the north is the one facing McDonald's. So, are they proposing to to push out 9 ft towards McDonald's? Is that where they're getting the one? So, they're going to push right up to those. Is that >> Commissioner Anthony? Yep, that's correct. So they are extending the parking lot. They are proposing to extend the parking lot. This what's on the screen is the existing conditions. They are extending to they are proposing to extend that edge that northern edge of the parking lot um which is the property edge that faces McDonald's >> right >> 9 ft towards the property line which would allow this one foot set back. So, this property line on the screen, if you can see my cursor, which I don't think you can, um, is the darkest line there, and the parking lot is just underneath that. So, there would be a 1 foot distance between the northern property line and the edge of the proposed parking curb. So the extra 9 ft buys them extra stalls because they're reducing the two-way lanes to one way which reduces it by six feet. Am I understanding that? Commissioner Inkeny, they are um gaining parking stalls by first extending the parking lot north, but then also creating reconfiguring the lot to create the angled parking which is primarily what gets them additional parking rather than the current configuration which is parallel parking here. Okay. I think Sue I think or sorry Commissioner Akeny I think what the um when you had that table that table up earlier >> um on this one I think it's currently 14 ft of traffic >> right >> so it's it's currently right it's supposed to be a oneway already not 20 ft wide is that right >> Sure Cameron it is so the current drive aisle is just under 20 feet and with the proposal they are also reducing that drive aisle >> down to 14 >> down to So what what is gained by reducing to the one way? Because looking at that, how how how are you going to enforce that one way? Because that's a crazy situation. Has Mike the engineer given any thought to how this is going to work? Commissioner Inkeny, the um the staff review process is for planning staff to share the application with um additional city departments. Uh the city engineer received this application and pro and provided no comments. Um >> so that could be but that could be part of a condition of our recommendation. So what maybe this is for the applicant but what is what are we gaining or what is the site gaining by going from um two-way to one way other than I guess 8 six feet where is that six feet is that is that needed for parking or what >> yeah they're they're moving the parallel instead of parallel parking right in front of the thing it's going at a diagonal so if they reduce the lane somewhat and push it out somewhat that gives them the Can you go back one slide? >> I think. >> Okay. >> Or can you go to the existing conditions? >> Yes. >> See, it's parallel right there. >> Okay. Okay. So, and and and there's it's just going to be a little sign that says one way and we're going to hope people follow or chair and commissioners, the applicant has provided in their narrative um a written commitment to provide signage uh to control the flow of traffic and direct it into that one-way traffic um flow. Um, so there would be signage on the site directing and and I believe they also um provided written commitment for ongrade um striping or traffic direction. Um but the applicant is here this evening and has prepared a presentation. So the commission can certainly ask those questions of the applicant and >> um any >> the commission can also make any um form of condition of approval um with their report and recommendation as well. >> Thank you. >> Yep. >> Commissioner Schwabi, sorry. Hold on. >> I Oh, sorry. >> Are you done? >> I'm done. >> Okay. Sorry. [laughter] Before I move on to Commissioner Schwabi, Commissioner Schwabi, >> um I think about three years back we did a very involved corridor study of Weisetta Boulevard that went from 394 where it came into town to the end, I think, as far as um that junior high school. And I haven't heard much about what happened with that, but I know from you that there has been also the county who's interested in how that's going to all happen because it's a county street. And now we're talking before any of that has been determined, how we want to see all of that um that area on on Weisetta Boulevard, how it's going to have what cuts are going to be where along the driveway. and and now we're talking about making a change that may or may not be what the city was looking at and what our um our study had recommended our our experts. Um and I'm wondering too, so this is two things really. Has there been a traffic study? I drive by that area all the time. There's always cars coming in and out of McDonald's from Bushway. Um, there's also all kinds of cars going in uh in order to go through the the uh drive-thru at McDonald's, which also then branches off into you go to the right, you you're at Starbucks or My Burger, plus all those other stores down there. Has there been a traffic study that shows what the impact will be? because nobody I know really loves making a left-hand turn onto Weisetta Boulevard, regardless of what side of it you're on. And how much is this going to change that? Commissioner Schwabby, uh, Chair Cameron, uh, there with this application, there has not been a specific traffic study related to what is being proposed in terms of the one-way drive aisle and reconfiguration of this parking lot. Um, with that said, this area is certainly a congested area around Weisetta uh, Boulevard. that portion of Weisetta Boulevard is county roadway and Bushaway Road additionally is county roadway. Um the city as the commission this the city is aware as the commission is aware um that the county is redeveloping that area or will be redeveloping that area in the near future. Um, I am unaware of plans being finalized from the county and I know that the city has not seen any final or even proposed preliminary plans from the county for what Weisetta Boulevard may um be reconstructed as. Um so in terms of requiring this applicant to um provide a traffic study or provide a proposed plan that's in line with however we wise Boulevard may be redeveloped in the future. there's too many variables at play and unknowns at play at this time um to be able to to hold any sort of requirement there. Um I do want to make one clarification um to your question asking about turning onto Weisetta Boulevard. Are you referring to traffic leaving this site through the McDonald's parking lot and then turning left or right from Weisetta Boulevard? >> I think it's easier to make that left turn onto um Bush away and then >> but nevertheless, there's going to be a lot of people now that can't go in the back door. So, they're going to have to go around and make that left turn. And is that the left turn? That is the There there are several cuts right there. one to just go into McDonald's and park your car, but a little further. You can still get into McDonald's drive-thru and then go off onto Starbucks. Is that the road that they're proposing becomes one way? >> That that portion, Commissioner uh Schwelby, that portion um of access to the site is actually private property that is McDonald's. and the applicant was granted um an easement over that portion of McDonald's. So, adjacent to their um adjacent to their drive-thru lane, there is an easement for this property at 109 Bushway um for access. Um, in terms of that being dedicated as a oneway, I don't believe that this applicant has jurisdiction within that easement area um to be able to dedicate that as a oneway. My understanding of the application is that the oneway would be limited solely on the subject property. Um, so the oneway would begin as soon as you enter the north property line or across the north property line from that easement area from McDonald's onto the the