Welcome to the January 26th, 2026 meeting of the Wisea Planning Commission. I hereby call the meeting to order. My name is Blake Cameron. I am chair of the Wisea Planning Commission. Um first on agenda tonight is roll call. Um I would note that all commissioners are present this evening at roll call as well as uh councelor Schel and um director Sharp. Um next on our agenda this evening is the approval of the agenda. Does anybody have any uh changes or wish to pull an item um uh changes to the agenda for this evening? Sorry. No. >> May I have a motion to approve the agenda as presented? >> So moved. >> Thank you, Commissioner Severson. Second. >> Second. >> Thank you, Commissioner Planton. Further discussion. >> All those in favor? >> I >> opposed. Eyes have it. The motion passes and the agenda is approved. >> [snorts] >> Um the next item on our agenda this evening is the approval of the consent agenda which consists of the meeting minutes from our January 5th, 2026 meeting. Does anybody have any um uh questions or comments about the consent agenda? >> It was pretty skinny. Uh may I have a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented? >> So moved. >> Thank you, Commissioner Van Loy. Second. >> Second. >> Thank you, Commissioner Schwabby. Further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? >> Eyes have it. The motion passes and the consent agenda is approved. >> Um, next on our agenda this evening is um public hearing item um for the application to construct a Lamborghini dealership at 1022 and 1042 um Central Avenue or well, sorry, not Central Avenue. Why Boulevard? Let me get that get the address correct at least. Um so uh we're going to um we will have a presentation from um city staff. Um and then we will have uh the applicant present. Um we will have some time for questions um from uh the commission for staff and for the applicant and then we will have um some time um for the public to um speak their uh thoughts on this uh proposed project as well. So with that, director Sharp. >> Thank you, Chair, members of the planning commission. As stated, this is a planned unit development general plan, preliminary plat, final plat, five variances, and two design deviations, which I will highlight uh the other one that that uh uh in greater detail, so don't worry about the number there. This is at 10221042 Weisetta Boulevard East. The owner and applicant is WAR Real Estate LLC. So to go through these a little bit slower rather than uh list them off, there are two different uh review paths for this project. The first is under planning commission review and these are the applications that the planning commission uh is directly responsible for having findings for. These are the PUB general plan, the preliminary plat, the five variances which include a required parking stalls variance, a parking setback variance, fence height variance, and then fence height and opacity variance in the front yard. and an access spacing variance for there [clears throat] are also two design deviations. One of which was included in the packet at that 6 foot wide planning strip between uh the sidewalk and building. And don't worry, I've got a slide high highlighting where that is. And then I've purposely highlighted a street trees section as it's within the same proximity as the uh planting strip section. So I'll make sure to emphasize that when I go through the report. Additionally, there are other items that go straight to city council for review. These are the final plat, the vacation of drainage and utility easements, the development agreement and PUD agreement which may be bound together. I'll give you some background on some of these items just so that you see them as we go through and understand the full context of the actions occurring at this site. But just be aware there will be a public hearing specifically for the vacation of the drainage and utility easements that city council needs to set and hold at a later date. We're doing this where we can coordinate it based upon what the recommendation of the planning commission is for the whole project before we start scheduling public hearings ahead of time for vacations that otherwise may not need to occur. To introduce the site, it is at the southwest corner of Weisetta Boulevard east and Central Avenue South. Huntington Avenue uh is to the west of the site. Uh, as you can see it, Huntington Avenue actually ends in a culde-sac and goes up a pretty steep grade uh with some stairs for residential on that western side of the site. Huntington Avenue is not a through street any longer. It is primarily utilized for city parking. Uh, and that parking is primarily utilized by the uh office building to the west of the site. The site is guided for mixeduse commercial which does allow for residential not part of this pro proposal but does weigh into the current ziding zoning of the site which is C3 service district within the C3 service district. Uh just for contextual basis uh vehicle repair and vehicle sales are a conditional use. In this case, the applicant is proposing to reszone the site to PUB where it would be a uh permitted use for the retail sales and the retail uh and the commercial repair of vehicles. So with the existing conditions, there are actually two separate parcels right now uh which I've noted through the two addresses. The total acreage is 888 acres. Um, and as I noted before, Huntington Avenue South off to the west is primarily used for access and parking. The existing conditions of the site have a Malber's dry cleaning. Uh, in this case, it's