Good evening. I'll call the meeting to order. Uh, welcome to the April 21st, 2026 city council meeting. I hereby call the meeting to order. Members of the public may attend the city council meeting in person or may watch or listen remotely by viewing the meeting on channel 8 WCTV and at the city's website at weisetta.orgwv. Public comment during the public forum and or public hearing portions of the meetings may be provided in person at the meeting in advance or by logging into the team's call and raising your hand during the public hearing. When your name is called in the meeting, you'll be seen and heard at our council chambers and the cable channel. You'll be asked to unmute and turn on your camera and then you may begin your comment. All public comments should include your first name and the neighborhood or group that you're representing. Uh next on our agenda is the pledge of allegiance. I would ask everyone to stand if you're able and follow along. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the [clears throat] United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you. Next uh will be our roll call for this evening. I will note for the record that all council members are present this evening. We did not have a workshop earlier this evening, but I do need to note that on April 7th after our city council meeting, we had a closed session of council and this was session was closed pursuant to Minnesota statute 13D.05 subdivision 3B, the attorney client privilege exception to the open meeting law. This meeting was closed to permit the council to meet with its attorneys to review and candidly and openly discuss absolute, confidential, and privilege matters related to the following litigation. Adeline C. Adams, 225 Manitoba Avenue, LLC, Olivia A. Adams, Wisetta Cottage LLC, and Robert C. Fischer, trustee of Robert C. Fisher Trust, uh, Planist and Petitioners versus the City of Weisetta, Defendant, and also Jeffrey Lee Homers, 306 Berry Avenue, LLC, Scott Trips, 1020 Lake Street, East LLC, Anna Astonaya, and Yugani Organovich, Plano's petitioners versus the citywide Azetta defendant. With that, um, the next item is to approve our agenda. I need a motion to approve the agenda as presented, or do we need any amendments or changes? >> I'll make that motion for you, Mr. Mayor. >> Thank you. Can I have a second? >> Second. >> Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Those opposed? Motion passes five to zero. Next is our public forum. And we have a couple different flavors of this tonight. We've got quite a few people here, but uh just as a reminder to those uh out in the public, um you you if you you can fill out a card and give it to staff if it's on the agenda item and you will then be called to the dis during that agenda item. If it's something that's not on the agenda, it would be now in the public forum. So, um fill out that form, uh provide it to staff. If you're on teams, uh please send a note to staff uh via chat and let them know what agenda item you wish to speak about. Um, do I have any cards for for this part of our public forum? >> Mr. Mayor, you do not. >> And nobody on teams. >> Mr. Mayor, we do not. >> Okay. So, our first formal presenter on the public forum is an update from our Henipin County Commissioner, District 6, Heather Edison. Welcome. Thank you for being here. City Manager, did you want to introduce us in any way or we just go right to >> I would just turn it over right to Commissioner Edison. Thank you for being here tonight. >> Yeah, thank you. Welcome. >> Thank you. Hello, council. It's good to see all of you. It's a beautiful day. It's nice to have the doors open. All right. Well, I will get going. I think I have about 10 minutes and I'm going to try to cruise through this. So, um, hello everyone here, too. I'm Heather Eden. I'm the county commissioner. I've been in this role for about two years now. Before this, I was at the legislature for six years representing Edina at the capital. All right. So, we'll go ahead to our next slide. Um, this is just some fun facts about the county. It was established in 1852. Uh, what year was the state of Minnesota established? Anybody know? >> 1858, actually. Yes, I know. So, um, the county was actually established before the state of Minnesota. Um, they were broken into territories and so, um, the counties were the first ones to to start. So, 45 cities in Henipin County, 1.3 million. But thank you, mayor, for, uh, thank you for, you know, playing trivia with me, >> playing along. >> I know. I love it. Thank you. Uh, 1.3 million residents. We have eight Fortune 500 companies, 100 plus lakes, 600 square 607 square miles, and 11 watershed districts. What watershed are we? Yes, there we go. All right, we got it. People in the audience playing. All right, let's go. We go to the next slide. And so we have this just this is a fun um word cloud just to show you all the different areas that the county actually works in. Um we do recordkeeping. Uh we have the county hospital that's made the news a lot and we'll be talking about that later. uh public health, we have our dispatch center, lots of different things we're doing. And you can go ahead and go to the next slide. So, here was our budget that we adopted. It's a $3.15 billion budget. Um you can see the different revenue sources that are there. Property taxes being 35%. Um and I just want I'll be talking about property taxes for a little bit for the next few slides here. Um what we have seen progressively throughout the years is a more reliance on property taxes because of how our businesses um in downtown we are less uh there's less businesses that are there. Um and so we have had that shift and we are working at the county diligently to make sure that does not continue. So we are having monthly budget briefings to try to figure out how we can reduce cost um so that we do not continue to see the the projections up. And we'll keep going to the next slide. Um, here's our expenditures for line of business, health and human services, about 50% of our budget. So, you think about child protection, um, disability waiver services, SNAP benefits, the the county is the safety net of of of a community as a whole or as the county as a whole. So, a lot of things that we wonder who is doing that. Um, you can oftentimes when you're thinking about health and human services, the county usually has a line with the state of Minnesota on that and a lot of the county is actually required to do things by either the federal government or the state government. Um, and then you'll see the sheriff, law, safety, justice, but we also have a lot of partnerships with our local police departments. Um, we have a lot of partnerships with our local public health. So, a lot of different and you think about one one interesting thing that I didn't know before I became a county commissioner was when every restaurant you go and and visit in Henipin County, it's Henipin County is actually reviewing that restaurant to see if it meets qualification for state standards. And so that is just a an interesting way that people don't usually think about the county in that capacity and that's it's affect affecting your everyday life. And we'll go ahead and go to the next slide. So, this is going to be hard for people to see. Um and hopefully council you have that in front of you. Um but what this is the sources of revenue broken up. Um and so the dark blue line what you'll see is the first one is property taxes in 2024. Then um we're going to I'm just going to stay on the first one of property taxes. Then the light blue is the 2025 budget and then the green is where we are at now. So you'll see that reliance that I told you is is going up. we really need to stop that um from continuing up in that trajectory. And so we that's why we are having those monthly briefings. And I want to make sure I'm telling this is my I think 10th city council. I have 16 cities that I represent. Um my goal is is that we are not continuing that trend. Um and so you'll see the stud the state over about four graphs and you'll see that the state funding it can it can go up and down and it fluctuates. And then the federal funding, we've we've seen some decrease in that. And if go to the next slide, feel like an auctioneer. I'm trying to go so fast. Um expenditures for line of business, you you'll see for the third line over with health, we've seen a a dramatic increase in that uh for a many of reasons. The needs in the county are are definitely shifting to a lot of need around public health. Um and then one of the things that has come up um disparity eliminations and I just want people to understand what that is. It's employments uh it's employment. It's barriers to housing. It's looking at people in um say for instance a workforce if somebody is coming out of jail and making sure that they can get a job. Uh it's making sure that we have pathway programs and and things like that which helps our overall economy and it helps our overall community. Um, and then we'll keep going unless council members, please, if you have questions throughout, let me know. Otherwise, I'll just kind of keep powering through. Um, if you want to go to the next one. All right. So, this is um this is the net property tax impact that we're seeing for Weisetta. So, it's um the estimated market value. If you have a home that's about a million, you've seen from going from the market value from 1 million to about 1 uh 152 and that's a 14% change. Now, the net capacity change is a little complicated. So, that's actually a state um law that is uh homes homes up to 1%. It's been a long day and the the the county deals with a lot of public policy. So, okay. So, if you are up to 500,000 um this your home is taxed at a net value uh of 1% but then if you go above 500,000 the state law says at 1.25. So Weisetta's share is actually larger for a multitude of different reasons. Um that some of which the county just simply does not control. Um it is actually state law. So um that is what we are at a 22.1% increase which is a lot. And I I completely understand that mayor. I acknowledge that when we were looking at that um earlier this year actually multi in district six our our districts of the 16 cities I represent. I would say our cities have disproportionately seen probably the largest share of taxes and so as you can see that's one of the reasons why I you know making sure that we are pushing to not have that trend continue and next slide. Um some of the federal cuts that we are seeing um so SNAP for administration. So now just a quick explanation here is SNAP um the county administers it for the state of Minnesota. Other states actually the the state administers SNAP and so they'll actually um do the qualification process and then they'll also send the payment out. Now the federal government sends it to the state of Minnesota and then the state of Minnesota we are actually qualifying people for SNAP. Confusing? Yes. Um so we do that in in Minnesota and we are actually seeing an administrative administrative cost of 8 million reduction um for 2026. And then we also have terminated grants that we're looking at at about 2.8 million. But I have to be honest, some of those um it's changing uh every month. And so that those right there were looking at grants for I believe um housing. All right. And we can go on to the next one. These are just the 2027 grants that we are looking um or anticipated cuts that we're trying to prepare for as a county. There's an error rate that we are anticipating about $20 million of of impact for Henipin County alone. Uh the error rate in the state of Minnesota is about 8%. HR1 said that we need the error rate to be 6%. We've asked for a delay in that. Counties all across the state of Minnesota and about 33 other states in the United States have also asked for that. Now Alaska got an exemption from the error rate. Counties need more time. We have archaically old systems and it's going to it's going to be very challenging to get our error rate down uh within you know 6 months from now. Uh so that's a challenge. HUD housing it is permanent housing supports for supportive housing for people with disabilities. We um are expecting about a $12 million cut there. I saw Secretary Ronnie CR and asked him if we could see a delay in that. Um I did not get a good answer on that. So my hope is they'll consider a delay. Uh and then Medicaid cuts with HR1. We are do not have the complete financials figured out exactly on what the impacts will be, but it's not just hospitals that are going to see cuts on that. There's a lot of services that we as a county bill for that we will see cuts for Medicaid on. And so the impact to the county directly uh will be challenging. And on to the next slide. So one of the things that we're doing right now with the state of Minnesota is you've probably heard it in the news. We're asking for a ballpark sales tax. So the twin stadium is paid for. We have a hospital which currently receives no funding from the state government. It does however receive about four levy points from Henipin County taxpayers. So what we're hoping for is taking that four levy points which is about $40 million. The levy point in Henipin County is 10 million 10 million. And so we're going to be shifting that hopefully to the ballpark. Um, Henipin County alone shouldn't necessarily be the ones paying for HCMC when it is actually a state asset. And there's a large portion of people that are coming all throughout the state of Minnesota for uncompensated care or underinsured people or uninsured people or Medicaid as alone. And the people at different hospitals will send them to our hospital and just expect that we're going to take care of. Now, we want to take care of people. I want to be very clear, but we do think that everybody should pay a portion of this. And so trying to figure out a mechanism that makes more sense would be helpful. In the federal government, our goal is just to reduce the amount of Medicaid impacts. We'll go to the next slide. So just really quick, you can review that later, but we've had a lot of changes also in the news in terms of what governance looks like and who's running the hospital. We are the hospital board. We took over in August. I was a no vote on that just because I simply wanted a timeline for how long we would actually be the hospital board. I'm a I'm a clinician, but I am not a doctor. I'm a I'm a therapist is what I did before I was elected to office. And I've been in government now for eight years. And so I know my limitations and um just don't believe that I we are the best politicians I don't think are the best ones to run a hospital. And so I stick to that and I will continue to try to make sure that we are getting uh that hospital run by uh healthcare executives and doctors and physicians that actually understand how to run a hospital. But I promise you I'm working really hard and I've read a lot about hospital policy and trying to do the best we can right now. So all right, on to the next one. Early voting. I want to make sure all of our cities know about this. Um, city manager, just making sure that you know that up to the city has just sent an email last week that we'll be giving 9,000 up to 9,000 for onetime funding for early voting for every city in Henipin County. So, just make sure to let us know on that um if you need. It's Dan Rogan is who you'll want to be emailing. And you can go to the next slide. We've opened a crisis youth stabilization center in Henipin County. There's 13 beds. This was about a $20 million project. And you might say 13 beds, 20 million. That math doesn't math. Well, actually, you'd be surprised. One youth that is in the care of Henipin County um for with complex mental health needs, sometimes we would have to have them go out of the state and that that one child could cost us more than a million to care for them. And those we are seeing a multitude of different youth. I mean, it could be up to 75 kids that we see in a year and trying to find placement. It's also important that we keep kids as close as we can to their families so that we can reunite them with with their families. And so looking at comprehensive health is really important. We'll go to the next slide. And we have a new public safety center in Plymouth, which is really exciting. The sheriff's office was pretty excited about this. I don't know if council members who were able to attend, but the opening was really um really great. And it's has a green roof on top and solar and um geothermal. So state-of-the-art and um all of the sheriff's deputies are very excited about it. And next slide. Um one of the things that we do uh we we collaborate with Weisetta public schools for fiber optic collaboration here. So you can see that and next slide. And here's just some Weisetta area projects. And I also have Lisa Cerny here who is our uh assistant county administrator with uh the county. So from public works um she certainly can answer any questions but we are just doing some chip sealing on Weisetta Boulevard as well as the Weisetta Boulevard and Galisonon Road. We have some ADA um updates that we're doing pavements storm water structures. And then next slide. And for 101, it doesn't say that on there, but uh mayor, thank you for hosting the um community gathering that we had, I believe, was it a year ago? >> Yep. >> A year ago. And so here's we were added uh we've added some visibility uh some of the speed zones um and crossing. Let's see here. Lisa, you maybe you can talk to these. This is this Yeah, I'm going to call you up here. Not my specialty on exactly what you guys did here. Thank you, Commissioner um and council members and mayor. I'm Lisa Cerny. I'm the assistant county administrator for the public works line of business with Henipin County. And so, yes, uh 101. Thank you for hosting the community meeting, bringing together Mindot, Three Rivers Park District, the school district, the city of Plymouth, and uh creating a space for us to be able to listen to residents and and what they're experiencing on 101. Um, some specific actions the county took was we we worked to increase visibility, ensuring that Hollybrook uh residents have a different and safer access onto 101, working with Mindot to change some signal timing. Next slide, please. And then increasing some visibility and enforcement around the school zone and speed limit during school. uh appreciate the partnership with your enforcement Plymouth law enforcement um helping us set up some speed traps to help educate people along the way and make sure that they also understand the importance and the role that they play in safe travels whether that be for pedestrians, bikers or people in cars. >> All right. >> Um while you're there, could you go back a couple slides? Just had a question about uh Wisetta Boulevard. um here. So, um I note that there is uh the County Road 101 intersection um but it doesn't extend uh to 394. Do you know when that component will be part of the scope? Um >> Mayor, I'm assuming you're talking about the the one that's labeled um estimated construction 2030. >> Correct. Yep. And so you've got County Road 15, which is Vixsburg, right? Then you've got uh County Road 101 and then we're looking to create the whole corridor which I know you're aware of. I just wanted to know if you had any further guidance on timing of when we partner with you to fully complete Wisetta Boulevard. >> You're asking the exact same question the city of Plymouth is asking us. Right. Um, and so we are in the process right now of reviewing all of our county roads and our crony corridors and uh in the process of developing what our next five-year CIP uh 101 is one of those roads that is on the cusp of I I of needing a reconstruction and reconstruction is the best time for us to make those longer term improvements of 101 going north from from where that is. And so I anticipate in the near future that will be part of the CIP and we will then be able to do some of those bigger improvements that residents have expressed. Obviously I'm not trying to get ahead of engagement with those projects, but um we >> Yeah, I know that's part of my question. Then the other is the Wisetta Boulevard part of the county uh responsibility that kind of goes through the eastern part of our city. Is that on the road map or will be part of the conversation? And Aurora, maybe you know the answer in terms of when our corridor will actually get on the the block. >> Um, uh, thank you, mayor and council members. I believe that that's what's already listed there as the estimate of 2030, that portion of Weisetta Boulevard. >> Okay. That and that's the full corridor for what the county's responsibility is, >> right? That's the county portion of Weisetta Boulevard. >> That's what I was trying to clarify. Thank you. >> Yep. >> Okay. All right. >> Thank you for that. >> Yep. and then we'll keep going up and I think we're essentially almost done here. Yep. And that's it. >> Okay. Questions of county commissioner from council, >> Mr. Cook. >> Yeah, thank you very much for coming. Um, have you guys uh how many how much conversation have you had about so you you talked about the property taxes. um got concerns about the uh decreased valuation of properties in the central business district of Minneapolis and how that's going to impact the county statewide. >> How deep are your conversations and analysis on kind of that that impact and how that's going to push out to the communities throughout county? >> Well, it's I mean, thank you, council member. That's a great question. We are working actively with the downtown council um the downtown business council to try to do what we can to bring businesses back. But I think