clinic property. Do you have a a better chart or photograph which would depict that because >> Oh, there it is. >> So, unfortunately, you >> I'm just not sure where this is all happening. >> So, see this blue line on the screen? >> Yes. That would be the entrance from the north property line. So from McDonald's and that is the area of the driveway of the drive easement all the way on McDonald's property all the way to Weisetta Boulevard. >> Where is the whereabouts is the McDonald's building here? >> It's approximately here. I that's that's too close to the property line, but it's it's >> up there loosely. >> Yeah, that that's a it's a really big line. Sorry. So they so traffic would flow into the parking lot from the north here and once you cross this property line, that's where the one-way traffic flow would be enforced through here and onto Bushway. Okay, that's Starbucks. >> Mhm. >> Okay. So it's two-way coming in. So people going out there are going to be taking a left. Some people will want to get on to Wisetta Boulevard >> because it's two-way street. You said >> Bushway Road. >> No. Um, >> north the north entrance. >> You can't get out there. We'll be able to get out that way. >> I think but I think what she's saying right is the applicant saying this is going to be in only here and out only there is that's what's being proposed. >> Oh, >> currently you can get in and out in both places. >> Yes. So you so you can't get out. You exit right here. One way out. >> So, one way in and one way out >> once you get in the property once you get in the >> correct that's my understanding of the application >> from the top and out through Bushaway Road. >> Yep. And we can ask we can ask the applicant too once after their presentation. >> Okay. still seems a bit mysterious to me, but mostly a concern about the traffic patterns and what that will do to additional congestion that is now going to be brought on to Wisetta Boulevard. >> I hope that's not my car. >> Bronco, [laughter] >> technology today is not our friend. >> Cool. Uh, any other questions for staff? I don't have one on this um access easement agreement that goes into perpetuity with both properties. >> Commissioner Planton, that's correct. >> Okay. I just I'm thinking out loud here, but if the one way only involves uh the Lake Metatona Dental and that Health Spa, people coming in here and then going to McDonald's, where do they exit? Oh, they exit onto a boulevard >> onto a Bush or Bush way. Either one because that's all on McDonald's property. They can still go back onto the McDonald's exit right up here. Okay. Where were we talking about the road wasn't wide enough? It was only >> in their parking lot. >> In their parking lot right here. >> I was over there today and I still couldn't quite figure it out, but >> I went over yesterday, too. >> Um, >> so let's let's let them Yes, I agree. >> Okay. >> I have another question for Sorry, it wasn't finished. Um, so we don't have a grading plan with the application and the city engineer hasn't approved the I was just wondering with the burm there by the retaining wall and the trees and the damage, but there's not been a proposed grading plan with the project. >> Commissioner Schwabi, uh, Chair or Commissioner Plantton, sorry, Chair Cameron, there has been a grading plan submitted, a proposed grading plan submitted with the application. It was included in the packet. I can I can pull it up on the screen as well. Um the city engineer did not provide comment on the application. Um but that is something that would be reviewed at time of permitting. This project would be subject to a land disturbance permit at minimum. Um and the grading would be reviewed at that time. >> Thank you. >> Y questions are answered. Thank you. >> Good. [laughter] >> I'm good. Thank you. >> All right. All right. Well, thank you staff. Um, so I'd like to invite the applicant to come forward now um to uh for your presentation. Please uh step step to the podium and introduce yourself and uh who you represent, who you're with and who you represent. >> Thank you. Uh thank you, commissioners. Um I'm Patrick Lensing. I'm with Summer Hill Commercial Real Estate. uh working on behalf of uh Alaskan Properties LLC who is the property owner for 109 Bushway Road uh tenants Lake Mitaka Dental and uh and um Evo Youthful Medp Spa. Um uh Planner Head Bloom do There [laughter] we go. Okay. Well, I hope to uh through these limited slides be able to answer most of your questions and am happy to answer anything that is not on the slides. Um but as uh as staff has kind of outlined um we do have three variances that we are applying for um through this project that we would um uh that we are looking forward to completing if possible um with your approval. Uh we believe the proposal is a reasonable it's in it's in harmony with the um character of the of the uh business district. Uh it's in harmony with the ordinances. Um, if granted, it would not alter the essential character of this property um or any neighboring property. Uh, I'll just go ahead here. We um we need to meet or we would like to meet current parking needs um of the businesses on site and accommodate future growth, which is what the original um reasoning for going forward with this uh this parking plan was um what was the anti or the uh genesis of it. Um to answer uh some of the questions of of the commissioners, we believe it would improve flow on the applicant parcel um as well as reduce congestion on Wisetta Boulevard. Um and I don't know that I have an aerial of the site. So I might have to go okay um to be able to help them demonstrate that. But uh like photos that you've already seen from uh staff, this is uh a couple of photos of the existing Did these pop up on yours? On your >> Mhm. >> Okay. >> You don't have to turn around and look at it. Uh existing conditions of the site. Um this is the drive lane where a lot of discussion has occurred with uh where the width would be where to be widened. the angled parking would be installed um to accommodate that new angled compact parking uh as well as bring the property into better compliance with uh one-way traffic. Um you can see what the existing foliage is currently on site. Um it is landscaping. Uh it is rocks. It isn't exactly screening. Um but you've seen this slide. Um staff has provided this is the current survey and this is a little bit uh the survey with uh a lot of the other items that aren't really necessary removed. Um 31 current parking spaces, one compact space, one handicap parking space, and uh two-way traffic coming in and out of the property from both the north and the east. Um, with completion of this project, if it went forward as as currently drawn, um, we would have one-way traffic coming in from Weisetta Boulevard or from the easement with McDonald's from Weisetta Boulevard. Um, entering the property, 38 parking spaces, 10 of which would be compact angled spaces. Um traffic would then exit on to Bushaway road which is uh I don't have 20 25 vehicles per day for Bushway or for Away Boulevard. Um but certainly uh it is more than the 14,240 that we have today on Bushaway Road. Um it was 20,000 in 2019 and um I'm sure staff has those numbers updated. I just didn't have access to it. Uh and we would improve the park the current handicap parking spaces uh meeting current guidelines for ADA um with two ADA spaces that are both uh van accessible. This is the grading plan. Um I can jump back to any of these slides as you have questions for me. Um but I'm kind of going through them quickly. uh and and staff did a good job outlining the the foliage and the diameter breast height issues with the with the trees on site. So, I don't know that I need to go over too much. There is a dead crab apple. It's currently dead. That would be removed um on our property as part of this project. Um and and then one additional spruce tree. Um