on the east side of the site, but as you're looking from Weisetta Boulevard, it'll be the photo on the left. And then you've got a demolished former gas station on what would be the west side of the site or right hand when looking from Weisetta Boulevard southward. This is the uh demolition plan for the site. The demolition plan uh proposes to completely destruct the uh Malber's dry cleaning business and essentially regrade the site for their proposed uses on the preliminary plat uh which is one of the items that the planning commission is reviewing this evening. um it meets conformance standards for uh lot size and area flag lot etc. One of the big pieces that I'm wanting to highlight through this slide is there is an existing drainage utility easement that are around the perimeter of the site. That's the red box. Uh so it's the red box outwards towards the property lines and these are standard easements that we put around new lots. Their uh name slightly implies what they're used for drainage and utilities. The issue with where uh the applicant is running into with this application is as you can see right now the easement runs up the shared property line between the two parcels that are proposed to be joined. A standard practice in this instance is to vacate all of the drainage utility easements as part of this plat and then rededicate them as part of the final plat. So, this isn't an action that the planning commission is reviewing or acting upon, but I want to make sure you understand full context and why you will see future actions at later meetings. This is the exhibit. uh the legal description I didn't include in your packet because it is quite lengthy but uh essentially all they're looking to do is vacate these easements and then at the same time uh staff in the city are going to be coordinating to bring forward the final plat and this vacation to make sure that the city doesn't vacate it if the final plat is not approved and then recorded. So they'll need to be recorded at the county together at a later date. What we'll end up seeing out of that is this final plaque coming forward with new perimeter easements surrounding the full site and vacating essentially just that strip that runs north and south between the two parcels that are proposed to be joined during the planning commission's review. One of the uh key items with this is that the applicant has already brought forward a PUD concept plan which planning commission unanimously recommended approval of and city council unanimously approved. In that they found compliance with the comprehensive plan uh purposes of uh the zoning district and uh that the PUD was in general compliance with the standards set forth in code. There are some major differences between the concept plan and the proposed plan. The concept plan was a 7,845T dealership with the existing dry cleaner and some demolition to that to remain on site. They also left quite a few access points open that are now proposed to be closed. Uh namely the access point to the north onto Weisetta Boulevard and the access point to the east on Central Boulevard or Central Avenue. I apologize. I've got a slide on that to emphasize that a little bit later. The new dealership or new site plan proposed increases the dealership size by about 8,000 or I'm sorry, by about 1,000 square ft um but actually decreases the total impervious surface of the site and decreases the total building coverage of the site from the concept plan. And again, just to emphasize, the dry cleaning use is no longer proposed to continue. [snorts] This graphic is included within your packet. So, I'm not going to go into great detail, but it's here in case there are questions about lot area and things during your uh deliberations. The key part that I want to highlight is that there is one variance in the parking setbacks sought and that uh I will go into greater detail at a later time but is essentially a parking setback variance for the parking lot on the south side uh southeast side of the site. Going into detail on the parking stall variance. Uh included within your packet was a uh table that outlined the parking requirements that outlined that 34 stalls are required. The applicant is actually uh proposing to have 49 parking stalls on site. However, 20 of those stalls are in their underground garage and secured and therefore not available for general parking. So to get to that 34 number, a five stall variance is required. Those five stalls are noted in code as though as though they would be for uh employee parking rather than for customer parking. But our code is not specific in that uh they need to be available at all times. And so the variance is to essentially ensure that they meet compliance with code. But the parking stalls are identified uh the five stalls are essentially on the south side here where I'm circling on the graphic. The remaining parking is used for inventory uh and potential trade-ins that the applicant has noted within their narrative. One item that I do want to note is that no exterior storage is proposed as part of this uh proposal and uh it would be a condition of approval obviously that no storage of vehicles for sale be in the exterior portion of the site. Vehicles for repair could be stored ex uh on the exterior but would then need to be picked up by customers. So for those keeping count that's the first variance of five in terms of the parking and fence uh variances. I'm going to go through these each individually based upon their color coding here on the screen. So the first is the parking