what we're seeing is just a shift in terms of how people want to work. We can't force, you know, businesses, private businesses to decide that they want their offices to be in downtown Minneapolis. Again, they're picking other places and oftentimes the spaces are significantly smaller in the suburbs. So, a lot of people are working from home and we can have as many philosophical conversations on that of whether or not we agree or disagree with it, but businesses, it's hard. I mean, I don't know if that's answering your question. They're just not they're not doing it in the way that we want. We wish that we were because we have an entire uh structure of of revenue from taxes that we've set up to rely on that. >> Yeah. And it's not so much a philosophical question because I know like you can't control that, but like there is a reality of properties in downtown Minneapolis are trading on at pennies on the dollar and they will be revalued and that tax burden will have to like the countyy's not going to spend less money. >> Uh so like that that burden is going to have to shift to other other revenue sources outside of the downtown area and that's a significant amount of the budget >> and that's what we're looking at. it's what we're looking at when it comes to the hospital. We're looking at a different revenue source um a sales tax for that. But for the other parts of it, it's it's complicated, right? I mean, you can't you can only have so many sales taxes. >> Yeah. Right. >> But it's challenge. I mean, we have been we've worked with um again the downtown business council, but there's also a developer developers with the historic tax credit that are looking to develop some of those old empty buildings um into condos. [clears throat] There are some challenges there too and I know that the mayor of Minneapolis um he's talked about it quite a bit too but again we just have to have movement I think developing in some areas is really working well and in some areas that's not right now it's it's challenging time but yeah you're highlighting something that's really important. >> Yeah. >> And then I just this is not a question but a comment. I want to thank you for uh standing up in support of the county sheriff's department. um thank you for pushing back against some of your uh colleagues um what I would say rogue thoughts on eliminating that that department and the uh looking at the need for for that department. So I just encourage you to stay stay strong on that one and thank you for standing up for the sheriff's department because communities like ours benefit significantly from the support we receive from them. >> Thank you council member. I will >> Mr. Sorenson. >> Yeah. Um just a quick um question and I think you you touched on briefly but um HCMC you know serves people way beyond Henipin County like you mentioned. Is there any meaningful conversation going on between the county and state level about how about realistically how we can deal with that? >> Um thank you council member for the question. I think it's a good one. Uh we have had the conversation really is about we need sustainable funding. Um and it's a crisis moment because if we don't get state funding this year genuinely the hospital will close and we'll have to start a windown process. Um so it's been so focused on that. I have concerns about um governance and some of the decisions and how it works. Um but looking at an infrastructure where the state funds HCMC I'll just tell you from a my policy brain from a state level will be interesting because rural hospitals right now are also struggling right slightly different than we are but because of the volume that we have um and the payer mix that we have but uh it will be interesting if the state gets in the business of of maybe direct appropriations to hospitals could be interesting right but at the same time it's something where we need to have hospitals. It's one, you know, people consider when they're thinking about a community, they want roads, they want bridges, they want sheriffs, they want police, they want schools, and they also want healthcare. And so we it is in the business of the state to make sure that hospitals do not fail. So I think it's a great question. I don't think on a gran granular level that we're having enough conversations about what that could possibly look like. Um but there's a lot of solutions that are being discussed and at the coming from the capital I can tell you the last two weeks are where really everything gets done. So it will be interesting to see what other ideas are being floated. One of the things that um Representative Nado is uh proposing right now is all of the states in the state of Minnesota pay into a uh the general fund um a portion of their revenue and then that revenue could then subsidize the safety net hospitals. And I think that's actually a really great idea. Um, so just one idea. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> I just have a related question curious. You know, the ballpark tax extension is sort of probably not going to perform enough of a revenue source to rightsize or or stabilize the system. Do do you see an appetite to go beyond that at the capital or is it still just a you know wait and see in this session? >> Uh, mayor, I think it's a great question. I am not sure. I mean, it's really the prediction of what happens at the capital. It it is not going to be enough. I think the revenue will be 300 million a year um that would come to the county, but that is not enough. And I think the c you know the the hospital will still have to make cuts and we'll still have to downsize and make efficiencies, which we've been trying to do. Uh I'm not sure what will happen in the last >> but is it fair to say that that if the ballpark tax alone is the is the band-aid that's not going to provide a sustainable source for the needs based on the funding cuts from the feds and every everywhere else? I mean, is that a fair assessment? I I'm not as steeped in the details. >> I I would say the ballpark sales tax, if we get it at 1% actually would be enough that I mean, it would be enough for us to to level out the hospital to remain open to I mean, that's why we've asked for the 1 cent, which is a lot. And I, you know, Senator Rest has said it's it's a little bit too high for her, and so she came in at a 0.25%. So, I mean, think there's negotiations in the logistics. I mean, people will argue that a sales tax is regressive, but the reality is is not having healthcare is also regressive and not great for a community. So, um, it is a challenge. We're in a financially challenging discussion. Um, but it won't be enough. I will say that we can make cuts to the hospital to make it up right if we get this 1% sales tax. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions of the commissioner? >> Thank you for being here and thank you for your service to our little community out here. And um you we certainly will be leaning on you for for some support here in the next year or two for roads and some of the infrastructure stuff that that you know we we rightfully need some investment out here. Um so thank you for that. >> Yeah, it's an honor to serve and so always please do call me and let me know what I can do to help. I will always try to my best to make sure that our community is their needs are met. Thank you. >> Yep. Thank you very much. Uh, city manager Jerger, do we have anyone coming in on teams? >> Mr. Mayor, we do not. >> Okay. Um, so now we're on to new agenda items. Uh, does council have any new agenda items that we'd like to discuss and bring up at a future council meeting. Hearing none, um, we'll go move on to our consent agenda. So, uh, on our consent agenda this evening is approval of city council workshop and regular meeting meeting minutes of March 24th, 2026. Approval of our check register. Approval of municipal licenses. Receipt of the police activity report. Receipt of the building activity report. Approval of professional services agreement with Brunken Consulting LLC for temporary communication support. Approval of professional services agreement with VSI professional sound services and letters of agreement with the artist for Sunday music in the park series and approval of the seasonal lease agreement with Tonka Boat Rentals LLC for boat rentals at the depot community docks. Um, I would accept a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented. Or do we need items pulled or amended? >> I'll move to approve the consent agenda as outlined, Mr. Mayor. >> Thank you. May I have a second? >> Second. >> Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say I. >> I. Those opposed. That passes 5 to zero. Um, next is uh going on to our regular agenda items. And first up is the uh Walzer Lamborghini uh dealership at 1022 Wisetta Boulevard East. I just want to frame this in terms of a process both for council and the public about how we're going to go through this. Um it's state statute that we have to have a public hearing related to the vacation and draining and utility easements and we're going to have a separate public hearing for that topic in fenced in. We will also give other members of the public a chance to weigh in on the other elements of the uh approval or consideration of approval which is the PUD and the first reading of the ordinance 860. So with that I just wanted people to understand if you want to talk about it we're going to take it in two parts right one is the the the required public hearing on the vacation and the second would be on the project overall. So just on background on February 24th, 2026, the preliminary and final PLA PUB general plan variances and design deviations was approved by this body uh the council and allowed public comment at the project at this time. Um so with that um I'm going to structure this as a presentation from staff. Then we'll have questions from the council. Then we'll allow the applicant to present and we'll have questions. We will then have the public vacation hearing open and closed and then we'll allow further comment after that public hearing is closed on the project. Does that make sense to everybody? Okay. With that, I'm going to turn it over to staff for their presentation. >> Thank you, Mayor and Council. I'm going to turn it over to community development director Sharp. >> Thank you, manager Joerger. Try to pull that a little closer. Thank you, manager Joerger and Mayor for introducing the item. As stated, this is a PVD development agreement reszoning and vacation of drainage utility easements at 1022 and 1042 Wisetta Boulevard East. The owner is Wala Real Estate and they are also the applicant of for the uh proposed project. As the baron noted, we have three actions before the council this evening. There are two potential options uh that are either or for the first action, which is the PUD development agreement. I will go into greater detail on these later, but essentially it is a approve with the uh recommended conditions from the applicant or remove uh or approve the project consistent with resolution 12-2026 and I will go into further detail on what the differences between those two are. There'll be the reszoning uh which would be the resoning of the site from C3 to PUD, a standard practice as we're moving through this project after the PUD general plan has been approved. And then as the mayor noted, the vacation of drainage utility easements. Typically the staff provides a staff and planning commission provide our recommendations on certain actions. For certain portions of this agenda item, the planning commission does not review. So in the case of the PUD development agreement, staff recommends approval uh or I'm sorry, consideration of approval of the two uh options presented. In terms of the resoning, staff and planning commission recommend approval as the planning commission held the public hearing on that. I will go through a greater detail on that, but uh we do recommend approval of ordinance 860 to reszone the property. And then planning commission does not review the vacation either. That is why the city council is holding the public hearing. So staff recommends approval of the vacation if items uh the first two items of the PUD are approved. Because there were some changes and conditions, I wanted to do a brief introduction. So the site is at the southeast corner of Weisetta Boulevard East and Central Avenue South. It is currently two different parcels and the subject site of Malber's dry cleaning. As I noted, there are two separate parcels totaling 088 acres. There are access points off of Huntington, which is a closed street for public parking on the west side. Weisetta Boulevard to the north, and access points off of Central Avenue South. We went through these during uh the presentation that the mayor had noted for their approvals. So, won't go through into uh won't go through additional items, but want to have this available for context. Starting with the PU PUD or plan unit development development agreement. This is the first action that the other two items will be contingent upon. Resolution 12-2026 had two conditions that related to council's discussion for this evening. Emphasis was added to the first one. uh specifically one of the conditions noted that the volume of cars sold uh shown, sold and serviced should be noted within the development agreement. The applicant and developer has uh submitted language and a letter and will elaborate in their presentation but has sought to remove that condition and uh has sought to or has uh offered their explanation that the current site conditions limitations on exterior storage and where parking are located uh for vehicles for sale will limit the total number of sales on the fight site effectively better than what a overall number would would in in this instance. Additionally, there was a condition added by city council that the city council has not yet seen the final site plan uh that a fi modified sidewalk plan be added to combine the public and private sidewalks and do a public private uh private partnership and an easement that has been completed. So, the revised site plan now connects from Central Avenue, creates the boulevard that uh council was seeking between Weisetta Boulevard and uh the roadway itself, I should say, and the actual site. They did still need all of the deviations that were requested in order to uh meet have contingency. So, it was a good thing that council did bring forward all the deviations in addition to this modification. But this does create a good condition. Henipin County has re reviewed this as well and is supportive of the project. No additional rightaway will be needed in order to do this. And there will only be a small easement with the city of Weisetta that will allow for the shared uh sidewalk from central over to the western portion of the site. to go into a little bit further detail on the applicant's request. This is a lot of text for a single slide, but the areas of note are the redlinining of text that the applicant has proposed. The stricken areas are the areas that uh staff and the city attorney have put into the development agreement that are consistent with resolution 12-2026. The applicant uh has added additional clarification on exotic and what that would mean for the site, but has sought to remove the condition and the specific language related to the number of vehicles shown sold and serviced. If council has any questions on that, we can flip back to this or we I can answer them before we move on to the next portion. I'm open to either way. Yeah, I think let's get all the package of information so that we can then you know direct our questions to to the total project. So the proposed motions for this are an eitheror ex uh option and it would as I had stated before would either be to approve the PUB agreement with the applicant's requested revisions including the removal of the condition in resolution 12-26 12-2026 related to the volume of vehicles displayed sold and serviced or to approve the PUD and development agreement without the applicant's re requested revisions. or the council may seek to uh provide additional modifications that might be inconsistent with resolution 122026. Moving on to the resoning. This is a standard step at this point in a PUD general plan approval. So the general plan has now been approved and the map change amendment is a final step when we're bringing forward the development agreement typically. So the request for this evening is to reszone from the C3 service district to PUD planned unit development. This is a change that you will see on our zoning map. This is the only change that happens. It's not actually within the text of the ordinance. Uh zoning map revisions require council action. Uh in this case, as I noted, it would move from the C3, which you see on the lefth hand side of the screen, to the land unit development designation on the right side of the screen. This would be an item that the planning commission actually held the public hearing on uh all the way back in January. They did re unanimously recommend of approve approval of that and directed staff to prepare the report and recommendation. On February 9th, they uh formally acted on that recommendation. During that time, they did uh include additional conditions or uh include additional recommendation to city council that the council consider uh stronger conditions such as the uh vehicle sold and serviced, which is part of the reason why that ended up within the draft resolution. Uh the planning commission only provides the recommendation on this action item, which is why I've got their public hearing and uh recommendations included as part of the reasonzoning portion. The the proposed motion for this item is to approve the first reading of ordinance 860, the uh amending the official zoning map of the city of Weisetta to reszone the property from C3 service district to PUD planned unit development district. The final item before council this evening is the item uh that requires the vacation as the mayor had I'm sorry the public hearing as the mayor had noted and that is the vacation of the drainage and utility easements. I had previously uh presented some of this information to make sure that council would be aware when we needed to bring it forward. I also presented it for context to the planning commission even though they are not a recommending body on this action. The applicant is proposing uh the western parcel was uh previously platted and when it was platted perimeter easements were added which is now a standard condition when plats are brought forward. These perimeter easements are 10 ft along public rightways and 5 foot to the interior for the ease of legal description. Uh we have worked with the applicant to vacate all of these easements on the property. However, when the final plat is approved or is uh recorded, it has previously been approved. The only portion that would not be rededicated is the area shown in green in the green circle here. And that is the north south portion. Uh that was a 5-ft easement only on the western side of that line. And that's because that drainage utility easement would actually run directly through the structure and was only intended to be a perimeter easement, not a not an easement through the site. Sorry, I wanted to mention that the red box demonstrates the areas that when the final plat is recorded would be rededicated with that plat. So the city would retain all of the easements that we need uh for future utility work and for any other utilities that would need to utilize that site. Vacation of drainage utility easements has some special conditions to it based upon state statute and city ordinance. So notice was sent to all the utilities that were operated in that staff ensured that we contacted all the utility companies and sent them notice. Uh that was sent on April 6th, 2026. The public hearing on the vacation is required by city council. Uh that will be opened and is required to allow for additional comments in case there are any other utilities that it could express concern. And as of today, we have not yet received any comments. Uh to the contrary, we actually did do a locate. There are no utilities that we are aware of or that uh during the locate process identified themselves within that easement corridor. So we are fairly confident that there will not be easements or will not be utilities disturbed uh or needing relocation. But that is the purpose for the public hearing. One item of note for the vacation for city council is that by state statute uh a four-fifths vote or supermajority vote of city council is required for a vacation of drainage utility easements. The action for council this evening again contingent upon the first action would be the adoption of resolution 20-2026 approving the vacation of drainage utility easements at 1022 Weisetta Boulevard East. The proposed motions before the council this evening, just to sum summarize things together, are the PUD agreement with an A or uh either or for A or B and then contingent upon that action would be the reasoning and vacation of drainage and utility easements. With that, I stand for questions. >> Yeah. And just a reminder to those in the public, if you want to speak on this topic, uh please fill out a card and give it to staff um so that we can capture that in the public comment part of this. With that, uh I would turn it over to council to ask questions on these three steps, the PUD agreement, the first reading of the ordinance 860 resoning, and the vacation of draining and utility easement. And then we'll give the applicant a chance to make their presentation. and we'll have a chance to ask them questions before we go through the public comment and public hearing and bring it back for deliberation. So, does anyone have questions of staff on these three topics? >> Could I I'd love to ask a question just real quick. Uh, Director Sharp, could you go back to the striketh through slide? >> I'd like to make a few notes of that before the applicant steps up to the podium. Um it's name volume and what's the difference between the daily for service related activities? I'm sorry. Sold and serviced or >> uh the middle the added com uh red line underlined daily for service related activities. Is that trying to extend hours of operation or what? So I believe the intention from that uh would be to limit the um sales related activities and the service related activities and separate their different hours >> and that's different from how we had asked originally. >> I think it's a further clarification potentially. Um that was text recommended by the applicant. Um, >> we provided the original hours and I think it's a clarification of daily for service related activities. >> Yeah. And we'll give the applicant a chance to further clarify when in their presentation, but but your note for clarification is is is is noted. >> Okay. >> Other questions, Miss McDonald? >> Uh, one more just a side question. Um, recall the applicant was asking for a design deviation with the tree plantings in the boulevard. So, was that remedied with the better sidewalk configuration? >> Uh, >> were they still asking to not plant the proper amount of trees? >> Mayor, council member, uh, both deviations were required in uh, some amount. So, both were approved. The deviation for sidewalk and trees. U, the separation both are needed in limited variety. However, there was improvement by allowing for additional space. So there are more trees in the area, but they still would have required the deviation. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Other questions of staff, Mr. Sorenson. >> Yeah. Um just a quick one. Could you clarify the um do the conditions of the development agreement run with the land? >> Mayor, council member, yes, development agreements run with the land. They act as though they are the zoning district? So this would apply to Walzer and any future users. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Other questions of staff? Yeah, Mr. Puckish. Uh, could you remind me of the history of how we got to the point where we're considering limiting the volume of sales because I don't remember us ever discussing that and here we are considering it today. Certainly uh mayor council member where the condition started from was the report and recommendation from the planning commission particularly that additional comment that they made on the when they adopted the report and recommendation was the consideration of additional conditions specific to limiting potentially vehicles sold, vehicle serviced or uh the vehicle test drives was more mentioned from city council but an item that had been brought forward and had been a concern previously amongst discussions. Uh that was a draft included within the resolution that was brought forward to city council and based upon your discussion it was not stricken from that item when it was brought forward and so it remained within the resolution upon the final approval. >> I agree with council member Pleish though I don't recall us debating that clause or that language in in in at least this body. It may have come through the planning commission. And I understand and it's factual to say that that >> as the language came through it it didn't get pushed back explicitly from the applicant at the time. It now is but I don't recall anybody up here uh offering any commentary on attempting to restrict sales. So I'm just just acknowledging Mr. Plech's comment is I I read it or interpreted our deliberations in the same way >> well at the council level. If I may say, then I wish you would have maybe re-watched our last meeting because I asked several questions of the applicant to try to get to those very answers. And I was hoping tonight that those answers would be given. And um but instead of those answers of volume of sales, used car sales, service, it was trying to get at the idea of the volume of a car dealership will have next to a residential neighborhood. I asked the applicant several questions, was given zero answers, and was looking forward to those answers tonight, but as I see, it's just been redlined. though just to correct your your memories that >> well we'll certainly have a deliberation on whether or not that's an appropriate restriction. >> Um but I don't recall debating it. I I do recall you asking questions, but I don't recall us weighing in as a body about whether that's an appropriate uh provision to be part of the agreement. That's all I'm >> Okay. I just wanted to make sure that you weren't giving the public the the impression that this wasn't discussed because it was >> No, I I intentionally used the word deliberated. Right. Certainly questions were asked about it, but we didn't debate whether or not a sales restriction should be part of the the um the PUD and and so that's all I'm saying. So we we'll have plenty of time to debate it for sure. Other questions of staff um about these three components? Hearing none, I would invite the applicant or whoever is being designated by the applicant to uh offer their perspective on these three items. Mayor, council members, thank you. Appreciate the opportunity to speak this evening. My name is John Brennan. I am the general counsel and representative for Waler Real Estate and just have a few brief remarks and following that we'll have plenty of time for myself or my team who's with me tonight to answer any other questions you might have. We're looking forward to talking. First, Walzer appreciates the thorough and thoughtful review the city has given this project. We fully understand and respect the city's responsibility to ensure that new development fits the community, protects nearby neighborhoods, and does not create unreasonable impacts related to traffic, noise, or intensity of use. Waler shares those goals, and we've agreed to nearly every condition in the proposed development agreement. Our sole issue is with a cap on the number of vehicles that may be sold or serviced at the site. That condition is not appropriate land use regulation, is not imposed on other retailers in the city, and most importantly is unnecessary given the extensive restrictions and safeguards already built into this project. So, let me briefly explain that in just three quick minutes here. First, the city already has strong traditional protections built in. This project is subject to a comprehensive set of conditions that do effectively regulate the type of use, intensity of use, and physical characteristics of the site. Those are the areas where zoning and permitting traditionally and have been properly focused. Under the proposed development agreement with Walers's Red Lines, the city has secured, among other things, a strictly limited building size. No more than six vehicle service bays. All vehicle inventory must be stored indoors. We have restricted the hours of operation for both sales and service. As was just discussed, we have predetermined test drive routes that avoid residential areas. We have a robust requirements on zoning of regarding noise, lighting, landscaping, the buffer that was discussed and we even have a dedicated liaison within the walls organization that would be there to field comments in case issues were to arise. And of most importance to this council, I believe the site, excuse me, further restricts the use to a high-end exotic new vehicle franchise, not a mass market dealership with used vehicle sales only allowed to the extent connected to that new car franchise. So no used car only facility would be allowed with this condition that we're placing, which does in fact run with the land as was pointed out. So this would proceed through Walzer and any other further ownership. These final two conditions regarding the type of vehicles are clearly set forth in section five of the development agreement before the council tonight. These aren't theoretical protections. They're binding enforceable conditions that again run with the land and do give the city that ongoing oversight and remedies. Taken together, they already define and cap the maximum intensity and traffic impact the site can physically generate. Second, another key area of focus I know for this body has been traffic concerns. Those in our opinion are also properly addressed. Traffic is governed by the factors listed earlier such as building size, the number of service bays, parking capacity. Those factors, not sales totals or hard caps to determine how many vehicles can realistically move through the site. I would also note that Malber's dry cleaning, which will be raised in connection with this project, almost certainly sees more customers in any given month than would be anticipated at this dealership, which is replacing that dry cleaner. Sales caps do not materially improve the traffic outcomes, but it does generate ongoing enforcement challenges and uncertainty, and to our knowledge, no other retailer in the city is subject to such restrictions. Last, this project improves a long neglected site as we all probably in the room know here today. The site has been rough, underutilized, and invisibly dilapidated condition for nearly two decades. It's not been a community asset during this time. The city has a rare opportunity here. This project represents a significant private investment in this long neglected property, transforming it into a beautiful new development with new jobs and tax base by a family-owned and operated company that's been a staple of this community for over 70 years. I would also note the incredibly strong neighborhood support for this project that we've experienced to this point. It's quite rare in these circumstances as you all know. In closing, the city already has ample protection to ensure this dealership operates exactly as intended and does not overwhelm its surroundings. And for those reasons, we respectfully ask the council to approve the PUD without a cap on vehicle sales or service volume and rely on the strong traditional already uh safeguards already embedded in that agreement. Thank you for the time and I would also invite um the team up in case you have any other questions that they might be able to address. >> Yeah, just hang on there and then if you have to rely on uh bringing somebody up, I'll turn it over to the council for questions of the applicant at this time. >> I have a question. >> Please, Miss McDonald. >> Hi, thank you. Um, so how how many how many clients and customers and and employees visit Malberries on a daily basis? >> Our understanding is around 1500 per month. >> Okay. You're And then how many do you foresee coming to um Lamborghini? Respectfully, Council Member McDonald, when we've tried to put numbers on a lot of this, it it is feels like it's been used, frankly, against us a little bit to put hard caps in there, which is exactly the position that we're taking. We're we're seeking it without a cap, without numbers, without quantities. We're trying to give you a rough ballpark. >> You just sounded so certain that Malberries creates more traffic than than 8,000 square feet or 10,000 square feet of a car dealership. And I'm just curious how you how you know that so certainly if you don't have data on how many people will visit your car dealership. >> Yes. Thank you, council member. Well, we do have our own estimates, but the the point being um as I I I attempted to explain and perhaps did so poorly. Mulberries doesn't have such a condition. Obviously, this council and this body didn't have a chance to to put one on there. Um, but in any event, whatever whatever type of use would come to this facility, again, it would be our position and we would advocate just as strongly for another third party, another business that would come into this that they whether they're are dry cleaners or anybody else, not have such a hard cap on a restriction. But that other safeguards, many of which, as I enumerated, are into this project, those are what we would advise the council to rely on. >> Okay. So, you have the data, but you just don't share that with us. is that >> council member priv p excuse me previously we have given estimates but again we simply don't want them to be written into an agreement I I would say further I you know I'm I know I'm speculating a little bit here but it is at least my opinion that there would be other businesses that would potentially come here and come here before you that would just say path of least resistance we could agree to some cap how are they going to enforce it >> respectfully I don't think that's what she's asking I think she's simply asking do you feel that the the intensity of use will be less than a dry cleaner and if you looked at the aggregate visits will it be less than what you're estimating for the dry cleaner? All I'm all I is that kind of what you're >> well the you just said it was such certainty and I I couldn't help but notice that certainty and I didn't and I still don't understand it how you can say it with such certainty that you have the data but yet you won't share and and I I get I I mean I it seems strange that you won't share it and the reason why these safeguards are in place from the planning commission recommendations is because that information has never been shared. So, we're trying to protect a dangerous road, a quiet neighborhood with a use that's never been in, you know, our central core and on these roads. So, it's hard to without the data of what we can expect, the only thing we're left to do is put in some safeguards. And so that's what I that's that's exactly why I'm asking the question is you're asking us to throw all of our safeguards out the window, but you're not telling us anything reason that of why other than you've never done it before. >> Thank you. Thank you, council member. I understand I I would respectfully disagree with the idea of throwing all the safeguards out the window. We we are respectfully asking for for a quantity cap >> in terms of the planning commission recommendations of those um volume and potential future uses. Fine. So not every safeguard out the window but the the one in which that I've asked all these questions about is there because of the lack of response and answer is is what I feel. >> Thank you council member. I I I'm sorry to hear that. Uh we have discussed in in this body I I believe um numbers before. I don't have them in front of me. >> No, you were to have it. >> Okay. I apologize. In that case, I I can tell you I believe I said we're quite certain it would be less than a dry cleaner. Um but again, I I simply I'm not sure how else to say. Hey, I apologize for not doing a a good job of addressing your concerns here, but simply that all of these other safeguards combined in our opinion and ultimately it was only yours all that matter adequately address the concerns for us at this point. >> Yeah. And I would encourage us to continue to ask the questions. I think they're very valid questions. Council member McDonald. I know you're not getting a satisfactory response. I understand that. But let's make sure that everyone has a chance to ask questions of the applicant so that we can draw out all the information. Of course, I didn't mean to jump in, but you were trying to >> absolutely >> clarify what I was asking and I don't I didn't think I didn't think I did a good job, so I decided to jump back in. Um, but I appreciate >> Yeah. I mean, maybe as we go through these line of questions, I think the question behind the question is, is it a less intensive use and can you quantify that in any way? Um, and I understand and respect that you're trying to not have a sales limitation restriction, but I think what I hear some of the questioning previous and maybe again tonight is is the can you can you provide any dimensional numbers to the intensity of use of number of, you know, visits, number of car showings. Not necess We're not trying to limit your sales. At least I'll speak for myself. I don't we don't want to limit somebody's success on a property. We just want to get confident that the safeguards that we've put in place uh uh have a less intense use than than what was previously there and and so that we can get comfortable around it. So I mean you did offer I think directionally although we bounced all over the place a little bit about the anticipated number of units per month that you might have sold, etc. And and that's I think what council member McDonald is pushing on. It's we never got a concrete answer. We got a lot of meandering around and coming back to we don't want you to limit our sales. We don't want to limit your sales. We want to limit the activity and the intensity of the use. >> Sure. Understood. Thank you, mayor. Um so in terms of in terms of liberty, you know, so far the the language we had proposed was was in fact a limit on on both visits and on sales um both. And so if if it's more about um not sales but simply visits because that is the traffic and that generates the intensity um that that is probably a different question. I I I I apologize. I don't know what to I don't have that information of exactly what um a comparable Lamborghini dealership would be in front of me tonight. >> Yeah. Before Before you get there, let's just um let other questions and I I want you guys to think about how you're going to respond before we kind of get into an unproductive dialogue around uh you know hypotheticals here. Are there any other questions of the applicant? And then I certainly will give you Mr. Wallser a chance to address this. Um are there other questions of the applicant? >> Mr. Sorenson. >> Yeah. Um so you know what we have in front of us is this article five and it's something we proposed and something you edited. I mean were in that process were there other um language that you all um suggested that we could uh consider to expand and strengthen some of the commitments that have been made beyond exactly the words we're looking at here in article five. >> Yes. Thank you. Council member, um I I did have a quite a lengthy discussion with with city attorney um about about some of this language as as I tried to express Walder's position on it. It it is difficult where it it feels in some way binary, right? Where there's there's either a number or there's not. There could be squishier language that um for to use the legal term um that we could insert, but again, I don't know how that would be enforced. I don't know what sort of meaning it would have for either side. Uh and again it's it seems like we would rather address it with these other traditional means rather than inserting ambiguous language in the agreement. >> So it doesn't sound like there was a lot of back and forth about on the on language. >> We did not find a good resolution to answer your questions. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Other questions of the applicant. >> Think about it in a little bit different way. Mr. How many how can you remind me how many uh indoor parking spaces there are to hold inventory? >> There are 20 spaces indoors. >> 20 spaces. So worst case scenario, they sell all 20 cars in one day. You've got 20 people coming and going in a day. That's worst case scenario. >> Oh, >> there's no way they're going to sell 20 cars. But that like that's just looking at it from a practical standpoint. And if they sell out every day, you got 20 people coming and going, >> right? And council member Cook, I agree with you, but they also sell used cars and service cars. >> So, >> but those have to be stored inside, too. >> Yes, correct, Council Member. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And the other thing that um I did see remain in here that runs with the land is it's intend to not have a mass market dealership. It's intended not to have used cars exclusively. And I think part of what I heard as the hypotheticals that we debated were, well, what if this changes hands and and we get a used car lot? And and I'm I'm confident that you have language there that addresses that component of I think the remaining sticking item that I hope we can get to tonight is how do we guide the least intensive use but still make you successful in selling and servicing cars. That's your purpose. It's not in my view government's role to to prevent commerce. And and I don't hear that from this body. It's more about activity, not trying to limit the number of sales or the number of cars you service. It's just the intensity of traffic, you know, people driving in and out, walk ups, all that stuff is what I heard is the more primary concern. >> So, other questions and then um we're going to go to the hearing and then take public comment and then we'll bring it back for deliberation and we reserve the right to ask you back up to clarify any data that we that we need as part of our deliberations. Are we okay with that, Mr. Shelzel? Mayor, if I if I could just have a moment. Um, I I want to acknowledge council's remarks and and I appreciate them. I think he's been very accurate. I just want to let you know that he hasn't said anything that I disagree with or misrepresented our conversations. I think this they were very gracious and very reasonable on all the elements of the agreement except this one. So, the second point I'd want to make is on section five, I think, council member uh McDonald, the language you were asking about daily for service related activities, that shouldn't be appearing as a a uh a change. The applicant may have caught it, but I would have agreed for that. That was a clarifying either miss in one of the drafts. Really the two I would focus on are the first um section where volume Lamborini has changed to exotic automobile and then the applicants given us a definition of what exotic automobiles are there. So I think the only thing for council to reflect upon there are we okay shifting from any reference to volume and limiting it to Lamborghini to maybe another exotic automobile brand which I've learned is a very rare brand indeed. It's not Porsche, right? It's not Mercedes. It's I don't know. You guys gave me some examples. I don't even remember what they are, but very, you know, that's what the parentheticals meant. So, I just wanted you to be fully aware of what that change uh implied or or um uh carried with it. And the real one that we've been discussing is further down in the middle of the paragraph, all the reference to volume of cars. So, I just wanted you to have that information from me. >> That was really helpful, city attorney. I that's why I the middle one just I wanted some of that clarification. >> Yeah, understandable. I apologize that wasn't caught before packet. >> Can I make a comment because I I actually think that uh daily for service related activities line is actually important because that specifies >> a limited hour limited hours for service. So I actually want that in there. Um I don't >> I do as well, council member. I like I said, I think that's an erroneous uh red line there. That should that should have been accepted. >> No. Isn't that an add I look at that as an addition, not a striking, right? >> Well, if it was struck at one point, I accepted it. So, I agree with you. It's good for the city. >> Okay. Yes, council. If I could quickly elaborate, I completely agree with everything city attorney said, and yes, that that comment was added by me in the first draft simply as a as a corrective measure. Without that, it it ends right at 6 p.m. Clearly, there was extra language that was somehow missed on the first draft. I simply wanted it back. >> All right. >> Yep. >> Okay. Any further questions? >> Okay. So, we we reserve the right to ask further questions when we get into our deliberation. What I'd like to take care of now is the public hearing related to the vacation of drainage and then take any public feedback that that the audience wants to offer on the project in general. So, what I'd like to do now is formally open the public hearing and see if there's any public comments on the vacation and drainage of the utility easement. So, I'll open that hearing. Do we have anyone on teams and do we have anyone that wants to comment on the uh vacation of drainage and utility easement? >> U Mr. Mayor, we do not have anyone on teams. I do have one um item submitted, but I'm not it's not clear if it's for the utility easement or just in general. Um, Greg, are you planning to speak on the drainage and utility easement or would you like to comment later? >> Perfect. >> Thank you for that clarification. So, I'm now hearing no one want to comment during the public hearing. I'm going to close the public hearing. So, it is now closed and we've met that statutory requirement. Next, I'm going to accept public comment on the project in general. And I believe we have one card uh that that constitutes that. Um, so we invite you to the dis to provide us your input, please. Mr. Hogland, welcome. Thank you. And >> thank you, Mayor and Council. I had no idea I was even coming to this meeting, let alone I was I've been I'm the neighbor to the side of the property and I have been at all previous meetings, planning commission and what have you. It's my understanding, I've heard several times that this is a boutique dealership and they sell less than 50 cars a year. um that may be accurate or not, but I am not concerned about the volume. The only thing I was going to say when I'm watching this is I've been to many council meetings over 20 years and I can I cannot really remember a council meeting where we're putting up the developers agreement and looking at red lines in a document. Okay. I don't know how we got here, but it seems really interesting to me. Number one, that's up here. Number two, I'm not a lawyer, but there has to be some precedent. If I if I just went to I'm trying to think of Walgreens across the street. Was is there language in Walgreens that says how many customers will be uh coming through this on a daily basis because there's neighbors next to them and u that they can only sell x number of dollars or units. And I I cannot fathom I'm not a lawyer that there there's precedent where you're asking a company to list out their sales data. um and a legal agreement. I'm not a lawyer, but I just wanted to make that comment. I rarely see red lines in a city council meeting. I'm supportive of this development, and I don't really know how we just got into that discussion, but I'll leave it to you guys. >> Yeah, thank you for your comments, Mr. Hogland. Are there any other folks with a card or on teams? >> Mr. Mayor, there are not. >> Okay, so I'm going to bring it back to the council for deliberation. And as uh was guided, uh we need to take this in three parts. The first is to uh have uh some deliberation on the PUD. Um that really as an option A of what was previously there and an option B which is what we had a little uh back and forth on questions around uh volume of vehicles displayed, sold and serviced. So who would like to begin our deliberations and weighing in? >> I'll start against Mr. Mayor. >> Thank you, Mr. Clish. >> Um it is interesting. I had also never seen a red line situation, but uh on that point uh I think those red line additions or subtractions make sense to me. Uh when I read that and that was the reason for my question, I don't remember us getting to the point of even contemplating restricting sales or anything. I mean retailers are all in the business of making money and I can't I just can't imagine us restricting it. It reminded me of the book by Anne Rand, Atlas Shrugged, that this would be the means of, you know, controlling production and and I'm not there. Uh, but we want this to succeed. And, uh, I do remember a number was thrown out early, I think the very first time you appeared that there was uh, something like one one vehicle per week or something, some very very small number for any kind of a car dealer. And that's not a high volume. And I can't imagine that somebody could walk in off the street and go test drive this thing. That's that they're not going to let you do that. And uh as I recall also that most if not even all of the new car sales will be pre-sold. So they're really just delivering what somebody ordered from before and they might take a trade on that. But they're generally going to trade say a Ferrari for a Lamborghini. So again, you're not going to have people walking in and test driving these things. Um, and then if I want to compare it to a dry cleaner, what's the average sale of a dry clean? I don't know, eight bucks for for a shirt. I mean, they got to have a lot of volume to make up for sales uh versus one Lamborghini. So, yeah, I don't I don't think that's a problem, you know, theoretically, whatever that number might be. But I also know that the the the neighbors are very much supportive of this. And if there was anybody in our community that would be objecting to anything here, it would be the neighbors. And uh I don't recall a single neighbor having a problem with this. So uh I think the red line version is the one that makes sense for me and that's the one I would support. >> Thank you, Mr. Puckish. >> Are we talking about the others? You just >> Yeah. Do you have any other You don't have to weigh in on the other ones, but do you have any comments on the other two provisions, which is the reasoning and then the vacation? >> Well, I'll I'll just wrap it up and say both of those items make perfect sense to me. If it this business wouldn't be the business if it didn't have these things. It has to have it and I don't see any downside for either one of them. >> Thank you, Mr. Pleish. Who would like to weigh in next? >> I'll weigh in next. >> Thank you, Miss McDonald. >> As some of you may know, I am in retail, so I also can't imagine someone telling me that I couldn't sell the amount that I set a goal to sell. So I I just want to explain why that that information feels relevant to me to um to understand what the impact of a car dealership is. It's I I know it's you guys all don't kind of think of it as a car dealership, but some place where you buy a car, service a car, and trade in your used car is that's a car dealership. And I I just the other thing looming in my head is the feedback I get the most often complaint from my constituents is noisy loud vehicles. As a retailer I also know that when you have one retailer and you have another, they don't compete. They bring they draw more in. And so we have uh a car kind of culture down on Lake Street. Um much to the dismay of the residents I hear from, I may even heard a colleague of mine up here say to the officer who was in the in the community room this morning, you know, keep an eye on those loud cars or something. And that's that's my that's another big concern of mine. And so that's why I've been trying to get a handle on this volume because of the disruption this kind of car brings to a small town of one and a half square miles, 4,500 people. So it's not about trying to keep you from doing good positive business. It's trying to decide if that good positive business deserves or should be not deserves, pardon me, um belongs in a central core lot next to a very difficult road that's hard to navigate. That's why I felt like if I had the data that I would have a better understanding if the impact was going to be as bad as the worst fears or as better than could ever be expected. Um, without that, you're left with a mystery and um and and and relying like their attorney said on our our existing guidelines already, um, with this POD going with the land, um, I I think we should look harder at if we're going to allow the strike of the of the brand name to go away. Um there there was a a definition on the screen of what exotic meant, but I wonder whose definition is of that. Is that a universal definition of exotic? Uh so to me there there's a red flag volume of cars a bit ownorous to say the least. hard to staff to [clears throat] keep track of that without asking for financials or you know all of that. So, um I think we should look a little more closely at allowing non Lamborghini, you know, this could be under a new owner someday. Now, it's still a uh a car lot or a or a car dealership. And exotic could mean it's just it's a very broad word. High performance, rare. I I'm sure you could find. Anyways, I think that's um I I'd like this body to consider that Lamborghini um strike through. Um >> meaning restore it. >> Restore it. Yeah. The whole time it's been Lamborghini, Lamborghini, Lamborghini. And now it today or this packet it's well maybe exotic. So that to me all of this has felt a little bit of a withholding situation. That's why I've really struggled with it. Um, so I thought the recommendations from the planning commission were flawed but the reason for putting them in was very pertinent to the discussion which was the amount of use. Um, and that's why they were there and that's why we were supposed to heed that advice and really get to the bottom of this if this use was going is appropriate or not. Um the the support from the neighbors as I said last time we were here did weigh heavily on on me as well. So there were a few across the way that were a little concerned about it. So that's where I am kind of falling down on this. The is that Lamborghini striketh through that's that's problematic in my mind. Um but the two and three of the um items, the asks I think seem pretty reasonable. Of course, the the vacation and um oh gosh, someone remind me what the bill was. >> It's the vacation and it's the the motion to approve the resoning. >> The reasoning of course to the POD. So um that's where I'm landing on that so far. That's where I'm thinking and I just thought I would weigh in because I know I've had some reservations and wanted to share those with the colleagues up here. >> Thank you, Miss McDonald. Uh, who would like to go next? Uh, Mr. Sorenson. >> Yeah, sure. Um well I think there's been so much conversation about this going back to the planning commission and in our previous um discussions and I think in general senses that we kind of had is that through conversations and the way this was described in the usage is that this is going to be a pretty good use. Um it is a difficult site and I think the reason this is getting so much attention is because um the critical nature of traffic in and out and we just can't generate too much traffic here. It's going to be a mess for the city and that's why it's getting so much attention I think appropriately so. Um, and you know, we were through discussions, we were led to believe this is going to operate as a boutique facility. Off-site sales, low volumes. Um, numbers were thrown out when asked and they were quite low. I think that's what got us comfortable a bit. Um so um you know I think the question in front of us is uh do we have enough safeguards in place with what we know about facility and what's in the um development agreement now um that we really believe that the volumes are going to be appropriate. You know, it did strike me a bit as being a little much when we're trying to talk about um limiting uh the number of units being sold, etc. And I can the business I was in and other businesses that deal with I mean, you put a cap on revenues. Do you put a cap on units sold anywhere else that was mentioned? Um maybe not maybe not the best way or appropriate way to really deal with what we're concerned about here. So, you know, generally I guess what I thought is um have we worked hard enough on the language we have in article 5 to make it as strong as we possibly could? That's why I asked the question how much debate there's been back and forth on this issue and I still have that question a bit. I mean, um, typically in negotiation there's a lot of back and forth and it felt to me like we offered a development agreement and there's a couple red lines and we stop negotiating. I guess the question would be for us a bit is, you know, would it make sense to direct staff to um have one more shot at this article five here and you know include and acknowledge things like traffic being, you know, critical to the use of the site and acknowledge the operating model that we were told was going to be in place here and acknowledging that the volume of cars being sold would be consistent with that boutique approach. I mean, it's all a little bit softball stuff, but um that may be another option for us is to I don't know what the motion would be to not make a decision tonight, but have another shot at this and make it as strong as possible. um but allow the strikeouts for for for for the volume of cars because I think we're left with using our own judgment from everything we've heard is our opinion that the way this will operate from everything we do know is going to be appropriate for for this site. I tend to believe it is and um the comment was made before if not this what I still think that's a legitimate issue for us. So those would be my thoughts about it. >> Great. Do you have any comments or perspective on the resoning or the vacation and drainage and utility easements? Just trying to draw everything into one package here. >> No, not really. I'm I'm fine with both those. >> Thank you, Mr. Cook. >> I'll start by saying I have no issues with the zoning and the vacation [laughter] items two and three. Those are very procedural and I'm totally fine with those. Uh I um I'm in favor of um the language in this agreement. I think that we have enough safeguards in here. I think um like so council member McDonald, I I understand like like so like this this agreement runs with the property. So if you define exotic like what how do you define that? Back when I was in high school and college, my Pontiac station wagon was pretty exotic to me. [snorts] It's not. But I think like as you like the language rare high performance vehicles characterized by high cost and produced in limited numbers that really kind of sets some very strict parameters around there. I mean they're not going to be selling Kia out of here. Um [snorts] so like I I think there's enough guardrails there. I also think that there's enough guard rails in the um the limited storage on site. they can only sell, you know, they can only house things that are uh stored inside and sell that six service bays. It all seems very reasonable to me. I don't know how we would even begin to set limits and I think that that's we're probably past the the limits on sales and all that. It seems like we've got consensus that that's so I I won't I won't pick at that. Um I um yeah, like I I do recall that we had concerns about traffic at this site when this came through. Um but um I I think that how this is worded and I I think that there in my mind there are enough uh uh guard rails in here that uh sufficiently kind of limit the size and the traffic um and the impact that this will have on the traffic in that space. Um, and so for me, I think this is I I don't I don't want to get into like word smithing and nitpicking the details of a agreement like this. Um, unless I see any like major red flags to me, I don't see any major red flags in here. So, it satisfies me the way this is written. >> Okay. Um, I'll weigh in last here. I'm I'm fine with the resoning. I'm fine with the vacation. Take that off the table. With regard to the PUB agreement, the only other thing that I would note is this this provision that says used vehicle sales shall be permitted only to the extent that such business is ancillary to a new vehicle sales franchise. That takes off the table mass market, Toyota, Kia, all of those. And just the sheer cost of the land and the size of the site really, you have to have I think Mr. Pers was talking about this. you you have to have a lot of high volume dollar dollar volume, not unit volume, right, to to make it work under any scenario. And I I don't see it if if it does move into a different future use, it's likely going to be a different use, not a used car lot. And this language gives me comfort. The other thing I would say is having lived on Huntington uh down below for 11 years, um the benefit of all the drainage and all of the the regrading and the the huge burden that has on those adjacent properties, Mr. Straa, um your apartment building, uh Marty and Bruce, uh the fisers, it goes on and on. Um, so like that is a huge benefit to the neighborhood and without having private dollars and investment to remedy that, that's been a long-standing 25 or Gordy probably longer than that issue with that embankment and and the drainage and the runoff that's been really problematic for the neighborhood. So I'm in full support. I don't see any need to adjust the language and um that's all I'm going to say. So I guess um what we need to do now just procedurally is take this in three parts. And the first part is to talk about the PUD which we had the most robust dialogue about and it's either accept the language uh that has been uh offered by the applicant revisions revert back to what was in there previously or to Mr. Senson's point is there any tweaks or guidance that we could offer that might tighten the language to address some of the concerns. So, I guess I I would look for a motion uh of one of those two flavors to uh accept the applicant's requested revisions or revert back to the previous. So, who would like to make a motion in one of those directions? >> Mr. Mayor, I'll make a motion that we approve the uh item A here. Option A is the PUD with the applicants uh revisions in there. And I'll make one extra little comment. I know there was a sidebar discussion here about should we go back to Lamborghini in the thing. Uh I don't think we should. I think this is actually better. I mean what if they bring in Pagani or Bugatti or one of you know one of those other exotics? Um it's not going to really add. It's just guys going to walk in and he say oh I don't want a Lamborghini. I'll buy a Bugatti. These none of these cars are cars I would could afford for one but that I would I would I would not feel comfortable driving them. I'm a Mercedes Porsche type of guy. But um but with regard to the language, I think exotic is is better. And uh I would also say that with regard some of the concern was about people with loud cars on Lake Street and all that. People that have those cars are going to bring them. They're going to get them wherever they get them. Whether they're here or Chicago, uh they're still going to bring them into town and if they want to, you know, do exhibition driving, they will. and our good cops in the back will will we'll tag them for that. So, it's a uh PSA to the folks out there listening to this. So, I'm okay with the agreement just the way it's worded right now. >> Okay. And so, just for clarification, Mr. Pleish, you would be making a motion to approve the PU development with the applicant's requested revisions, right? >> Okay. Thank you for that. Uh I would need a second. Oh, go ahead, Mr. >> Mr. Mayor. Just to I I just wanted to be really clear for the record. Part of that motion is to essentially revoke that one condition that was in your previous resolution resolution which required a condition on volume. So just as it's stated there, I just want to make that clarification for the