this is uh images of the spruce tree and you can see the oak tree that um staff had had mentioned as well. Um the the far side of these photos is the retaining wall. So, as you draw the concentric circles for the the critical root um structure um potential structure of these trees, um it's a little bit of a misnomer to say that that those root structures extend much further north uh or south because there is existing impervious parking lot and a retaining wall. Um so most of that root structure is heading east and west I would imagine um for those trees. Uh it's just a um dynamic of that site, but I I'm I'm sure that uh a good decision will be made on how to address these these road structures. This is what the view is from the McDonald's property. Um, I've included these to show what the screening is um from the neighboring property that would be impacted by our setback. Um, and our variance request to uh not have additional screening. Um, you can see currently there there are trees. There isn't really a lot by way of screening by going or extending that parking lot further to the north by 9 ft. um we're not going to impact the screening in any critical way. Um it would still be grass, it would still be mulch, um there would still be an oak tree. Uh the the screening is more or less created by the height of that retaining wall more than anything else uh in its current condition. Um and so we would uh not be altering that that current condition in any way. Uh I've included this slide as an example of what the character of the busy business district is and how uh parking has been addressed. This is the McDonald's site uh with the uh service station right next to it. This is uh on the property line. Both of these parking lots are within five feet of each other. So they're with they I imagine at some point received a variance um to be within 10 ft of their own setbacks um from each other with similar screening uh just a tree and some grass. So, a similar um screening design exists and a similar setback exists within the McDonald's property and their other neighbor. Um, that's the end of my slides. I thank you. But I'm more than willing to take any additional questions as I'm sure you have many >> commissioners. Questions for the applicant? >> I I have I have a couple. >> Sure. Go ahead. Um, so when we when I went out and and looked at the site, first of all, um, you have a you have a parking problem. Um, I recognize >> Did you find somewhere to park? >> Yeah. One of the things I didn't expect was uh uh the cars that were going left off Bushway through your parking lot to get to Starbucks. Um, so that's exciting. Um, when I looked at your options, right, I had a question as to whether you you you you said in your your statement that that you asked you talked to McDonald's, you talked to Starbucks and and My Burger, and you talked to the Yacht Club about uh uh parking. Have you tal have you um uh talked to the folks who own 121 which is right next door to the south or uh I believe it's uh the the large area that is straight to the west is part of the looks like it's part of the property of 535 Bushway. Have you talked to those folks about potential of of acquiring some some land in order to do that parking? So directly to the south is a residential house or a house. Yeah. >> Um we've not talked to them. I I don't anticipate that they'd be really thrilled to lose you. Okay. >> Sorry. >> Um I'm concerned a little bit about the the the striping on the McDonald's parking lot already shows it's a oneway from the west to the east. Not that a lot of people um uh follow it, but there's not a lot of room given the double lanes of of the drive-thru. Uh and if that if that lot is at all parked full, um that there's not enough room to do a two-way there. Um, so if you're directing traffic to your to your building, I'm I'm wondering how you're direct are you directing them to come off Weisetta Boulevard as opposed to Bushway. >> That is correct. We would be directing them to come off of Weissetta Boulevard. Um, right now we we can't dictate what McDonald's does on their site. Um, other than we have an easement as does MyBer and uh and Starbucks has an easement, exact same easement um for that curb cut off of Weisetta Boulevard. Um I'm not privy to what the county may do with that road in the future. I'd be surprised. Um I can't predict the future, but I'd be surprised that they would be able to do much with that particular curb cut. There are other curb cuts they may be addressing, but that particular one because um of the the our easement and it's essential to myburger and Starbucks um for their um current design that that curb cut would change much. Um stranger things have happened, but I don't think that that's going to change. Um so we would be asking clients to Is this Can I adjust this or I'm just going to lift it up. uh to be coming in off of Weisetta Boulevard um from a oneway entering the property to the uh from the north. So you can see Weisetta Boulevard. There's a white car exiting there right now. Uh yes, I can't control every car, but uh we would anticipate a reduction in the number of vehicles, at least for our part, that would be exiting our site and trying to get on Weisetta Boulevard and turning left. Certainly, it's a congested area. I don't like making that turn either. Um we would be uh hoping that by having oneway traffic then exiting uh if they want to go left or right onto Bushway Road, we would be reducing for our part anyway the congestion on Weisetta Boulevard. Um I hope that answers that question. I I don't know that we can compel uh McDonald's to do anything with their other curb cuts or their striping or their traffic flow. Um we would just be asking our pro our our clients to be entering um one way from the north um which we anticipate would mean they're coming off of Oetta Boulevard and exiting onto Bushway. >> Okay. Um, when you only have a a a one foot uh uh property line, um, have you thought about or are concerned at all about snow removal? Where you going to put the snow is going to throw onto the into the same spot? I guess >> Yeah, we currently uh push snow to the east. Um, so it it hasn't been an issue. We currently don't push snow there. >> Um, it goes to the east. Uh could it be concern for um a different pattern? Uh I I certainly understand that there's plenty of grass area there already. Even with the uh uh granting of this variance, there would still be plenty of grass area there. Um uh Dr. Laskin, uh who's probably chomping at the bit right now to say that for the last 15 years since he's owned the property, has been maintaining that property that is McDonald's. Um, they don't cut the grass, they don't take care of the mulch, they don't do anything. Uh, when the red oak that is a heritage red oak drops branches, we take care of it because they drop branches on our vehicles and our our lot. Um, getting McDonald's to um, respond to much of anything is not something that happens in the course of a week or a month or even a year. So, it's just easier for us to take care of it. >> What are what is your um what what are your thoughts on uh what the city forester talked about in terms of the oak and the basswood that would be impacted by this change? >> Certainly. Um I love trees. I'm no hater of trees and I I would not want to see this tree uh go away. Um there's a possibility that the uh where that tree is located is also a um striped area that that could be altered in the plan to um the curb line gets changed to minimize the impact on the critical root structure. Um certainly not all of the uh I I forget the the term for the the larger root structure um uh in the yellow circle uh on the previous slides. Um I I guess I don't want to put words in the forers's mouth. Um and if we needed to work with McDonald's to address that, we would be happy to do so. Um, we just know