stall or the parking setback variance. code requires 10- foot setback from this southern property line. And for those of you that are trying to keep track of exactly where this is, this is essentially right down here that we're looking on the overall site plan. [cough] So again, zooming in on this spot, here's the parking setback variance. They go, the closest point is about 4.26 ft from the property line. Uh to make the variance more understandable, a six-foot variance is sought by the applicant. So essentially allowing that parking lot to be four and a half or 4.26 feet away from the parking lot rather than the 10 required in response to that. Oh yes, if there are questions, feel free. >> Can you repeat that again? I don't really understand. You're talking about 4.26 feet, but it's required to be 10 feet. And why isn't it 10 feet? So 10 feet is required. >> Yeah. >> Let's see if I can zoom in a little bit closer on this. >> So here's where the 10 foot mark would be on the site. As you can see, all their parking is proposed to be closer than that. And therefore, they're seeking a variance to uh essentially allow the parking within the within that 10 ft. It's a sixoot variance. This was identified as part of their concept plan as well. >> Okay, >> I apologize. I need to get back in. So, that's the second variance. The third variance is in relation to this 8-ft composite screening fence that they are placing along the southern property line from this parking from the residential to the south. A six-foot fence is the maximum height allowed within code without a variance in your uh concept plan. This was actually identified as a conditional use permit. Our code used to require a conditional use permit but was amended in uh approximately 2024 uh is when it was fully codified to uh remove the conditional use permit requirement of that but instead make that action a variance. So it is a familiar item from the concept plan but wanting to make sure that I emphasize that it is now a variance not the conditional use permit. The principal reason that the applicant has stated that they're adding that is from comments at the concept plan. I'll let them elaborate on that more, but the neighbors to the south sought a higher fence and the applicant has sought variances to accommodate that request. It also relates to the third v or in this case fourth variance third on this slide because of the way the code reads. Central Avenue is actually the front yard of this site. Uh to all layman's terms, the front would normally be seen as Weisetta Boulevard. It is where their front door comes off of. But by code definition, the front yard is central. When you're placing a fence in a front yard, it is allowed to have certain opacity requirements and height requirements. Commissioners are aware of this as they've seen a couple of these within the last year. In this instance, they are seeking to place a fence above 4 feet in height at 100% opacity to help screen from the apartments to the south so that there can be no headlight wash or other uh disturbance. And that is their fourth variance for the application or third one on this slide. The fifth and final variance is to do with access and uh the loading of the site. So the big purple X's are where they have existing accesses and are proposing to remove them. These are namely the southern access off of Huntington and access directly off of Weisetta Boulevard and the access uh very close to the intersection of Central A and Weisetta Boulevard. They are seeking to retain the access on the western side of the site onto Huntington Avenue. The city engineer did review this request uh and does not have concerns over that location, namely because Huntington Avenue is no longer used as a through street. For context, the applicant would not need to seek a variance if they were to keep the existing access in place. The only reason why the variance is required is because a complete removal is being proposed. The one remaining access is for is off of Central Avenue to the southern side of the site. And this brings up a uh point that I want to make sure that everyone is seeing that due to grade, there's actually a pretty substantial retaining wall between the western half of the site and the eastern half of the site. So you will not be able to drive between these two sections. There will actually be fencing to prevent vehicles from going over the top of this retaining wall as it's quite tall. >> [snorts] >> One of the requirements from code is that we have a 50- foot turning radius required. This is both for firet trucks and for deliveries. The applicant will need will be able to provide additional uh background on how vehicles are getting to the site, what types of vehicles, etc. But our code requires a 50-ft turning radius for the delivery specifically to areas where loading and unloading would occur. uh this graphic demonstrates that they have that ability to or have the ability to meet the code requirement. Terms of interior plans, they are similar to what we saw at the concept plan. They remain with the six bays, remain with the four showroom floor uh models there. What has mainly been expanded is the parts area and some of the service area for employees. Additionally, [snorts] what was uh expanded quite a bit was the underground parking area. And this will allow for not only staff parking, but that trade-in of vehicles. The actual use of the site and how the applicant intends to uh utilize this space. I want to make sure I leave them. But one of the items that had come up in the prior