record that it's that full uh action. >> Well, I'm I'm reading your your language of what the motion would be in this regard. So thank you for that further clarification. So So we have a mo motion to approve the PUD development agreement. The applicants request revisions. May I have a second on that? Second. >> Thank you for that second. Any further discussion? >> So th this motion is just for number one. >> Correct. Just part A, right? The PUD development agreement. Then we'll take the other in a separate motion and procedure. >> So I have a I have it moved and seconded. Any further discussion on this? >> Uh just a quick comment. Um again uh not want all of our businesses to be successful. So, but the the switch at the at the 11th hour with the name and the and the brands feels um withholding and so I will be voting no for um the PUD development agreement. >> Thank you for those additional comments. So, it's been moved and seconded. Um so, I will uh all in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Those in opposing >> nay. That passes 4 to one. So the next procedural uh aspect to this is I need to have a motion to approve the resoning to approve the first reading of ordinance 860 amending the official zoning map of the city of Wisetta to reszone the property from C3 service district to PUD planned univit planned unit development district. Could I have a motion in to that effect? >> So moved. >> May I have a second? >> Second. >> Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. >> I. Those opposed? That passes 5 to zero. The third component of this procedurally uh as I need a motion to approve the vacation of drainage and utility easements um and adopt resolution 2020 2020 2026 approving the vacation and drainage and utility easements at 10:22 Weisetta Boulevard East. May I have a motion to that effect, please? >> So moved. >> Thank you. May I have a second? >> Second. >> Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. I. >> Uh those opposed. Hearing none. That passes 5 to zero. So just for the record, 4:1 on the PUD, 5 on the resoning, 5-0 on the approval on vacation. Uh I just want to offer, you know, u sort of best wishes to you guys and being successful. Um we happen to have the ownership group, some of which who lives in Weisetta. So I know you're going to look after this in a very uh careful way. and I think you've heard our concerns and I wish you well and success in bringing this forward. Thank you. Okay. Next item on our new business is to consider approval of the first reading ordinance of 857 and 858 amending chapters 8005 subdivision park dedication and fee schedule. So I'm turning this over to Miss Jagger or Mr. Sharp. >> Mr. Sharp will take this one too. >> All right. Popular guy tonight. Mr. Sharp. >> Thank you, Mayor. Uh, as stated, this is uh to consider approval of a first reading of ordinance 857 and 858 amending chapter 85, the subdivision ordinance, specifically park dedication and the fee schedule. Going to go through this uh relatively quickly as council uh did discuss this at a prior work session, but want to give the history for the members of the public that aren't as familiar with it. On January 20th, 2026, uh, Ferndale Bluff final plat and development agreement was approved. The agreement reserved the applicant's right to contest those park dedication fees and council directed staff and the city attorney to research and uh, determine whether amendments would be recommended specifically for the cash in lie of land dedication for park dedication. On March 24th, 2026, council reviewed the current park dedication ordinance, the state statute, and the proposed fee methodology developed in coordination with WSB and city staff. Specifically, section 106.15 of the city subdivision ordinance, specifically the public sites and open spaces, new lots shall dedicate land for parks, playgrounds, public open space or trails, andor shall make a cash contribution to the city's park fund. So all of the ordinance before this evening specifically relates to the cash inlue where land is not a uh sufficient or applicable donation as part of the or I'm sorry applicable uh uh requirement as part of the development of the site. So the current requirements in ordinance as it stands today is that new residential units or properties must pay 10% of the land value or $2500 whichever is greater. Commercial properties are required to pay 6% of the land value whichever is greater. During our review at the workshop staff did go through state statute requirements and some of the legal requirements from past uh or case precedent. Rather than go through all of that here, I'm simply going to state that there needed to be a nexus between the fee or cash and loo and the uh demand created by the development of that specific parcel. What that means is that for the number of residents created out of that development or the number of visitors and employees out of that development, the cash inlue fee needed to be proportional to the demand created. staff's analysis uh as stated was with WSB. What we did is we reviewed the League of Minnesota's city's recommendations. We started from there. They provide a base calculation on a per capita basis that the city started from. So when we're determining that, we take the total number of residents divided by the total number of acreages acreage of parkland that we currently have and our projected park need to determine a per capita need or basis for parkland within the city of Wisetta to maintain our current system. And then as additional development uh comes in, we would base the fee on the demand created proportional to those residents. As stated, WSB was engaged to do additional study and help provide recommendations of the fee in lie of the park dedication. And one of the major findings as no surprise for the city council is that we wisetta land value is significantly higher than other metro communities. This value creates a per unit basis when you break it down on the math or per thousand square foot basis for commercial properties that is higher than the surrounding metro. One of the comments that had uh been expressed during the workshop discussion was specifically about Burnsville's Fiend. As you saw on the prior slide, there was a uh law case on that one specifically. At the time, I I assumed I must have put the numbers wrong. Well, it was just because they actually did theirs on an acreage basis. For instance, their residential basis was was a for single family homes was valued at around $150,000 and ours is valued at 1.1 million. That's the difference and the scale as to why our fee needs to be proportional to our land values and why you will see us having uh and why our research found that uh we would be among the if not the highest within the metro. During the discussions from council, there were uh staff had brought forward a residential and commercial lot analysis. The discussion amongst council was that there may be need at a future date to differentiate between single family, town home and multif family uses. So rather than having the residential and commercial basis, we have added uh the ability within the fee schedule through the ordinances to go back at a later date and adjust those fees. For the time frame, the analysis and the consensus that uh staff had brought forward from council was that 12,500 as a cap on that fee would apply to all three. However, with it being within the fee schedule, it would allow for uh additional review at a later date should projects come forward. So, we've set it up for potential changes in the future while allowing the current analysis to move forward so that we can uh proceed with the ordinance amendments to date. Other actions from the proposed ordinance uh before you is that it removes all of the fee calculations from ordinance which has found been found to be a best practice when researching this around 90 95% of all cities are placing their park dedication fee within their fee schedule rather than within an ordinance structure. This adopts that fee schedule for format which is consistent with all of our other fees as well. The one caveat to this is during our final research, we did find that state statute still required the public hearing when fees would be in excess of $5,000. So, we needed to push this item back and uh issue the notice for this item or I'm sorry, pub notice in advance for this item, not public hearing. So, it's was properly noticed and was brought forward correctly in accordance with state statute, but we needed to uh we couldn't bring it to the immediate next council meeting. The other item that this uh ordinance amendment does is provide credits for PUD developments. Specifically within the ordinance, you will things see things such as pools, pickle ball courts, and other amenities at multif family facilities. That was quite deliberate and it was also found to be a best practice among a number of pro uh cities that we researched and that was done as a benefit not only for those residents and potentially reducing the park demand for the community but also in increasing the value of those apartments and the quality of life for those uh residents of our community. So it uh really creates a win-win scenario for both the city and uh long term we still collect some of that back through the increased value of those amenities offered on the residential properties. And then the final uh item of note on this one is that this does require a second reading and final publication. So the full ordinance would not take effect until the uh final publication of the ordinance. One item that I would note because we were reviewing a project just prior to this um and there was uh language specifically included in the development agreement related to whether this ordinance would move forward. there is a reduction in that 6% for commercial properties uh for that development specifically and it's approximately we need to come up with depending upon how council changes this language that's why we left it uh for a future date but it would result in the savings and would be more proportional to the use created. So, we've already seen our first example, uh, with a beneficial result. With that, uh, the action before council this evening is to consider approval of the first reading of ordinances 857 and 858 amending chapter 805 of the subdivision ordinance and the fee schedule. With that, I stand for any questions. >> Questions of staff at this time. >> Miss McDonald. Director Sharp, could you give us an example of the recreation provided by for the credit? >> Yes. Uh so listed within the ordinance are pools, uh volleyball courts, dog runs, uh tennis courts, uh gyms, outdoor park and play facilities, etc. >> Yeah. Um, is are they defined just like that or I mean there's a you know there's a dog run in the prominade and it's this tiny little hidden area that I don't think anyone would ever actually bring their dog in there, let alone um so [laughter] I mean I don't want to get too nitpicky or anything of course but I just feel if we're offering people credit to um and how are we giving them examples or are we saying put a dog run in and so just a little clarification there. >> Sure. Certainly. Uh mayor, council member, yeah, I believe the ordinance provides those examples through the list that I've gone through as much as I could. The nice thing about where this is lying because it's within the planned unit development that is the where we can propose back and forth and ensure we aren't considering that this area would count. This area would and that would traditionally as council has seen be negotiated and worked through from public comments the planning commission review of the plans and then eventually bring that forward to city council for final adoption. >> Okay. >> So it would end up directly within an agreement. >> Very good. That's what I thought you would say and I'm glad to hear you say it and um appreciate your hard work and all the research on this one too. So, >> mayor and council member and director uh Sharp, it I think if you look at page 244, section three of the markup actually is some of the language that director Sharp was referring to and it does say that council may at its discretion grant a credit if it's part of a PUD. So there there is that idea that council has the discretion. Oh, this dog park is really nothing. This one really is something. >> And again, it'd be part of that larger PUD process. >> Great. Thanks for the clarification. >> Other questions of staff at this time? Okay. I'll bring it back for any further commentary. Uh or anyone that would like to weigh in on this in any way? No, I think it's pretty procedural. Um, so I would accept a motion considering approval of the first reading of ordinance 857 and 858 amending chapter 805 subdivision park dedication and fee schedule. >> I'll make that motion, Mr. Mayor. >> Thank you. May I have a second? >> A second. >> Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. I. Those opposed. That passes 5 to zero. Sorry for the group to wait. You've been very patient now to the item that I think there's many people in the audience hanging on to talk about. Consider adoption resolution of 142026 denying the subdivision by preliminary plat at 190 Gleason Lake Road and 121 Glee Glee Haven Road tabled from the March 10th, 2026 uh meeting. >> Mr. Sharp, I'm guessing. >> Yep, exactly. >> So, I'll start on this one as well. Thank you for the introduction, mayor. Uh you've already gone through the addresses. The one item that I want to note uh just so that no one thinks that there is a misspelling the plat name is different than the road name. So Glee Haven is two words in the plat and a single word on the road name. So Glee Haven third edition is correct. The owner of the property is David Hy and the applicant in this uh for this proposal is Lake West Development LLC. The action uh requested this evening is the planning commission and staff recommend adoption of resolution 14-2026 denying the subdivision request at 190 Gleason Lake Road and 121 Glee Haven Road. To provide context, this site is located at the southeast corner of Gleon Lake Road and Glee Haven Road or County Road 15 for Gleon Lake Road. There are two subject parcels. Zooming out, it is part of a larger neighborhood on uh Glee Haven Road of 11 parcels. [snorts] The site is guided low density residential, 1 to three units per acre. The proposal would still meet uh that maximum density and it is currently zoned R3 single and two family residential district. Additional details on the parcels. Uh parcel one in this case is the south southern parcel is 6 acres or 29,800 square ft and parcel 2 the northern parcel is 73 acres or 31,680 square ft to provide the council and I provided these for this planning commission as well. Wanted to give some context. Um things are uh the addresses are slightly confusing because the address off of Gleon Lake Road is actually takes access off of um Glee Haven and the uh site addressed off of uh Gleon Lake Road takes access off of um the Glee I think I just said that twice, apologies. The access off of Gle Glee Haven takes access off of Gleon and the access off of Glee Haven takes access off of Gleon. So it ends up being a tongue twister unfortunately as I'm trying to say it out loud. It was much easier when I wrote it down. These are the areas u to orient the council as you would enter the neighborhood. The photo on the left is looking southward towards the existing home on the property. The driveway is just there on the right hand side. This is 190 Gleason. This would be as you go around the bend in the neighborhood and view the property now from uh Glee Haven Road westward towards County Road 15 or which is I think what I'm going to refer to it to keep things easier on the tongue twist. You'd be facing towards that. You can see that there's actually a second driveway on that site and access point. This is 121 Glee Haven. You are seeing out of the lefth hand photo from Glee Haven Road facing County Road 15. And then on the right hand photo, this is the access point from County Road 15 onto 121 Glee Haven Road. Originally, this neighborhood was platted as six lots in 1956 and at that time was zoned R2. Future subdivision in 1983. By this point, the neighborhood uh this was of the two northern parcels that you'll notice were an exemption were not actually within the city of Weisetta in 1956. They were annexed within the city at a later date. When they were brought in, they were subdivided and at that time the property was zoned R3. That resoning occurred approximately 1980. It appears to have happened as part of the comprehensive plan. There is no specific ordinance reszoning the neighborhood. So the but the at that time the comprehensive plan was being completed and was acted upon and that was likely the action that resulted in the reszoning of the neighborhood. Since that time approximately 1980 it has been zoned R3. In 2013 the property across the street approximately to the east of the two subject parcels was a single parcel and subdivided in Glee Haven second edition into two parcels. The proposal before the planning commission and then city council is to subdivide 121 and 190 Gleason into four different parcels. These parcels uh I will go through the zoning requirements but ultimately meet the zoning requirements for the R3A zone. This is a hypothetical lot configuration. So, when reviewing a preliminary plat, planning commission and the city council are not reviewing actual footprints of homes. Those could come forward at a later date. They would occur as part of a building permit process though and would not be subject to additional council or planning commission review. Going through the actual requirements for this zoning district, uh you can see the R3 requirements are on the far left hand side of the table and all of the proposed lots meet the minimum lot size. the MI uh minimum lot width, minimum lot depths, the lot coverage, and impervious surface coverage. The proposed setbacks would apply to the proposed homes when they come forward for that building permit stage. Because this site is also within the shoreland overlay district, there are there's actually a reduced uh permitted maximum amount of imperous surface of 25% versus the 35% allowed in the R3 district. However, in the R3 or I'm sorry, in the shoreland overlay district, you are permitted to mitigate that additional the uh impervious surface between 25 and 35% with storm water treatment facilities. Those are being proposed as part of the project and therefore would be code compliant with the shoreland overlay zone. The planning commission reviewed a lot area analysis and I uh the two highlighted parcels are the two subdivisions that uh subdivided parcels that occurred in 2013. So those are the ones directly across the street. As you can see the proposed lots are smaller than uh most of the neighborhood. There are limited areas where they are close or larger, but the majority of the lots within the 10 lot uh or I'm sorry, 11 lot subdivision neighborhood would be larger than the subject parcels proposed. Planning commission had not seen this analysis, but it uh there were a number of questions on it. So, I wanted to help clarify there. Uh the lot widths are what is shown on this diagram here and it shows the 87 and then 75 foot lot widths for the lots proposed and then the lot existing lot widths for all of the properties within the surrounding neighborhood. One item of note for council is the lot width is determined at the setback. So the setback is 20 ft from the property line and that is where the lot width is taken which does often result in a wider lot width than what you will see for the line at the property line and that's just simply due to the fact that most lots uh become larger as they move further back when you angle that line. So particularly on the culde-sac that happens significantly. Part of the proposal was for tree removal plan. They have brought forward a plan that slightly differs from our standard practice. Typically, when we see removals of trees, we want to see replacement of trees on the same subject parcels. In this instance, staff and the city forester work together with the applicant as that would require all of the tree replacement to essentially occur on one to two parcels. And for a more desirable uh project, we proposed that they space some of those tree replacements out along the western side of County Road 15 if the project were to move forward. The planning commission did discuss this portion at length and was ultimately in support of this if they had recommended approval. However, I will go through uh in a moment their recommendation resulted in a recommendation of denial, which is why the resolation resolution before you this evening is for a recommendation of denial to bring their recommendation forward. Uh this is further elaboration of the tree replacement plan. Uh you can see that these were uh that the trees were clustered towards the rear of the property to provide additional screening from a busier roadway, County Road 15. The city engineer did review uh the project and had no significant concerns. The primary uh items being brought up were disconnection of utilities uh existing utilities to the two sites and the fact that those needed to be happening in coordination with the county road uh specifically uh county road 15 if the project were to move forward. Uh these would be added conditions on that. want to still address them as the as they were comments on the project, but are not pertinent to the resolution of denial. A neighborhood meeting was held by the applicant on February 2nd, 2026. This was not required by our