that that takes a lot of time. Uh, just in our experience with trying to figure this out with them. Um, it has been a a a long way just to get to this point and um and and that has we've gotten to this point because McDonald's just doesn't uh have time or need to deal with the neighbors. So, >> thank you. That's that's all I have for now. I have a question. >> Commissioner Schwabi, >> I just want to make absolutely sure I understand this. So, it's probably a repeat question, but >> it's fine. >> If you're going down Bushway Road and you want to take a left at that gas station where it shows one arrow going in and one arrow going out, will you still be able to do that? >> That's not our property. So, um I don't [clears throat] know. Um our property is the one highlighted in blue there. And we have uh that drive lane is two-way traffic. So if someone was coming down Bushway and wanted to enter our site, uh they could certainly with this plan enter, they just would not be able to go any further west past those first um 12 stalls on the east side of the property with our new plan. >> Okay. So, say somebody does take a left there and they want to go to um Starbucks. >> Mhm. >> Can they get there or is the one way you already started? >> If they took a left >> at the service station. >> Yeah, they take a left at the >> at the McDonald's curb cut there. At the McDonald's curb cut. >> Yeah, that's >> But that is right where the gas station is. >> That's That's the This is McDonald's here. >> Yeah. >> No, the other one on the south on the southeast. >> Oh, this is McDonald's. Which one? Yeah, that the one in >> southeast >> the one on Bush away >> on Bush Away. >> That one that's McDonald's. >> That's not theirs. >> That's not their property. I understand. But if somebody people do use that to get over to Starbucks, >> sure. >> Will they still be able to do that? >> Sure. I mean, we're not changing anything on McDonald's property. >> I just want to make sure that this oneway thing starts at won't interfere with people being able to get there. >> No, it wouldn't. Um there's no signs that would be on McDonald's property. Um our our property is uh we would have signage and we would have uh painting on the on the pavement. Um >> Okay. >> directing our folks and >> Got it. Okay. All right. Thank you. >> And you know websites can certain you know you go to the website, how do you get here? That sort of thing. We can direct people in certain ways. >> Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. [clears throat] >> Patrick. Uh I have uh two questions for you. >> Sure. >> Um question number one, so just the the whole notion of off- streetet loading, right? So I assume you guys get deliveries from FedEx and UPS and Amazon and whoever else, right? How does that happen today? And then what's your vision for how that happens in the future? >> It happens today. They they um >> where do they park? They park in front of vehicles like they do on many sites and that would continue um without a change. >> Okay. And is that so you're expecting that that will be the continuing behavior is they'll just kind of park wherever and >> Yes. >> Okay. Um and then second question um just regarding number of parking stalls um can you flip back to the first page of his presentation? The um the one thing I noticed, [clears throat] thanks co-pilot. [laughter] >> This page right here. Yep. So, the one thing I noticed when I was at the property, and you can actually see it in this picture, is that your one of those parking stalls that you're counting today is actually signed no parking. Uh, >> you can see that sign right there. >> No parking at a certain time of the day. >> Okay. >> Until until 11:00 a.m. on Mondays. >> Oh, is that for garbage? >> For garbage. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um, I think that's all of my questions. Anyone else? >> I I just have one followup clarification. When when I was reading through this, I thought that um the one way uh would go uh all the way and you basically would have a one-way exit out onto Bushway. What I thought I just heard you say was that they you could actually enter on Bushway and just stay in that front part of the parking lot. We could the we are considering that and that that is right now I think the best way to address right now it is a two-way uh trip lane. Yes. >> Right. >> Uh staff did express concerns that okay you allow people to come in off of Bushway. Um would they then try and go further to the west up the hill um [clears throat] and exit onto the McDonald's property? Uh we believe we can address that with signage uh both um signs on posts and also on on the pavement um [clears throat] and and not allow people, you know, they'll come in, they'll park in their space, they'll pull out and exit on to push away. >> Should put those little um metal teeth like they have at the rental car parking lot. >> I suppose we could do that. >> And a big sign. [laughter] Um but yeah, anyone that parks on the the west portion of that parking lot then would have to exit to Pushaway Road. Cool. Anybody anything else for applicant >> Patrick? Thank you for your time. >> Thank you very much for your consideration. >> Yeah, absolutely. Uh so now we're going to turn to back to the public hearing or a public hearing for this item. Um so with that I will open the public hearing for 109 Bushwway. Um if you'd like to speak please step forward to the podium and introduce yourself. Planner Head Bloom. Do we have anybody online? That' be a no. >> No, we don't. >> All right. Uh, so with that, I will close the public hearing. >> Um, and bring it back to commissioners. Uh, discussion. Commissioners, >> can I ask a question of staff? >> You certainly can. Yeah. Sorry. Uh, yeah. Any further questions for I did have a further question for >> the applicant or staff. >> Staff. Yeah, absolutely. >> So, the photo of the I didn't realize how tall the retaining wall was. >> That is going to only have a foot between the new parking and then the retaining wall. Correct, >> Commissioner Severson. The the retaining wall that were in the applicants photos from the view of the McDonald's parking lot, >> that retaining wall is property of McDonald's, >> right? But like the new their new parking will be a foot away from that. So my question is is there anything like has engineering seen that? Is there any concern about the retaining wall being able to support having vehicles parking up >> the retaining wall that you're questioning is this here? >> Yes. >> So there will be I don't know the exact distance but considerable. >> So it's not going to go that far up. >> Nope. The property line this is so fun that I figured out I can draw in this. the property line here. >> Oh, got it. Okay. >> I was thinking it was a dotted double dotted. Okay. >> Nope. >> 14 ft. >> 14. >> The applicant says it's 14 ft. >> 14 ft from the expanded parking lot to the retaining wall. >> Parking lot to the retaining wall closest. >> Okay. I was going to assume it's in compliance loosely. Maybe not, right? But if it was, it would be at least 10 feet off the property line >> on the McDonald's. >> Um, Chair Cameron, in compliance to what that the >> 10 foot setback for the parking >> for the parking on McDonald's we have. So the a lot of the properties in this area are old. Um, this area was developed as one of the first like areas in the city that was geared towards vehicular traffic and service of people in cars. Um, so all that to say, most of these properties were uh developed and their parking lots created before our code required that 10-ft setback. >> All right. I shouldn't say that definitively. Possibly. I didn't look into when McDonald's parking lot was designed or implemented. No worries. Other questions for staff >> or the applicant, comments, dialogue, thoughts. So, one of the thoughts I had is um the distance I'm trying