review during the concept plan was whether all these spaces would be able to be used because of trash storage. And they have adjusted that. So, uh, all of the spaces shown would be able to be utilized for parking in the, uh, garage, basement, or under story. On the building elevations, uh, most staff has reviewed for, uh, the design compliance on this. And as you can see, there's a a highle mix of either glass, composite brick, white burnish brick, um, and an alum aluminum composite panels. So these are the east and west elevations. This is the burnish brick, this is the white brick, and these are the aluminum composits. One of the things required by code is the total amount of glass required per wallace. Uh on these two walls it's at 26%. On the rear wall uh we're at 25% and at the front wall you're at 43%. Exceeding the design code requirements uh in those locations. One of the other prominent features is this aluminum composite panel. This is only allowed over specific bumpout areas of the building. So, as you're reviewing your plans, uh hopefully nobody got into the same panic that I did that when they're looking at the site plan and they saw a roof projection sticking out over the setback. That's allowed. We measured to the set to the foundation, but I did want to make sure that I noted that because it was something that uh when you looked at the civil versus the architectural, the architectural shows where the roof bumpout is. And so I for those that uh saw this, I wanted to make sure to note it during the planning commission and on the record. These are building perspectives provided by the applicant. Um this is of the rear of the building. And then this would be from Weisetta Boulevard either at uh further west of the site on Weisetta Boulevard or from uh perhaps across the intersection of Central Avenue and Weisetta Boulevard west east. I'm sorry. The applicant has provided some renderings uh of what the site would look like. As you can note, this is from the resident residential area down on Huntington. This would be towards the primary entrance that I think people will use from uh the parking lot. There is still a front entrance that is around the corner onto Weisetta Boulevard. And then wondering if I'm missing a slide in here, but um and then this would be from Central Avenue. And this is where you can see that substantial retaining wall. In the design review, there were two deviations required. The first I I outlined in the report. And that's what you're seeing here on the west side. Code requires that we have a sixoot buffer between sidewalk and building. And in this case, we have one maybe two feet. I don't have an exact measurement on that, but it's not hitting the six foot requirement. It's only not meeting this for this section from here to here. By code determination, the section from here to here is the front door area, which is commonly uh concrete or sidewalk. So, uh, the section in particular is right here. Second design deviation that, uh, was inadvertently left out of the report, but I'm wanting to make sure to emphasize is that code requires that street trees have a maximum sta spacing of 26 feet between them. And so you're looking at the area that is essentially right here where there's greater than 26 feet between the street trees planted at this section. One of the things that I do want to make sure the commission is aware of is that there are grade changes in this area. The sidewalk is required to be ADA compliant. Um, and you're starting to squeeze the site quite a bit here. The applicant will make their case for their uh proposal. I'm just wanting to emphasize that there are a lot of competing uh forces at work for this area. [snorts] City engineer had a number of comments that uh are in greater detail within your report. I have tried to summarize these very quickly with some notes here for the presentation. If you have questions on them in particular, I'm happy to go into detail. Um, essentially these relicated related to the truncated domes. For those that aren't aware, the truncated domes are for ADA compliance for those who are blind or uh heart of sight. And essentially, it requires rather than single square an entire patch around the intersection. This is a requirement of um both the county and the city. So, they're coming together um and need to revise that plan. Originally, uh, Henipin County was seeking a 5-ft sidewalk at Central Avenue and Weisetta Boulevard, and the city was seeking seven. The applicant has revised their plans to have the full 7 foot required by city ordinance. [snorts] There is not a current storm water report that has been prepared for the eastern half of the site. that is being prepared and would be required at a later date uh likely prior to final action on a PUD uh agreement as we'll need to incorporate that within the agreement or a storm water management plan within that agreement. Uh the city engineer is seeking additional review on storm water uh as it exits the roof drains where that'll go how it's is it sheet floating over the uh flowing over the site etc. Uh there are two existing water services to the site that will need to be removed and um essentially demolished and disconnected according to our standards. So that's one of their requirements. And then the same goes for a sanitary sewer removal. There we go. City Forester also had a number of uh comments. these primarily related to um and unfortunately they're copied over but I can help uh remind what they are. So these primarily related to uh the species diversity and the