neighborhood notification policy. It was recommended by staff and the applicant did so. They had reported that there was a single attendee and a uh they reported on construction timelines and the history of the R3 zoning within that neighborhood was a source of question for that neighbor. A second neighborhood meeting as the council was aware was proposed and uh was the purpose of the delay and tableabling of that item and that was held on April 9th. There were three attendees and I'll allow the applicant to provide a little bit more detail as to the disc nature of the discussion. But one of the items uh that was specifically shared out of that were some additional materials that this planning commission weren't able to see. These aren't changes to the plans or amendments to their application. They are clarification items based upon comments from residents and from the planning commission. uh without wanting to take their full presentation from them, I've included some excerpts of this, but we have the full body of their presentations included within the packet that we can refer to as well. In terms of public comments, the city has received numerous public comments. Included within the packet was uh to the publication date of that packet were all the comments received. On the table this evening are amended or new comments. uh often they may be some of the same as some of the past. However, rather than risk potentially ever leaving any out or any clarifications or changes to those comments, we've included them for the council's review uh on the dis and they will be incorporated into the public record. These concerns namely noted increased density, tree removal, reduced property values, and the effect uh negative effect that the development would have on neighborhood character. These are the supplemental materials that were presented to the neighbor. I, as I noted, these are not going to be in full. So, if there are specific items that the council members are aware of, um, I suspect the applicant will present some of these as well. So, this was a graphic uh, simply to show sample homes on the site and the setbacks between the homes and their place and potential placements on the lot. Again, I do want to highlight that these would be illustrative and would not be the actual footprints of the proposed homes until someone brought forward a building permit. Additional items shared were uh clarification on the setbacks. This could be difficult to read, but essentially uh it was highlighting what the setbacks between the sites would be. None of the numbers change from what planning commission had previous excuse me previously reviewed. It was simply changing the coloration on the plans to further highlight uh what the setbacks are. Additionally, some uh new renderings were included that showed sample homes and a perspective from the uh property. Staff would note the proposed landscaping in these does not necessarily align with the landscape plan. They are intended to be illustrative in nature. Uh additionally, the landscaping would as shown would be within the right of way and would not be recommended. So they are intended for illustrative purposes. Please take them as such. When reviewing preliminary plats, there are very uh definitive provisions directly from code. I've included these within this presentation for council's deliberations. These were items that planning commission spent considerable time deliberating. In their recommendation, it was a split vote. Uh so it was a 4-3 vote by planning commission to recommend denial and was a uh discussion item among them for amongst them for quite some time but ultimately the recommendation did prevail of denial and that's what been brought forward for you this evening. I can happily go through each of these items. I'm primarily wanting to highlight that they are available and that the city council and planning commission shall consider the possible adverse effects of the preliminary plat. With that, this evening, the action before city council is to adopt resolution 14206 denying subdivision by preliminary plat 190 Gleason Lake Road and 121 Glee Haven Road. The applicant is present this evening, would be able to provide comments. Um, and I stand for questions. >> Questions of staff at this time by councel. >> Go ahead, Miss Mc McDonald. >> Uh, just back on your criteria page. Um, one more, please. You mentioned building pads. Director Sharp, can you remind us if the building pads are part of the subdivision or if it's just simply the the lines, you know, >> one moment. Sorry, the computer is frozen. There we go. Um, [sighs] so I think the reason why I wanted to move back to this provision, uh, mayor, council member, is the building pad is essentially the dotted black lines. Those are the the building pad is the area that you're able to build within, not a footprint. Those are two different items. So the pad is the square created by the setbacks if it's a square lot. In this case they are except for the northern. So on the northern lot that slightly triangular shape is the building pad. Essentially the footprint of the home or configuration shown here helps illustrate the difference between the two. Okay. >> They have demonstrated a a building pad is sufficient and meets the site setbacks. >> Very helpful. Thank you. >> Other questions of staff at this time. >> So along those lines though if you can go back to that map. So that build like so that's the area where it could be but the uh like impervious surface limitations like there are other limitations that they couldn't build on that entire within those entire dotted lines right >> mayor council member that is correct they're still held by all other setbacks >> impervious surface and building coverage >> right at maximum height all other provisions of the zoning ordinance would still apply >> questions have staff at this hearing none. I think uh would invite either the owner of the land and or the applicant they have a chance to offer commentary at the disor presentation. >> Thank you. Welcome. State your name and who you represent, please. >> Thank you. Kelsey Thompson with Lake West Development at 14525 Highway 7 in Minnotonka. Thank you. >> Good evening. Thank you so much to staff for your presentation and for working with us. Um and thank you to all the neighbors for coming out tonight. I know I've knocked on a few of your doors and maybe spoken to a few of you several times. Um but it's great to see you out here tonight and thank you council mayor. Um I really wanted to touch on maybe just the finding of facts just kind of going through those um from the from the resolution to address those items. Um I think there was a little bit of confusion at the planning commission meeting just based off of our grading plans and some of the um claims that were in the findings of facts. Um at that time we we didn't have our engineer at the meeting. Uh and we have one of the reasons why we wanted to you know postpone this meeting and and request that extension was so that we could take some time to visit with the neighbors and uh host a neighborhood meeting which um a few a few joined that meeting. but to to dive a little bit deeper into the grading plan and look at that 3D rendering. Basically, that 3D rendering just um took that 2D CAD file of our grading plan and put it in 2D um and just to try to show a little bit more of that third dimensional view of the grading plan um to address some of those concerns. if maybe um Alex if you could pull up just maybe like the the zoning map maybe to start um from your staff presentation. Um, so just [clears throat] going through the findings of facts, uh, finding one a, you know, I'm paraphrasing a little bit on this because they're a little bit lengthy. Um, but not consistent with the with the comprehensive plan, um, respecting scale, character, and pattern. Um, first I just want to point out that this neighborhood is unique. There are lots that are narrow narrower than others, lots that are wider than out others, lots that are maybe shallower, lots that are deeper, um lots that are bigger, lots that are smaller. Uh we also see the, you know, the the neighborhood which as um the Glee Haven neighborhood outlined in colored in orange. um that's R3 zoned, but there's also um you know R5 around here as well with the apartments, the Gleon Lake Apartments and abuing the neighborhood. There's also that brown spot where there's three lots um two twin homes and a duplex in that R5 zoning as well. And then this abuts the commercial um and the PUB as well as the R1 residential across the Gleon Lake Road um along the lake. Um, so I'm I'm bringing that up just because the character and the scale and the pattern um we there's, you know, measurable and objective um uh items that we that we looked at when looking at the character of the neighborhood. And when you bring that all together in picture, I think you'll see that we are meeting that scale and that pattern um and the the character of the neighborhood. Um in particular our our um density is at 2.8 units per acre. This site according to the comprehensive guide plan is um guided for low density residential which is 1 to three units per acre. So we're meeting that squarely um within that that 1 to three units per acre. Um additionally like right across the street you can see those two little bit smaller lots across from the subject property. Um I don't know if there's a way to highlight that better on the screen, but um that is the most recent subdivision. Yeah. On the right hand side, the most recent subdivision that that the result of that subdivision that was approved, it was exactly the same density 2.8. Um so, so just looking at some of the characteristics of the neighborhood, that's you know, we're definitely meeting the the density there. Um and and to move on a little bit um to finding some of these are a little bit redundant. So if you can just kind of bear with me, but um moving on to finding 1b um that the concern being that does not our proposal does not relate to natural characteristics in particular the slope and the topography. Um, and yeah, maybe you could actually pull up that existing conditions with the photos of the actual properties, the existing properties, Alex, from your staff presentation. Um, if that's too much, I'm sorry. >> So, the existing conditions where you had the pictures of the actual houses that are Yeah, exactly. Um, just to point out, I think that there was just maybe some again some confusion on the grading plan and that there um was being called out like some steep topography by code. We do not meet the definition of steep topography. And I and I think that um the grading plan got a little uh maybe um taken out of context and showing that there was um steeper topography than there is and some slopes. It's definitely sloped as you can see, but um we meet the the requirements by code. Um and we do have our engineer here tonight to answer any questions. Dan from Sather Burquist uh regarding our grading plan uh should you request that. Um but the proposed grading plan meets the requirements of code um without any variances and was reviewed by the city engineer as as um director uh Alex mentioned. Um and they agree that you know we're meeting the cut and fill and the average grade for this property that's required by code. Um we've minimized the grading. We actually so the the average that we're cutting and filling is a 1.6 ft. Um so definitely minimizing the grading and we're improving the grading um by better uh routing drainage and treating that storm water. So right now it's uncontrolled, it's unmanaged. Um and so we will have better drainage and flow and treating that that runoff. Um and to kind of further this with the with the characteristics of slope and topography, I also wanted to bring in the natural resources of trees. Um I don't think that was in the finding of facts, but it was brought up by some neighbors. And I think that just further solidifies that our our grading plan really does minimize adverse effects by that we're only removing nine trees on this ent out of the entire site. So that's basically two trees on averageish per lot that we're removing. Um we're saving all of the heritage trees that are on the site and this is in the landscaping plan that Alex had pulled up earlier. Um and then our landscaping plan that mitigates for the trees that we are removing. We're actually planting 25 trees. So, removing nine over this entire site and planting 25. So again, um the steep slope that was being called out in the finding of facts and just simply um I don't know if it's just, you know, was somebody was being misleaded or if there's just confusion on the plans, but um definitely not uh steep slopes on the site. Um and the 3D renderings really help showcase that as well. um in finding one that's numbered in the document of the of the resolution and finding effects. Um it talked about, you know, the adverse effect of of having four narrow lots smaller than most um changes the character and the homes being closer together and um both and the homes being closer to the street. Um, I just wanted to mention that those sideyard setbacks, if you look at the existing neighborhood, and I I used Henipin County and just measured off the off the corners of the houses, um, there's like four or five lots that actually have a 10 foot sideyard setback or less existing today. Um, so to to say that our proposal with 10 foot sideyard setbacks would be out of character with this with this neighborhood is is simply just not not true. Um, and you can fact check that um, you know, by looking at Henne County maps. We don't have the whole neighborhood survey. So I I that's what I used um, as the best resource that I had. Um, we also I think Alex had pulled up a lot width map which I have not seen that um, document and so I've not studied that. I did my own kind of um measurements off of Henipin County and I got similar results, but I think that there's definitely some other lot widths within the neighborhood that are around 70 ft um 72 feet a couple of properties. So, we're not creating the narrowest lots in this neighborhood. Our lots and I think that your table, Alex, was showing that we had 75 foot wide lots on lots 4, three, and two. And I think that that might be just an error. Um, looking at our our plans, we our lots are um the lot, what's our 75, 77, 81, and then the corner lot um being yeah 87 or something in that in that realm. So, we're not creating the narrowest lots within within the neighborhood. Um, we're also not creating the smallest lots within the neighborhood. Um, as you can see, there's varying this is a great picture. There's just definitely varying um lot widths, lot depths, um lot sizes throughout the site. The smallest one being across the street in the most recent subdivision that was approved, it was like a 13,000ish square foot property. Um ours being like on average around 15 and a half thousand square feet. Again, all meeting the the density guidance. Um all meeting the the code for the zoning district. Um, regarding the distance from the houses to the street, that was also something that was brought up and actually put into the finding of facts. Um, that our and this was discussed kind of at length and unfortunately we just didn't have our engineer there on site and that just wasn't corrected. But on our on our plans, of course, there's the 20 foot set back from the front yard that's required by code, but our house pads are showing like three times that amount away from the street. Whereas, if you look through this neighborhood, you can see that there are some front yard setbacks that vary between like 20 there's there's a number of them at 20 feet um for a front yard setback from the front property line. there's um 30 ft um some greater than that but four of these lots are within that 20 to 30 foot front yard setback whereas our proposal is showing setbacks much greater than that. Um so he has his line at that front setback um 20 foot front yard setback and our proposal is like 90 ft from the front from the front yard. And a couple things, you know, not only is it Yes, there's the building pad like you asked um Molly, but um we're also confined by a couple other things for how close our pads can can get to the road, which is saving the trees. There's some heritage trees in the front yard, so we're saving the trees. Um just like the overall slope of the driveway. We can't exceed, you know, a certain percentage for the slope of the driveway. And also just that cut and fill average that we're meeting. Uh the cut and fill average has to be under two feet. Um, and again, our average is coming in at 1.6 feet. So, if we can't exceed that as well, so that just keeps the the distance from the front yard setback was that point. Um, again, all of our setbacks meet code. Um, I did touch on the closeness to the street. And I'd also just say considering on what you define neighborhood as and where you're taking your character from, I don't know if it's just the Glee Haven neighborhood, but also we do have, like I said, the R5. You can kind of see those twin homes like just um in the backyard of the Posas residence at 133 Glee Haven. There's a twin uh two twin homes there and a duplex, I believe. And those twin home lots are about 8,000 square feet. I know it's a different zoning of R5, but just kind of also giving some context that of character of this entire neighborhood. Um, we were required to send out meeting, you know, for neighborhood meeting mailer invites, we sent them out to 500t radius. So, just thinking of that whole 500t radius, that also included the apartment building um of the R5 zoning as well. Just taking in a little bit more context of the surrounding area. Um, so I did touch on the lot width perspective. Um, that we're not creating the narrowest lot. We're not creating the smallest lot. Um, and we're really not creating any dissimilar lots. Um, again, there's varying sizes of lots, varying widths, varying de depths throughout the neighborhood. Um, we're not asking for a reasonzoning. We're, you know, we're not requesting to change the land use of this property. We're not asking for any variances. Um, we're meeting all of the code. Another finding and finding three, um, it talked about just doubling the density being an adverse impact to the neighborhood. Uh, again, the the recent subdivision, the most recent subdivision directly across the street that was approved by council doubled the density. It went from one lot to two lots just as we're doing and and and requesting in front of you today. We're going from one lot to two lots. Um or if you want to say, you know, two to four. Um it's the same density, basically the same average lot size. And again, not creating the smallest of any of those criteria. Um another finding was that just again this is it was a little redundant the finding of facts. So, I'm just trying to paraphrase them, but another finding on finding four is just that the layout does not reflect surrounding lots. Um, that fewer and larger lots were preferred. And again, these were measurable objective facts that we looked at around the surrounding area. Um, and we do believe that we are um that this that the four lot layout does is reflective of the surrounding lots and in character. Um, but while larger lots might be preferred, um, these plans do meet the comp plan. They meet the zoning requirement, they meet the the density guidance, um, and they are within character of the neighborhood. And then finding five, just again, it's very redundant, but lot sizes being dissimilar from most surrounding lots. Again, um, just not dissimilar. Um, we is a beautiful place to live. I think a lot of people like to live here because it is unique and it's not cookie cutter lots. Um, and um, we really do believe that given all the the the information that I've given tonight will help maybe clarify a little bit on just some of the confusion that was put into the finding of facts um, from the planning commission. And again, I do have our engineer here tonight. Um, Kurt Pretham is here from Lake West as well. Um, if you have any questions, I'm sure either myself or one of them can answer them. We appreciate this. >> Thank you, M. Thompson. Um, any questions of the applicant from council at this point? >> Uh, Mr. Hy, as a landowner, did you want to offer any additional comments before I take input from the public? >> Mr. Mayor, I don't think that the um Mr. Hy here tonight. >> Oh, okay. So, all right. So, um, are there any uh cards on this for public additional public input? Mr. Mayor, there is not. >> Okay. So, I guess no further questions. Oh, Mr. Clish. >> Uh, Mr. Wild, who's not here, I guess he owns both of these lots. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> And, um, was there ever any thought given to just replacing each lot with another home? So, it one for one >> or maybe even going to three versus two. I went from six to five to four. Why not three? And why not just replace the two that are there? Has there any bit thought been given to that? >> Some thought was given to that. I guess not not really. Um because it is zoned R3 which would allow duplexes. Um I do think that we would we could come forward with a plan that would do two duplexes and not have to subdivide the property. So we have considered that. That would also yield uh four units. Um we kind of started with a five lot plan that was that met all the zoning requirements. Um and then we door knocked around some of the neighbors um you know had had a lot of conversation with city staff and decided ultimately pursue a four lot plan. Pursuing um a three lot plan or just knocking down those two houses that are there and building two you know homes was not not something that we've considered. Other questions of the applicant at this time? >> Quick question. >> Sure. Go ahead, Mr. >> Two quick questions. Um, just um following up from council member Pleish's question about the five lot plan or if you've considered that, you mentioned the five lot plan met the zoning requirements, but um did it meet the density minimums there? >> Yeah, Alex can speak to that as well. Mayor, council member, no, it exceeded the three units per acre, which is why staff informed the applicant that it would require a comprehensive plan amendment to bring forward that plan for forward in addition to the preliminary plat. >> Okay. Um, my other part, thank you for that clarification. That's what I kind of wondered when I saw you that your narrative. It didn't seem to add up right to me. Um, are you building the homes potentially? Uh we haven't gotten that far yet whether we will be the builders or if we will um you know sell to a builder. The the reason why I ask is they are the setbacks in the front are are also generous and they are um they look really good and they they do but that's just uh that's a hope not a not a promise per se. >> Yeah. And I would just say to that that that wasn't direction under like Lake West. That was, you know, our engineers design on what would work with the cut and fill, the grading requirements, preserving the trees, um the slopes, etc. >> Okay. Just wanted to clarify that. Um that's it. Appreciate it. >> Okay. I believe we did get one card for public comment. >> Uh yes, Mr. Mayor. We did for Mr. Dan Poss. >> Okay. Just know the further questions the applicant. Otherwise, we'll take uh feedback from from you. Welcome and please state your name and the group or neighborhood that you represent. Hi folks, thanks for the opportunity. My name is Dan Poss at 133 Glee Haven Road. I'm the property adjacent to the development that's being proposed um just to the south. Um that was a lot of information. I don't know how you folks comprehended all that or you did some studying beforehand, but I'm sure you didn't comprehend everything. I'm going to simplify it a little bit for you hopefully. And our neighborhood is unique. It's a unique shaped road and it's a culde-sac. So, whenever you have a culde-sac, you have a lot of triangular lots. A lot of the triangular lots are a half acre or more. And just to give you a ballpark of the density feel of Glee Haven Road, it's on six acres. Has any have you show of hands of people have been through the neighborhood? Okay. And you notice where the uh the development is going to be. There's really virtually no driveways coming out onto Glee Road. Glehaven Road currently. So to say it's not going to change the character of the neighborhood, that's a pretty subjective uh statement to make. And I would say of course it's going to change the character of the neighborhood. some for the positive. Of course, new homes, they look real shiny and nice, but from a density standpoint, it's going to be tremendously character changing. Again, we have six acres with 10 homes prior to 2013. We're kind of using the precedence of what happened at 108 and 110 in 2013, but a half century before that, it was basically 10 homes on six acres. That's six of an acre per home. I've been there 27 years now. So to say that if we keep parsing the neighborhood like this, which can happen, I think uh Alex, you have a slide that shows it could be 9,000 square feet per resident lot. Okay. So now we have 10 of that could be almost 30 homes in that neighborhood. I bring this up because I don't understand the zoning and no one can explain to me why it got changed to R3 from R2. Again, we have six acres of prop land there with 10 homes 6 of an acre. That's close to 27,000 square feet and now it can go down to 9,000 square feet. It it doesn't make sense to me. You know, we have zoning ordinances, I think, for the people that buy homes in the neighborhood, particularly the block. And so, we're we're potentially going from 27,000 square feet to 9,000 square feet. I just that doesn't make sense to me. And in this case, we're going to go from from 2013, we're going to go from 10 homes and eventually it's going to be 20. It's just going to be this is why Zetta it's going to get parsed and we're just wondering from residents that have been there for 27 years some 60 70 years most of the residents that have been there either died while living there or had to move for hardship to assisted living or something. So longtime residents there because of the charm of the neighborhood and the feel of the neighborhood being 10 homes on six acres. And so I I talked to Alex a while back about, you know, how did this happen? How did it get to R3? How can it be now twin homes and the such on our block when we have a pretty palatial feel? I'm sure some of you folks know of the High Croft and Holdridge neighborhoods. It's a different feel when you drive through there, is it not? You know, and and you can drive through because you can meander a little bit. Ours is just one block, but it's very similar. Think about lots that are over a half an acre each. And so everything that Kelsey said is true. You know, those lots meets the minimums of some of the other lots, but that just happened. And we don't know why 2013 happened either as a neighborhood. Because it's R3. The city can't tell me why. It just is. For all I know, it's a typo. Literally. That sounds kind of smart, Alec, but it could be a typo. There's no record of why it's R3 from 1983 or the '7s or thereabouts. And Alex, feel free to comment on that. I think you said you you scoured the history books trying to find the information. Correct. >> Council member, uh, Mr. Poss. Uh, correct. And in fact, the afternoon that you you and I had met, I went over to the library in the basement. Um, it does appear it occurred as part of the 1980 comprehensive plan. That's my best estimate. uh other properties were changed at that time but specific notation of this neighborhood was not included within that adoption of the 1980 comprehensive plan. Uh so R2 became less prominent. R3 became more prominent in the 1980 comprehensive plan. So you see where I just I'm here just to learn and get some qualifications here because you know why do we have government? Why do we have zoning? Well, it's for the people that literally live on that block also. and I've been here 27 years as a Wisetta resident and no one can explain it to me. And so it's just a matter of time before our whole neighborhood gets parsed into a more typical neighborhood. And I I just don't think that that should be the intention here. We all bought into this neighborhood thinking it was going to stay somewhat the same. Again, we've had changes to our east and to our west where the hammer area is and the the twin homes behind us are right on the county road. We understand there's always a buffer of twin homes sometimes before you get into the neighborhoods. Quite common, but in this scenario, I think you go from 10 homes to potentially, as the rules are written, could be 30 residences. That's just that just doesn't seem proper to me or right. And if it is, I'd like to understand why. If somebody could explain it to me, uh I'd be anxious to know. But as a homeowner there for 27 years, I think I will describe the character of the neighborhood is the fact that it's not real dense and it's 10 homes on six acres. And why we're subject to the liability of being parsed so significantly is pretty disappointing to me. And again, I think um Lake West is offering a lot of great things as a developer in the highs. Uh but my compromise would be three homes. So it is more of the average which is about 20,000 square feet per property. And again, you know, you're talking about width of homes. When you're triangle home or lots and you go 20 feet up, of course, they're not very wide. But my house is still set back wide and I have half an acre. So there's some tricks you can play with as a shell game a little bit here, right? Everything Kelsey said is true, but to get the overall arch feel of what our neighborhood it's 6 of an acres where it should be, I believe, zoned where it can't be subdivided to this degree. Um, want to make sure I don't miss something on my nose here. Oh yeah, you know, steep slopes that was mentioned also and there is a pretty significant slope uh just to my north as I'm adjacent to that property and uh uh Lake West said they'd work with us on that. Maybe somebody like myself would have to ask for a variance if they could shave it down farther. Of course, that's going to cost them money. Um but something that I would ask for is to lower the properties. Oh, by the way, the character of the neighbor, it's all single level homes. >> Yep. Rambler >> prior to 2013. >> So to say the character is not changing, I don't think that's that subtle quite honestly. And so, um, I would like to see if it project goes through four, three homes, whatever, if we could have a variance to shave more of that debt lower because right now, if they put a home there that six feet taller than mine, just within 20 ft. And so now you put a 30-foot home on next to my 15 foot tall home. It's just a little overbearing from my that's a selfish request for me. If a variance like that could be talked about and agreed upon between the neighborhood, the council and the developer and or builders, I just wanted to get that in here too because whichever way it goes, uh that's a concern I have because it's a it's a pretty steep difference. It's done in other neighborhoods, I know, but as long as I have the opportunity to speak on it, it'd be nice to because we're all single level homes to knock that six feet down more than just the two feet if possible for >> for the the grade. >> The grade. >> Yes. And some of you may have been I was just out there the other day with the developer and the height of it and it's it's significant. None of these pictures really show it quite honestly. You go out >> you walk at street level, you you really notice it. >> Yeah. you look across the street and you can see the top of the roof, you know, you're up there. So, um, thanks for the time and, uh, anxious to see what you folks vote on. Thank you. >> Okay, so we now bring it back to council for for deliberations about, uh, whether or not we want to affirm the uh, denying of the subdivision or want to go a different direction. So, who would like to begin our deliberations? >> Well, can I ask a question? Of course, Mr. Cook. Uh, Director Sharp. So, Mr. Poss um addressed the concern several times about the R3 uh the zoning for R3 or guidance. Um, it happened in 1980. It's been has it has it's Can you confirm that it's been a part of every comprehensive plan? It's been guided that way for every comprehensive plan since 1980. >> Council member, uh, I'm sorry, mayor. Council member. Yes, I've one I can say with 100% definitive that it has been part of every comprehensive plan as R3 since 1980, >> which is at least four cycles. >> Yeah, I'm trying to figure out if it's >> 4.3 to 4.6 cycle, right? So, it's at least four. >> Yes. >> Yep. >> Okay, >> that is correct. >> It mayor and council member, I just want to also clarify for the record. I don't think there's any question that that is the zoning now. Right. We we may not know exactly when it happened or why there was a change, but it's been reaffirmed and recodified. So, it that is legally what the zoning district is. I just want to make sure there's no ambiguity about that. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Uh other questions before we begin our deliberation. Who would like to kick us off? >> Mr. Sorenson. Thank you. >> Yeah. Um well I guess first comment would be like I I'm uh typically very uh supportive and defensive of of property rights. Uh I think you know everyone should have a strong interest in their property and be able to do um primarily what they legally can can do. Uh and also um I think uh West has been a really good you know partner in trying to come up with a plan that works here. Um the it it's clear everything that's been said and documented [clears throat] in the packet that um a large percent or a large part of the um you know subdivision ordinance criteria has been met. Um the the the issue I can't um shake a bit though is um is the shape of these lots. The kind of narrow 75 maybe a little bit wider lots. um in this subdivision which results which will if you see you know historically it would result in homes um you know largely filling up I think that um that plot uh we have 10-ft setbacks here right um I'm just you know thinking of other um areas uh where this has happened so um Mr. Sharp, could you pull up the site plan that has the um the subdivision with the four lots shown? Um the one that has the whole street. Yeah, I think this um kind of this is what um as you drive through the area, I think Mr. I appreciate many of the comments Mr. Pototts has made. um you know uh without the this subdivision there are lots that are are there um true three of them have frontages along the road that are 70 68 to 80 foot wide uh but they are um they are either on the culac uh and or andor pies-shaped lots which results in the houses the distance between the houses that are there um what they are, which is a very, you know, pleasant area. Um, and if you look at the rest of the lots, I mean, they're anywhere from, I think, 18 to 246 foot wide. So, uh, I think on the context of um, neighborhood character, I I would I would uh, many of the comments by Mr. Pototts resonated pretty well with with with me. The other um thing you think about a bit is where else have we done something like this in our in our community and I think about if you look at the kind of corner of Manitoba and Rice Street on Manitoba on the I call it the west side of the road there's four relatively new homes that have been built there 65 foot wide lots it's a R3 area you know the houses there are generally at least original houses have been smaller than what's been built. So, does it fit in the neighborhood? Has it affected the carrier or the uh character of the area? You know, maybe somewhat, but maybe not that bad. Um, the other one you think about is Central Avenue South and Lasal along Central Avenue South as it there's four relatively new homes in a row. The last one is right on the corner of Lasal and um Central Avenue South. And these are 60 foot wide lots as are the ones on Manitoba. Um, and I think if you drive through and look at that, I mean, you would um you could conclude and and I believe it has affected the character of the neighborhood and those are much smaller lots than what we have here on the Glen Haven Road. Um, so I think we need to be really careful about something like that. Um, and you know, uh, while it does comply with many of the criteria on the subdivision ordinance, it doesn't make it always appropriate. Um, in most all the cases I mentioned, the houses do fill up the lots um, and get up to or close to the sideyard setback. So, here we could have 20 foot between homes. It could be it could be a bit more u but even that is significantly different than the space between homes that are now there and the and the feel you get. So um those are like some of my comments. I think, you know, I think uh the conclusion of the planning commission uh and acknowledging the adverse effects uh mainly because of how different these this these lots would affect the neighborhood. um I'm in agreement with and just just to mention a few um not consistent with the comprehensive plan respecting the scale and character of the of the neighborhood. Um creating four narrow lots uh that are smaller than most of the lots in the neighborhood significantly changed the scale, pattern, and character of the neighborhood leading to homes where are much closer to each other than what exists now. um creating these lots creating adverse effects impacting the scale and pattern and character of the surrounding neighborhood. Pretty much the same ones that were the same one that same issues that were mentioned uh by by West, but I think I'm expressing a different opinion about this. Um nor do they uh respond well to the reflect reflective of the neighborhood lots and and character. So, there's a few more of those, but um you know, I I think it would um I think if it were something less than four lots, it would be much more. I think many of the issues we talked about would probably go away. Um and uh that's that's kind of how I'm thinking about it. >> Thank you, Mr. Sorenson. Who would like to weigh in next? >> Go next. Thank you, Miss McDonald. >> Yeah. Uh, thank you, Council Member Sorenson. You sort of summed up some of my um issues and feelings about the findings and the criteria that the hard work the of the planning commission put in. And I just also want to I know we all know this, but I think it's a nice reminder that the planning commission just like this body up here is um for their your neighbors and their your community members are the ones who live in these neighborhoods and um as are we and we're just volunteers who care about um the character and the scale and um the just um we just all care about Weisetta. So that's just a good thing to remind ourselves when we're when we're reviewing their findings um based on the criteria. When I watched their first their meeting about this application, um I have to admit I kept thinking, why R3? Why R3? This doesn't feel like an R3 neighborhood. I live in an R3 neighborhood. My um lot is a small narrow lot like Council Member Sorenson was describing. And one of the benefits you get from those um R3 zoning is some density but some some walkability. And so I I do see a disconnect with the with the zone the zoning. um district of this street and this neighborhood compared to reality. So, was it a typo? Was it an oversight? Um I I think that would be worth looking into a bit further as um the neighbors have asked and reason being is if it was if it has been overlooked and not zoned properly, you already have the kind of some carnage or wreckage of that um that mistake perhaps or that oversight. Um, I don't know, but we don't know what we don't know. And so to add another four lots to that um feels like it would change the character um of this neighborhood for for forever. And so as as a person who's, you know, been serving the city six years now, I I kind of trust that gut instinct I have um and that of the planning commission and some of the other colleagues um or at least council member Sorenson that something isn't just it isn't adding up. It's not it's not u matching up to the criteria. So, if there is any will from this body to take a closer look at that, um, I just wanted to go out there and say that for for you guys that that's something I would be more than willing to support to have a closer look at that zoning. So, um, that's sort of where I'm where I'm at right now. If anyone else would in >> Thank you, Miss McDonald, Mr. Cook or Mr. Pleish. I'll go. Um I uh so I watched the planning commission meeting. Appreciate all the communities like or the the neighbors uh comments then. Uh Mr. Pos, appreciate your comment tonight. And um I uh I agree about um character of neighborhoods and trying to maintain the character of the neighborhoods. Um, there's probably I I guess everybody has probably some different opinions of what that means. And I think like there's a lot of factors out of our control here that would change the character of the neighborhood over time. And that's just market forces when houses turn over and they can be scraped and built up bigger and taller and weak with and totally conform with um the letter of the law and the guidance or the the zoning. Um uh with that said, I mean, we have to do what we can to control the character of the neighborhoods, but I I struggle with this and I thought when I was watching the planning commission meeting, I thought it was going to go the other way to be honest with you. I like all the comments leading up to that thought it was going to get approved. Um, and when you look at it on the facts and um, no variances conforms with every every piece of uh, zoning and guidance and I have a I have a tough time denying it because of the facts. Um, and I think, you know, there's a way to build uh, unique homes that aren't cookie cutter. And um, uh, I I would, as Mr. P said, I would I would like to, you know, if it if it moved forward at four lots, I I would hope that we can come to agreement on the grading issue. Um because I do I mean a concern I have is you've got like Mr. P said, you've got you could have a three or 30 foot building next to the 15t building and that like that scale feels a little bit off. So if there's something you can do, I don't know if it's a full six feet, if that's possible, great. That's a lot of fill for a relatively big lot. But I mean these lots um the developer isn't pushing the lower limits of like they're not 9,000 uh foot lots. These are you know they're the majority of them. I mean five of them five of them within five of the 11 are kind of in the same footprint of uh in that kind of I guess these are within 20% of the the lot footprint of uh you know in that 15 to 17,000 square foot range and that so um yeah it's not like they're pushing them uh to like pushing the limits of what they can get here and so with that I I'll just say like I I have a tough time denying it. >> Thank you, Mr. Cook. Mr. Pleish, >> I guess it's up to me here. Um, before I came in tonight, I didn't have a firm opinion about which way I was going to go on this. I really was trying to be totally objective about it, and I