to to determine the distance between um if this grant this variance was granted or the property line the existing property line and um uh and the the the southernmost parking spot within uh within McDonald's. I suspect it's pretty close to 20 feet. Um and so uh our our friends uh from Alaskan have been uh maintaining that even though they don't own that property. Um so if if if they actually if they actually own the property, uh the conversation would be much more about the tree preservation of those two trees. Um, and there would still be uh almost 20 feet, if not 20 feet, between where this parking lot ends and where the McDonald's parking lot begins. There's a the retaining wall between there. Um, so from my standpoint, um, uh, there's certainly a need for, uh, for additional parking. Um uh I think that there's space there um that that could be used in order to do that. Um I think that there's uh a challenge. I would I would challenge uh putting a two-way entrance, continuing to use a two-way entrance on Bushway because it's going to be very confusing for somebody coming in. There's no parking spots left. Then you got to do a seven-point turn to go back out on Bushway. Uh and then and then go into McDonald's where there's not enough room to get past. Um so the the flow is going to be uh confusing. So as much as we could ask the applicant to push and direct people to come on from uh Weisetta Boulevard uh uh would make the most sense from my standpoint. But I do think I think that um uh the applicant should um uh get permission or get agreement from McDonald's on what to do with the trees uh the two trees that the the the forester talked about. And I also think that um uh if you take out some of those bushes and you're pushing that way, that should be landscaped. Uh, and I don't know what the particulars are of property you take care of versus what property somebody else has owned, but from a a visual standpoint, I think it would be great if there was a way to uh have have other landscaping there besides grass. >> So, correct me if I'm wrong. If they landscape this property without McDonald's permission, isn't it adverse possession? Um, chair and commissioner, I I would say it would just be trespass. Um, if it went on for years and years, we I wouldn't weigh in on that, but it takes years to adversely possess someone else's property. Um, yeah, I think that's that's the wrinkle with all these questions. You know, the applicant's property ends at a certain point and some of the things that they'd be impacting with this plan are the adjacent property. So, uh, they, you know, the legally they can't I I think friendly picking up trees that impact their property, I think they have a legal right to do that and anything that's overhanging. Um, you know, I don't want to opine too much about that, but it's a tricky spot for them. And I think they're being a good citizen by, you know, trying to maintain things and they're being a good property owner if it's impacting their property. the city wouldn't want to get involved in that dialogue unless it impacts um you know how we're going to apply our code here. >> So I guess I would agree with Commissioner Vanly if we're if the applicant is getting permission from McDonald's to to take out these two trees and then offering to put in something in its place. Could we put that verbiage in there per per Bennett the forester? I mean, would that be adverse? Would that be >> Well, um, chair and commissioner, we couldn't ask the applicant to do anything that wasn't legal. Um, part of the reason we're there's been some concern of the city foresters that this action would, you know, at least be a civil violation of the the the property owners um uh rights in their tree. Um so in terms of the conditions you would put on your recommendation of approval um they should be reasonable and they should be related to the approval that you would be recommending. So in this case a variance which has to be reasonable and I think the city forers's concerns are right out of our code and out of state law. So I think that's a reasonable condition. Um, and I think the applicant, as I heard in some of their presentation, there is a willingness to talk with the city forester and pursue a dialogue with McDonald's, albeit a difficult and slow one. Um, so again, I think that's all reasonable. >> Okay. >> So, can I ask what happens if McDonald's is not cooperative or they say no, you can't take down this tree or they relief like what happens then? Uh, chair and commissioner, I'd say we'd cross that bridge when we we come to it. [snorts] >> I think there's ample I guess enough room between the property line and the retaining wall. Um, when you look at between McDonald's and BP only being 5T here, we have in some places up to 20 feet. So, I do think there's um room for when that replacement plan that we're saying that would be recommended, you know, with this approval um per the forester that um when that conversation comes up, there might be the opportunity to do some additional screening. But there is definitely more room between these two properties and the parking than there is between the McDonald's and the BP. >> Yeah. >> Um I Yes. having a a replacement plan um and running it through um the adjacent property owner. Um I like the fact that we're going to bring this into compliance at least for ADA requirements um and the number of parking stalls. Um that is a benefit for um the building owner as well as um patients and all that may I don't go to that dentist but use that um facility. Having those parking stalls and bringing this up to compliance um I think is a good move. Um, and I'm okay with the compact stalls um, there as well, which was one of the variances to get that number where it needed to be. So, I'm okay with the three variances, one of the setback, um one with the landscaping, just um not quite understanding the grading plan yet from the documents that you've shown me and how um it does seem like there's quite a burm to that retaining wall and how that will affect that tree, but I'm sure between the engineer and the documents that are required for approval, that'll be all um ironed out. Um and I'm fine with the third variance on the compact stalls as well. Do we question random question for staff? Do we have compact stalls any in the city currently? >> Chair Cameron, I'm actually not sure. Um I don't want to make an assumption. I have not reviewed any plans in my tenure here that have compact stalls. Um >> why do I feel like I've seen them in the parking lot behind like McCormix and Gianis in the >> ramp? It's it's entirely possible that they exist. >> So I park in there anyway. Okay. Um and then question for you slash maybe city attorney Shelzel is the the reason for this um compact stall variance of less than total 40 total spaces. Is it because it's prohibited or because it's not addressed in current code? >> Cheer Cameron. It's because it's not addressed in current code. Our code does not necessarily prohibit them. However, staff consulted with the city attorney um in reviewing this application and uh the consensus was made that it would be better to have them have this approval um because our code does not um address parking lots of less than 40 with compact stalls. >> Okay. >> And they're above the the certain percentage um because the requirement is 20% within parking lots of 40. Um and the nature of their applications 38 total stalls so almost there but 26%. So in comparing what our code does say and what was being proposed it was close enough that it staff felt that that should be a variance requirement. Um do you have anything? um chair and and uh planner I I guess I would say I you know my interpretation uh based on the context is that it would be prohibited. Um but I think to the the planner's point this is so close it I I think there's a very staff felt there's