replacement requirements. So the current plans do not meet the required species diversity. Uh this isn't uncommon at this stage but prior to final approvals they will need to update uh the species diversity or the applicant does have the option of submitting uh additional tree escrow for the replacement requirements and I shouldn't say escrow fee in lie of uh for the replacement requirements one way or another it is a code provision so they need to meet it. Um, additionally, there are some um more comments included from the city forester on uh where the plantings can be located and how they should be loca located to make sure that they're able to survive. [snorts] Uh, in terms of public engagement, the neighborhood meeting was held on July 22, 2026. Apologies for those who caught the 2025 in my staff report. Uh, we are fairly into the new year. I shouldn't be making that error, but it was on uh and I said July instead of January. I'm doing great on dates. [laughter] Just awesome. January 22nd, 2026. Five residents attended. Um sincere apologies. That's what happens when you're dyslexic as all get out. Uh the issues discussed at that meeting included primarily noise concerns and then some of the fencing and screening. uh that staff has spoken with some of the nearby residents and I suspect will come up in greater detail during our public comment period. Uh additionally, the planning commission does have a public comment on the table for their review. You'll note that the date it was sent to me was prior to the release of the packet. However, since some of the comments were more related to questions from me, I did seek clarification from that resident on whether they were intending it to be a public comment. In the air of transparency, I've just put it into the full public record as I haven't received a full response from that individual yet, but not seeking to cut it out. Just wasn't going to include it if they didn't want it there. [snorts] The next slides are primarily for your assistance as you're going through your deliberations. uh they are going to be on the wordier side but they are excerpts from code so that the commission can work through individual items and actions related to this application. So the first is for your PUD requests and I'm going to go very high level summary and then go back to this during your deliberations. Um, PUDS are seeking innovations of design, higher standards of building, um, convenience of location, the enhancement of desirable characteristics while mitigating potential uh, conflicts created by the standard zoning, creative use of land, uh, similar to the efficient use of land, development pattern in harmony with the objectives of a wise comprehensive plan. Want to highlight that one. and then a more desirable and creative environment that might be possible with the strict interpretation of the ordinance. One thing to note with that is that because our PUD ordinance refers to the prior zoning of C3, uh the variances are still required where uh in a PUD if you were to create a whole new district that didn't refer to those. We uh this criteria would apply uh more to how was that code changed rather than what the variances are. So they're slightly related to the variances is why I wanted to highlight that one. >> [snorts] >> In a preliminary plat review, the planning commission is p is primarily looking at the possible adverse effects of that plat. And recall in this case, this is not a subdivision. This is the combination of two parcels. And so what you're looking for with that is uh items 1 through 12 here actually that uh would identify potential adverse effects and how they relate. So there are full 12 criteria here that I can have up as you're discussing each aspect of the application. The commission is wellversed in variances at this point. However, I do want to make sure that I have this available for the commission uh as you deliberate. But essentially the provisions are harmony uh with the zoning and consistent with our comp plan. And then the practical difficulties measure uh which are is it reasonable? Is it due to circumstances unique to the property? Uh will it alter the essential character and economic considerations alone do not constitute practic practical difficulty? Design deviations are a uniquely Weisetta criteria. So there we don't refer back to state statute for these like we do for the others. The uh essentially what the commission is looking to do is um is the negative impact created by this deviation mitigated or outweighed by the positive impact of the project or through other competing forces. So that's one of the reasons why I was highlighting that competing forces piece or portion in the sidewalk and the tree area as there's a lot of competing forces within that area. Uh the goal of the design deviation is that it would um have a positive impact on the extent the project advances policies and provisions of the comp plan. The extent the deviation per permits greater conformity with other design standards. So in so doing, does it essentially uh remove or allow for the site to be more in compliance in other ways? The positive effect on the area in which the project is proposed. Now you're looking at the overall project, not just the deviation, the alleviation of an undue burden, uh accommodation of future possible uses contemplated, and then uh national, state or local historic designations if those were in competition with the design. uh standards of the code and then is it uh the remodeling of an ex existing building which doesn't apply in this