actually drove over to the neighborhood once again before coming here a few hours before to kind of walk the neighborhood and visualize as best I could. Uh, I know there are times, at least one time I can recall, where I was on the side of approving something that I later regretted because I couldn't visualize it well enough and I think I learned a lesson from that. Um, I would support the idea by way of council member McDonald about maybe exploring the zoning. Uh, but that's not actually before us tonight. That's not something we're considering and we can't really base a decision based on well should it have been or should it not have been. That's not before us. But down the road, I might consider supporting that. Uh uh on the pros, there are a lot of pros for um for allowing this to go forward. Um it meets all of the minimums of R3, the zoning that it does currently carry, um including the shoreland overlay and the comp plan. It it it meets all those things. It's it's a fact. Um, one of the things that I thought this plan or any plan uh would go forward would take away one real oddity in that neighborhood, which is that one property that has a driveway going on to to uh Gleon Lake Road versus the rest coming into Glee Haven. That always seemed odd to me when I was door knocking back when I was campaigning. So, that's a positive, I think. Uh, the minimal tree impact. I know some people think a lot of trees be taken away, but it doesn't look like that would actually be the case and they would actually improve the land with with many of the trees that we be planted. Um, I would also make the comment going to three homes would make more sense to me than than having four. Uh I did some of the numbers here depending on what you look at the the lot widths is the right now the four house plan is an average of somewhere around 77 to 80 ft on average depending on which number you used. Uh if it went down to three lots then it would jump it up to about 105 which would be a little bit more in keeping with the rest of the properties that are there now. Um, but there are also some cons to deny this thing. Uh, the planning comm, first off, I I really trust the planning commission a lot. Sometimes I do disagree with them on a vote, uh, but they do a lot of work and and I have to acknowledge that, but when the planning commission sent it to us with a recommendation for denial, it was one vote short of being just the other way. to council member Cook's point of view. I didn't see that uh that meeting, but I understand that it did tend to say what they should have approved it versus denied it based on the conversation. Um the home separations in the plan right now seem a little bit squeezed compared to what's there currently. So, that is a con. Uh and subdivision by definition is a change in the neighborhood regardless of what comes out of it. when you do a subdivision, you've just changed the neighborhood. Uh, and there's always a dimension of subjective judgment on these things. It's not always black and white. So, there is subjectivity here. But here's the bottom line for me. The views of the neighbors make a difference. Nobody knows a neighborhood better than the people who live there. and the comments that I've read and heard tonight from the neighbors are compelling to me and so that's where I'm going to go with this. >> So, just making sure I'm interpreting where you're going. You're you're affirming the planning commission's recommendation is kind of where you're headed. Okay. Um I guess I have one question uh before I offer my comments. um if if there is consensus and I actually honestly don't know based on people's comments tonight where it's going to go um in the final vote, but um I prefer three versus four if that was a way to possibly find a compromise here. It doesn't sound like the applicant um is open to that suggestion at this point. Um, but if it if it does uh hold favor for four, what are our options on a grading plan that that you know could be radically different than what's proposed to try to address? I mean, I walked the neighborhood uh with with uh several of the neighbors and and and have been out there since then, at least driving it. What What are options for an alternative grading plan and how would that get codified if there was support for four? uh mayor to address two points to that. Uh the application before the council this evening is for the subdivision as proposed with four lots. So that's where I want to just touch on that point. The three lot subdivision is not before the planning or before the city council >> on the grading plan. Uh as the applicant had noted they're they're below where it requires city council approval for a grading plan and that has been their proposal and what they are bringing forward at this time. I would defer to the city attorney, but since that is their application, I believe that that is what should be acted on by city council. Uh if they brought forward an application for that additional grading, they could do so and receive that uh city council could review that. Typically, those are on consent um as long as the city engineer has reviewed it and is comfortable with the grading plan. So, that could be a future action if they've decided to bring that forward, but that's not before the council this evening. >> No, I get that. But can't we provide staff guidance to say work with the applicant to adjust the grading plan for final or are you saying that's not an option? >> I think that level of >> I guess I will defer the city attorney. >> Well, mayor, uh we'll we'll take any direction from you that you want to give us and I think we could certainly talk or staff could talk with the applicant about that. We certainly couldn't force them to do anything they wouldn't want to do. Um but but yeah uh I I agree with everything Director Sharp said. >> Sure. I mean I I pose this hypothetical to Lake West and I I don't want to speak on their behalf and certainly you can correct me uh Mr. Fratham if I mischaracterize our conversation that you'd be open to it as long as as long as it doesn't materially change your plan. Right. It if it meets the neighborhood's u wishes if there's support for four and I honestly don't know if there is support for four. Sure. I mean either Kelsey or you Mr. Just want to make sure I didn't mischaracterize our conversation a month or so ago. >> Good evening, mayor, city council, neighbors, city staff. Um, yes, Mayor and I had a conversation uh uh about a month ago and um he had asked me if I would entertain the idea of lowering the grades and I spoke with our engineer about what that would involve and um it would uh right now the grades as uh council member McDonald had suggested the homes are set back quite a ways and there's reason for that is we're trying to maintain uh driveway slope to keep the driveways at a reasonable approach to the homes. So, that's why they're set up to catch that grade up. So, it allow us to bring the homes a little more forward. Um, and it would probably make a nicer development. It would cost us some money to haul that material out, but we would be willing to do that. Um, I know it's maybe not appropriate for me to comment, but we brought what we thought was uh a fully compliant plan for because we didn't want to get into um an arguments or or uh a tough position. We have enough of that going on on other matters right now. So we just thought I'm not touching this project unless it is a absolutely completely conforming application so that the city would be easy for them to make a decision because we're meeting all the criteria. And so it's a bit of a surprise to us that it's where it's at, but I completely respect if you decide that this is not right. Um I hate to mislead the neighbors in that direction. Um and u but um we're here and open to discussion if you have anything else. >> Great. Well, thank you for that clarification. Uh so I I am generally a pro property rights uh person and I struggle when you are balancing subjective and objective criteria and it really becomes very challenging sitting up here to um only use the subjective criteria and um you know David [clears throat] I guess I' I'd ask you to um sort of replay from your point of view the finding of facts. We had sort of the applicants point of view. I'd like you to articulate as you help the planning commission define these findings of facts. Give me some color on how you reach those conclusions and and you know how you see them as a substantive way to defend a denial. >> Sure. Uh well, Mayor, I guess maybe the best way to do that is to just pull up the report and recommendation if you want to follow along on it's page 271 of the packet. And yeah, the subdivision ordinance is different from the zoning ordinance in a lot of ways. And the focus really when when the commission looks at a preliminary plat, which is what affectuates a subdivision or a lot combination, the key thing that the ordinance calls out is that you're supposed to consider possible adverse effects. And so by its nature, that's sort of a judgment call. Um, and the ordinance lays out a bunch of criteria um that are it's not an exhaustive list, but it's a list you should definitely you it's you have to look at those criteria. There can be other things that are possible adverse effects that aren't listed there. So, you know, when staff reviewed the the planning commission's deliberations and and the criteria, uh, that's what made its way into the draft report, which ultimately the commission reviewed and um adopted after discussing and I think it that there there is some redundancy in the code. I mean, it talks about building pads in more than one criterion. Um, it talks about character of the neighborhood in more than one place. So that's why you see this coming up a few times. But there all the factors in the ordinance were not cited in the report. Um but the the things that came out in the planning commission's discussion were you know the first one under 1A which by the way it's misnumbered here. It's actually six finding us I guess was focuses on what the comp plan says about neighborhood character respecting existing scale character and pattern of the city and recognizing existing neighborhoods. So, I think you know the applicant's presentation tonight and I think it's it's very rational is taking a bigger view of what this neighborhood is. You know, looking at what's across the street, what's you know, towards the direction of the highway, there's a PUD, there's denser housing. I think the public testimony and the planning commission probably looked at a more narrow or limited definition of the neighborhood as the culde-sac there, and that's what we heard again tonight in some of the public comment. um preservation of natural amenities. Um you know that slope and topography which you know I think there's there's a the commission focused more on well we don't want to disturb things too much. We don't want to lose trees maybe want you know as Mr. Freom said you know that creates maybe a further natural setback. Uh but then there's the one property where maybe there's an adverse effect there on the one neighbor. So there's more to think through on that. um the commission you know the next criteria did you know the not the lots should be uh similar to those in the neighborhood. I think there's facts in the record there that that go both way again depending on what you think about the neighborhood how you measure those. So there's a judgment call for council there. Uh but again it goes to scale pattern um and character of the neighborhood. Um [snorts] minimizing grading is another criteria that's called out. Uh there was concern about proposed lot three on that point. Um and then again um going down to what's three there. Um you know the creation shouldn't adversely impact the scale pattern and character of the surrounding neighborhood. And here we're you know it's focuses on density. The density would double um going from two to four properties uh two two homes to to four. Um and then that's the next criteria is again this is going off what's in the subdivision ordinances, you know, that should respond well and reflect the surrounding lots and neighborhood character. Um and there the commission felt and I heard it here again tonight that you know a subdivision with fewer lots even as as many as three would better reflect the neighborhood character than four. And then the last criteria is again is are these lots dissimilar in terms of shape and size to the collection of lots in the in the neighborhood culde-sac there. So that is the basis of the uh you know a finding of adverse effects that the commission made its recommendation of denial and that's how the resolution is teed up now. >> Yep. Thank you for that further clarification. I mean I uh I struggle with just using subjective criteria. So I lean on supporting for but with the caveat that we would require if there was support for that that we would require the developer to or the applicant to work with staff to come up with the revised grading plan as a subject of that approval. Um and uh you know I' I'd seek your counsel David on how to craft that resolution. I have no idea if it will even fly but the only let me finish. the only way that I would support would be with revised grading plan and procedurally how we could enforce that. I I heard an openness from the developer and the applicant to to go down that road. And again, I'm not saying that there is support for that. Um >> so I'm not I'm making that assumption. I'm just saying for my support I would it would require that uh revision. >> Can I ask you a quick clarification on that? Sure. Um, so what I feel I heard the applicant say that is if you regrade you lose those generous setbacks. Well, one of my other major concerns about this um subdivision is that steep curve as you walk >> or drive walk by drive by. Um, so before any sort of I guess I would just want to know if that regrade would make that setback, you know, if they would >> would have been >> I think four is wrong for this just to be clear, but four at 10 foot setback would be I I I'd really feel for the Glee Haven. >> Yeah. When I when I w the site, there's a distinct sort of topofthe-hill effect, and that's I think where you'd focus on the the grading change. I'm not suggesting that you'd go to a uniform grading to then impact that setback. There is a distinct I don't know what the right terminology is, but a mound or high point that's that's sort of in this towards the end of the culde-sac, not not uh the the 15. And that's where that mound is most significant. And I think that's what I'm directing the attention to um is the most high point in in the four lot configuration >> because then that would help with views. It would help with u sort of making it feel more natural in terms of uh because otherwise you're going to have a you know if four were approved you're going to have this really high point of one home and then it kind of goes down the other way. And that's what I heard at least from some of the neighbors I met with as a as a concern. So that's what I'm specifically referring to. >> Understood. So hopefully that clarifies my comments. So well this is this is going to be tricky. I mean uh I guess what maybe what I'll try is to see if a motion would prevail uh considering uh the um adoption of the resolution denying and see if that holds in a roll call vote. If it doesn't, then I'd come back and see if there's support for an alternate plan that I might propose which would be for four but with an, you know, mutual acceptance of an revised grading plan. So, let's see if the first motion holds. If someone wants to move and second it, see how that goes. We'll do a roll call vote. If it if it holds, so be it. If it doesn't, then I'm going to propose an alternative. >> Does that feel okay to everybody? >> All right. So, I would accept a motion on considering adoption of resolution 142026 denying the subdivision by preliminary plat 190 Gleason Lake Road and 121 Glee Haven Road. Would accept that motion. >> Mr. Mayor, I'll make that motion. >> Great. Do I have a second to that motion? >> Second. >> Okay. Any further discussion? So, again, if you're voting in the affirmative, you're you're saying that you're you're affirming the uh planning commission recommendation to deny this. So, just take a roll call vote on that, please. >> Council member Sorenson, >> I. >> Council member Pleish, >> I. >> Council member McDonald, >> I. >> Council member Cook, >> nay. >> Mayor Mullen, >> nay. So, that did prevail. Um, so that would hold then. Um, and we'll see where it goes from here. Um, thank you very much for all being here and thank you for your time. Thank you to the applicant as well. Okay. Um, we'll just pause for a second. I know it's been we've finished six o'clock. Do you want to take two seconds as they clear the room or are we okay to proceed? >> Um, I I we're let's proceed. >> Okay, great. We'll just pause for just a second to let the room clear so we're not distracted in our final uh stuff. And thank you. >> No, I know I you you mentioned Hey, bring it up. So, I tried to honor that. >> Okay. The last item now is our city manager report. Um Miss Jagger. >> Uh thank you, mayor and council. Just a couple of items for tonight. The first is to highlight that Highway 12 construction did start this week. So, folks will start to notice as they're traveling on Highway 12 that there will be lane shifts um switching throughout the day. Um we're going to try our best on our social media and city website to amplify MDOT's messages, but I highly recommend residents sign up on MDOT's website to get email notifications about construction updates. That'll be the fastest way for you to get information about any changes in their construction timelines or construction impacts. Um, couple other things. Um, spring cleanup will be on May 2nd. I've heard from several residents, oh, I forget every year the date this year is May 2nd at 7 a.m. for curbside pickup of a bunch of items. You can go on to our city website to find a list of acceptable items or if there you need to arrange for special pickup, but it's May 2nd. Following that, we are planning ahead for our Clapri Park grand opening celebration. That will be on Thursday, May 14th from 5 to 7:30 p.m. That's a Thursday. There's going to be um inflatables, yard games, a ninja obstacle course, a bunch of fun stuff. So, mark that on your calendars and we hope to see you on the 14th. And that's all I have for you tonight. >> Okay. I just want to bring up one other uh I guess request that was put in front of me related to Highway 12 disruption. Um, you know, we live through Bushway, we live through I mean, I I actually think this could be more sub subsitive in impact to our local business and disruption than Bushway. And the request came from several in the restaurant community that obviously these 90 days are their prime earning season. um and also uh reached out to Senator uh Anne Johnson and what the request of our business community is to try to get more specificity to from the the DOT about you know the onoff exits that are going to be impacted and when because that's going to have a profound impact. I mean, everything's going to be impacted, but when you get to the first two exits and then closing uh access to uh Shoreline Drive, that's where it gets nuclear. And I'm wondering if we'd be open to hosting an open house if we can get some help from Senator Johnson to try to drive some more clarity to the schedule of by entry and exit ramp. So, at least we have a better understanding of of the most profound impact to get access to the city. The second request I heard from our business community is there a way we can get an information out there about alternative paths to get into town. Right. So, so one path is going to be continuing west to do a loop back into town off of Highway 112 uh when and if that is the last part of the project that gets done and then the second is to to uh uh probably in the ear later part of the project is use 494 and Minnetonka uh Avenue and coming in through Bushway as an alternative road. So could we scenario plan those and try to communicate both to residents and externally about who people want to come to visit? If we had some understanding of that order, we could say, "Hey, early in the construction project, please use uh 112 and return back to the city because 494 is impacted. Later in the project, if 494 is done first, then we could say later in the project, use 494 and come in back through through uh McGinty and Bushway." So, I know you don't have the answer to that, but I guess there's a strong uh preference in the community to try to push on the county to scenario plan that so we can help communicate alternative routes to get in and out of town. >> Yeah, thanks for your comments, Mayor. I'll follow up with our public work staff and Mandot to see if we can get some. >> Yeah. And and Senator Johnson offered to offer assistance there and she uh sits on the transportation committee. Um the next thing that I have is um the League of Women Voters is hosting a forum uh next Wednesday, April 29th with the cities of Plymouth, Long Lake, Orno, Corkran, Mound, Mini, Trista, Madina, and Weisetta. So I'll be representing Weisetta at that forum at Plymouth City Hall at 6:30 on Wednesday, April 29th. So if you're looking for a broader set of that set of our neighbors and us, uh please attend that event with the League of Women Voters on the 29th. That's all I've got. Any other comments? >> Move to adjourn. >> Great. I'll take that. Second. >> Second. >> All in favor say I. I. We're >> journ. Thank you. outreach. >> I have the business like