a very good basis for the reasonleness of that request. Um and but that's your judgment call obviously >> for sure. Okay. I think I I I get a little hung up on the whole nature of the comp of the compact spot just because so in my visit there, right, like it was all SUVs, like no SUVs parking in a in an 8 by6 spot, right? Like a BMW X5 is seven over seven feet wide just by itself. So that leaves less than a foot on either side of it to the line >> and it's longer than 16 feet, >> right? So, like I I do get a little hung up on that like in terms of who's actually going to want to park in that spot or, you know, if I was parking there, I certainly wouldn't park in one of those spots because I'd be afraid of whoever was parked next to me. >> I mean, that's that's maybe just my weird quirky nature. I don't know, right? But, um, I think that's that's the one piece that I get hung up on. I think the rest of it is pretty pretty reasonable. I think the uniqueness of the property um just in terms of the huge burm and the um retaining wall um make the pushing it to you know to within a foot of the of the property line I think a reasonable ask um and the um so from a from a setback perspective and the the landscape screening piece right I mean if you're going to push within a foot you can't really plant anything there or put a fence there. So I think that's a fully reasonable one too. >> I Oh, I say so right now with the number of employees, it meets code without having to designate compact stalls. It meets the requirement. So they're going over and above based on future potential use. Well, the applicant's narrative um explains that they'd like to add another >> add another dentist, right? Which would then necessitate having more parking spaces. >> So, it just feels like we're trying they're we're trying to like shoot in that. That's my my perspective. >> They wouldn't need to add that many. Maybe >> I have a question or a comment. Yeah, absolutely. >> The thing here that bothers me the most is that we haven't heard from engineering that they haven't responded yet when you ask them. I think that's an important thing for us to know. Um, >> they did they did respond just without any comment. >> Well, that's not good, is it? What to say? I'm not sure what that means, >> right? Does that mean they didn't have a comment? They didn't have anything to >> note. >> Are they required to have to provide some feedback when you ask for it? chair and commission. Um the engineering department is not necessarily required to provide comment on zoning applications. Um typically it's a a courtesy to help the review um and help the planning commission and council come to a determination. this this um proposal an application was provided to the different department staffs that that the planning staff typically sends it out to and it they're the comment that was received was that there were no comments. >> So they they completed their review and provided no comments. So no for no against neutral >> no conditions. I think speaking of that though are sorry >> no I I have one more thing go ahead cuz >> I was going to say like I just thinking about the engineering piece I think the other piece that like one of the conditions for me would be that it's a full it's fully one way right there's no entrance off a bushway the bush way is either a turn left turn right exit only um and the north entrance the easement is is enter only into their parking lot cuz um I almost got hit by somebody coming up the hill around the corner >> when I was visiting the site and I don't know if they were going to the clinic or if they were cutting through to go somewhere else but >> um you know there's there isn't any way there's no way for two cars to pass each other there currently right and in the future there won't be any way for two cars to pass each other there so >> show me that spot >> uh where the two cars can't pass >> right on right in the building right there >> right there >> okay well the other thing I was going to comment on is that intense study that we did on um Weisetta Boulevard and that the county is also doing on Weisetta Boulevard. And I wonder if there's a way we can use this request to get those two things going. So, we don't do something that ends up being redone later. It is so congested in there. I just hate to have I mean, so you have another dentist and then you have a couple more people in the spa. They want more employees. Um I'm concerned about it. >> Chair Cameron, Commissioner Schwabby, I can certainly send this to the my traffic contact contacts at the county. Um, but I I can't guarantee that it would push anything forward on their >> I I'll add my own personal narrative. Look what they did to 101 um by lens there with the narrows down into from two lanes into one and didn't bother to tell anybody. It's like awful there. Sorry. Personal commentary aside, city attorney Shelzel. >> Yeah, chair. I was just going to bring us back to um >> Thank you. a comment earlier just because I wanted to um respond to um Commissioner Swelby's, you know, trying to understand the the nature of not having a comment from engineering and I think I think our planner articulated correctly and I just wanted to underscore that which engineering did review this and I think you can take their no comment not as neutral but they did not have any issues with the proposal like the city forester did. So, I think I would probably characterize that as as positive about the application. They didn't find any concerns. They didn't have any recommended conditions. That's not to say they're not going to review things further on down the road with that grading permit and any building permits that are required. So, engineering will still be overseeing and reviewing this, but they didn't have a articulated concern, for example, about traffic flows. Um, so just wanted to make that clear for the record. So a as a city um knowing that changes to Wisetta Boulevard are coming, are we okay with going along with this even though it may change things on Wisetta Boulevard? >> What if the change is no change? chair and commissioner, I think you have to you you know your your role here is to review the application request for variances based on what our code is now, what our policies are now. You know, I think your comment is a larger comment for staff to be thinking about, but you know, we can't um we can't speculate about what uh a future study might bring um or anything that's not directly uh having a bearing on this now. And I think staff would identified that if if there were those sorts of things. Um so that that's the perspective I would have on that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Anyone else? >> Well, I may I >> Yeah, absolutely. Commission. [clears throat] >> Um I I would just So, first of all, before I I've lived here for 20 years, I didn't even know there was a north entrance into this dental office until this weekend. How terrible is that? I thought you got in and out of it on Bushaway Road, but um it's a kind of a nightmare this whole this whole corner. I don't have any problem with the fact that there's not going to be any screening because it's all industrial. It's all fast food, gas station. I don't think anybody's going to care. Um so I wouldn't necessarily push too hard to make them like put a whole bunch of landscape in that's not their property because I don't think it matters. I don't think anyone cares if it was butdding up two homes or if it was on the other side where this home nice home is, you know, to the south. I would say they probably are going to care, but I don't think people going to McDonald's are going to care. I'm more concerned honestly about the the beautiful heritage tree that potentially is going to go away. >> Well, again, I think >> I agree. uh the um I don't know if McDonald's would have any interest in having sold 9 ft of property to these folks, >> right? Um and and if they did, we wouldn't be asking for a variance. But to that point, the the impact to those two trees would still be in place and then it would be uh simpler from a code standpoint because it would be you can do what you want with those trees, but you have to have a tree replacement plan. Um so uh uh independent of where the property line is I think uh the impact of those trees I I feel still has to be part of the part of the equation. >> You mean the city forers comments? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I agree. >> Which loosely then means they got to work with McDonald's. >> Correct. >> Yeah. Out of curiosity, did you try to buy that property? >> Yes. Well, the applicant is saying yes. >> When we have a dialogue with the applicant, they really do need to come to the lecture and so it's in the minutes and we can hear it. >> Yes, please. Thank you. >> Sorry for speaking out. >> That's okay. >> Thank you, Patrick. >> Yes. Um, conversations were had with McDonald's on a couple of different um, uh, parking lot expansion ideas and what kind of impact that would have for uh, what kind of land would be purchased. And um to say the least, we are here to go over a variance and not purchasing their property. Um well, it just was not in the cards at the time. >> Understood. >> And then in your conversations with them, like would you characterize them? I mean, I think you made a comment earlier about um response, lack of responsiveness, but in terms of like being able to talk to them about the impacts of the trees or anything like that, are they receptive to those conversations? >> Yeah, I would characterize their It's not that they're not willing to work with you. It's that this is such a small potatoes item that it doesn't write raise to the nature of something that they prioritize. >> And this piece of property is owned by McDonald's corporate, not >> own by McDonald's corporate. Yeah. Um if we were dealing directly with the franchisee, it would be a much easier conversation. They are um in our experience very easy to work with. >> Okay. >> Gets lost in the corporate office. >> It it does. Um we we found that when the building was purchased, the easement that should have been filed 50 years ago, 40 years ago, um for that drive lane um wasn't filed correctly. And just to get that piece of paper completed uh as it should have been done 40 years ago took the better part of two years. So all right, anything else for the applicant? >> Thank you, Patrick. >> Yeah, thank you. Yeah. I can make just one more comment being we're here about three variances. >> Uhhuh. >> I don't see an issue personally with those three variances. Um, as long as the forester is involved in things and the engineering department. So, I think I've loosely heard I'm going to take a take a stab at summarizing here, but I think I've loosely heard um we're other than me on my hang up on compact parking stalls, um we're largely aligned on um the variances being reasonable, um that there do need to be some conditions attached to it, right? um but that what they're asking for isn't um isn't unreasonable. Is that fair? And the variances that we would have or it's not the variances, the the conditions that we would have loosely are um working with the city forester and the adjacent property owner um with relation to the trees or coming coming up with a maybe a slight redesign of their parking lot or something like that to that wouldn't necessitate the removal of said tree. I think the red the oak specifically, right? But I guess that could fall underneath working with the prop the adjacent property owner in the city forester on the tree piece. Um and then working with the city engineer or just figuring out a way to fully make um the traffic flow a one-way traffic flow. Did I miss anything? Are we aligned on that? >> That sounds nodding heads. >> Yeah. So, >> very good. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Councelor >> Chair, I I I agree with your summary there. Um I think one thing that'll be helpful for staff if you move towards a motion and asking us to work on that with some recommend recommended conditions. Um I think page 23 of the packet has the particular conditions that were recommended by the city forester. I know planner also had them on the screen earlier. >> Yep. Um these are fairly pointed and specific conditions. Um I think a few of them might be very challenging in light of the testimony from the applicant. Um, so I I think it would be helpful for us to understand whether the commission would like to incorporate these particular recommendations verbatim or if it's something maybe a little uh more uh I don't know what the right word would be, but not quite this uh particularized as you put it. Like the applicant would work with a forester on these things and try to come up with the best solution. Um that would merely be a condition that would require them to work with the forester. Um this would be they've got to get written permission from McDonald's. >> What is they've got to they've got to show these things. And again, I'm this is staff's recommendation are these three things to be clear. I just wanted to make sure as you move towards emotion and direction, we're clear on what you would recommend. So, with your ever so deep knowledge of city code, >> I'm kidding. Um, do you know, but do you >> are you implying I don't have knowledge of city code, chair, >> I I think you do. I was just >> Okay, thank you. I just wanted to make sure that wasn't for sure. For the record, >> for the record, for the record, I was not saying city attorney Shelzel does not have deep deep knowledge of city code, but more specifically, do you know what 936.06.8.01 says? Uh, chair, I I do um essentially when you remove a heritage tree Yeah. >> um on your own property, you need to demonstrate that there isn't a there are a lack of alternatives because heritage trees have special protection under code. You just can't cut them down like you can even a significant tree and just pay the price, so to speak, um by tree replacement. Um a heritage tree requires that showing of lack of alternatives. So that there basically there's no other option other than removal, >> right? And and I don't think the applicant this is this is again kind of a unique situation where the applicant doesn't have this tree on its property, but it's it's impacting those two root zones. One of which is I think structural >> and in the city foresters professional opinion will result in the death of the tree um or at least making it very unsafe almost immediately because of that impact. So, um, presumably, uh, yeah, so that that's what the required showing is under the code. >> Okay. >> A lack of alternative for saving that heritage tree. >> Okay. >> Um, yeah. >> I mean, since our city staff suggested this, are we are we saying we're going to go not comply with what they suggested? Um chair and commissioner that was my question whether you wanted to adopt these recommended conditions and again this is just your recommendation to council. So applicant to be clear, this is not necessarily what council will adopt. Um but your recommendation could be that the conditions of the city forester um be attached to any approval >> or it can be something different. >> Something chair I just heard you articulating. So I I didn't want to I wanted to be totally clear and transparent >> uh when you make your motion what what you are recommending. So for sure we captured that in the report. >> That's a really good check. Thank you, >> chair. I have a comment. Um, since >> we have an opportunity to look at these three um, and hearing from the applicant about the difficulty hearing back from the owner of that property, I'm wondering if we say, you know, obviously number one is being met under this criteria. Number two, a tree replacement plan must be provided. And three, that um they will let the property owner of the trees that are impacted know that they're going to I don't know if necessarily permission. >> Um >> I I >> is that they can't move forward. I mean, if they're showing a tree replacement plan for that. >> I I think about I guess I think about it this way, right? Like if my neighbor wanted to do something in their yard, but it was impacting a tree in my yard. >> Yeah. >> And they did it without my permission. >> Would I be mad? >> Well, it says here that they specifically have to get a written permission. >> Well, that's that's what Yeah, that's what he's that's what he's re Bennett is recommending. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yep. And I think that goes back to the state code that he referenced in in uh in the discussion that if you do something that impacts uh uh your a neighbor's tree, you are you are liable. >> Um >> so so if if they would >> travel damages >> Yeah. Yeah. And and because ultimately they wouldn't be able to take that tree down. McDonald's would have to take the tree down and that would be a heritage tree that died at the hands of of of this work. So I think that um I think there is a level of as painful as it might be I think there is a level of permission that would be required in order to go forward um or or a change to the the plan so that uh everyone agrees that it it doesn't impact enough of the tree to uh to be necessary. Well, it looks like based on the photo here, the rendering is that almost anything they do in that parking lot is likely to cause damage to that tree >> and and the basswood. I mean, the basswood's even close to the property line. >> Yeah. That there it circle is like smaller, right? Because >> Well, the basswood's a significant tree as well, right? So, it has different different rules. Yeah. >> Um um but the uh the heritage tree and especially in oak uh root structures I have found recently that oak root structures are very close to the very close to the surface. So you start messing with the surface you start messing with the oak trees capabilities right away. So I am I what you're vastly oversimplified summarizing what I hear you saying then is you want to include the three points Bennett's three points verbatim >> I believe so >> okay >> I would agree >> okay easy enough anything So motion then to direct staff to prepare um a report and recommendation of approval subject to the following conditions. Uh number one inclusion of the city foresters three points. Um and number two, um figuring out what a traffic traffic management plan to prohibit people from entering their parking lot from Bushway and exiting their parking lot into the rightway. >> Get that right. >> I think you just made a motion to >> I did. Yeah. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Commissioner Severson. Further discussion? >> Yes. I have a comment. Yeah. Can we dictate that on their property that traffic making it one way? >> On whose property? >> On their property? >> On their property, >> meaning the whole from Bushway Road. >> Yeah. So, it would just be subject to the variance. >> Okay. >> So, I don't like what you said, you can't come in and then do the sevenpoint turn and then turn around that it it can only be one way that whole way. Even those 10 stalls that you could potentially come in. >> Yeah, that was that was the condition, right? You can only enter from that north entrance. Oh. >> And you can only exit on Musha away. >> Okay. >> Chair, that's the way I understood it. Um, we'll write it up. Uh, it'll be subject to your review and approval on the consent agenda when you bring it back, but that's the way we'll write it up. >> Okay. Does that make sense? Okay. Other discussion, comments? >> Vote. All those in favor? >> I opposed. >> Eyes have it. The motion passes and the draft uh report and recommendation of approval um subject to the two conditions uh mentioned here will be on our planning commission meeting agenda in two weeks. Um next on our agenda this evening is there we go. Uh other items headl. >> Thanks chair. Uh the next planning commission meeting is scheduled for August 31st. Uh we'll have the two items, public hearing items from this evening. Um on the consent agenda for the report and recommendation uh for city council and then um my review of development activities we can keep short this evening. I really don't have substantial updates from our last meeting. Um, I can provide the update that our Sunday music in the park series has been successful this summer and there is one more event um I believe this coming Sunday. >> That's that's it for my updates. >> All right, >> I'll I'll ask you two questions that I that I get um uh every couple of weeks. any any news at all in terms of the moments of Weisetta SL whatever's going on uh across the street there and uh second any movement at all on the former TCF building. uh chair and commission the in terms of moments of Voisetta, so that's 163 Weisetta Boulevard, their zoning approvals are um scheduled to expire, I believe, in September. Um staff has made several attempts to reach out to both the applicant and the property owner. Um and our mail and email and phone calls have not been successful. um mail sent to that property uh has been returned. Um so I don't anticipate that coming forward for a zoning extension request. Um yep, that's the update for that that property. um for 200 Lake, the former TCF site. Um city staff is continuing to work with that property owner on securing the site and preventing any sort of vandalism um that's been occurring um throughout the summer. Uh that property I I believe staff provided the update that the city was awarded uh cleanup funds from DED um for that site. Um the city is I don't know if the commission was provided the update that the city prevailed in the lawsuit um related to the uh conditions of approval for their um development application. Uh in terms of update from there status update u staff has has yet to hear from the applicant on how they intend to to move forward. Um in the application for the for the deed grants, uh there was a proposed timeline that the developer worked with staff on um that indicated that they had plans to bring their um development agreement forward um and continue pursuing that um in order to um get the cleanup work started. Uh so staff is is awaiting um a meeting to connect with the the developer and property owner um for next steps. >> Thank you. >> Y >> my understanding you say that they lost their >> mic on my understanding >> my understanding you to say they lost their appeal as well. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. >> I have one more question. >> Sure. >> So, Moments of Wisetta, they re Did you Did I hear you wrong? Did you say that they returned the property to the original owner? >> Chair and Commissioner, I I don't know who the original owner is. Um the information that I provided was that uh staff has made several attempts to contact the owner of that property. um and the applicant for the development uh approvals um that have been extended for several years and that mail has been returned and emails have been returned or bounced back. >> Okay. >> Um in terms of where that property sits in in terms of ownership, I am unaware of the status. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Well, thank you all for coming this evening. Um, and thank you for your participation everybody. That concludes our agenda. May I have a motion to adjurnn, please? I >> Oh, I make a motion to to uh adjurnn. >> Thank you, Commissioner Schwab. May I have a second? >> I'll second it. >> Thank you, Commissioner Vanl. Further discussion. All those in favor? I opposed. The eyes have it and the motion passes and the August 17th, 2026 meeting, otherwise the planning commission is adjourned.