uh case. With that, the actions that uh the planning commission is is completing this evening is holding the public hearing and then directing staff to prepare a planning commission report recommendation of approval or denial with appropriate findings. With that, I can skip back in the presentation based upon questions and the applicant is available to make their presentation as well. >> Thank you, Director Sharp. Um, any questions for staff so far? >> Yes, I do. >> Yes. Commissioner Al, >> can you go to the sidewalk design deviation? >> Why is that even in consideration? Isn't the public sidewalk what we see at the top of the picture and that is just an entrance sidewalk to the main entrance? I I I don't understand why that is included as a deviation. Why that is even considered. >> Chair, Commissioner, uh code requires a sixoot separation from any sidewalk when adjacent to a building, whether that be on the public rightway or private on the site. You actually saw this uh in the last iteration of the concept plan when they had parking right up against the sidewalk and then sidewalk right up against the building as well. You don't see that anymore. They've added the six foot uh areas here. So now the only area that you are seeing it is from this front entrance albeit towards the side property line on to Weisetta Boulevard. So it's for that section. Uh and it's because our design standards require a six-foot separation from any sidewalk to any building face excluding obviously the area of the front door. >> So this area here and staff determination was that this is the front entrance facade area. Uh you can see this through the identification of that bumpout that it did not apply to this area either. And is the 7 foot sidewalk that we're talking about that they've accommodated the one along ways at a boulevard? >> Correct. Uh so chair, commissioner, the 7 foot sidewalk is required for the public sidewalk. Their private sidewalk is not 7 ft wide. >> Right. >> Thank you, Director Sharp. >> I have a question. >> Commissioner Schwabby. >> Um I have a couple actually. Um, I've always been a little bit intrigued by that the that um the Huntington parking area and so that's going to stay there. [cough] Are any of those parking spots going to be gone because of the entrance into this parcel? Chair Cameron, Commissioner, uh, actually will result in increased parking because one of the two access points will be closed. Okay. >> The existing access that is off of Huntington into this site right here >> is proposed to remain in the exact same configuration. It's just being removed and replaced in the same location. >> And are those parking places in that Huntington spot, are they considered public parking? >> They are considered public parking. Okay. >> They are not able to count towards the parking requirements for this site, but they would be available for this site to use. >> Will there be parking on Weisetta Boulevard there along along the well the Weisetta part of the building? I don't know. >> Chair, commissioner, there is no parking on Weisetta Boulevard. No. >> Okay. >> It's too busy of a thoroughare. >> Okay. Um, I guess that Oh, I know. I did have one more question. Um, we were all of us a little surprised when that medical building went up on Weisetta Boulevard at how close it was to the road. Um, and I'm wondering if you can give an idea to us how close this building is going to be to the road because I think on the whole most people were not thrilled with how close that medical building was. It looks very tight there. So, I'm curious. chair, it's at the um minimum setback from their property line, which is 10 feet. I would note that the design requirements actually push buildings against roadways in their current uh code requirements. So without having parking allowed in that location, we actually have code provision that the setback must be 10 feet, but the building must be no more than and I think on Weisetta Boulevard it's 15 ft from that front property line. So our own design requirements are pushing buildings closer to Weisetta Boulevard. >> That's a conscious choice that the city has made in the adoption of our design requirements. >> There's also, I think, a requirement for parking to be in the rear. Yes, that's correct, chair. Parking is no no no longer allowed in the front, which was one of the deviations you saw during the concept plan. It is now required to be in the rear of the site rather than parking up against sidewalks. >> So, our own code pushes the building toward the main street as opposed to pushing it back further on the lot on the parcel. >> Chair, commissioner. Correct. Now, aside from this application, anecdotally, I can give you kind of a a reason for that. M >> uh that tends to slow traffic. It tends to create a more vibrant area for pedestrians because you've got areas that they can walk to rather than needing to create goat paths through parking lots. Um so there's there's always a push and pull when cities try to enact these because you you're absolutely correct. It narrows things up. It makes things feel tighter. However, when you make buildings tighter and closer to the street, you generally result in slower traffic and more pedestrian oriented development. Not necessarily related to this application and that doesn't always work in the practicality of each site. It's the overall goal that that typically is going for. Um, if that's not the goal of the city in the future, it could certainly be discussed, but at the time of this submission, it is a requirement. Um, so do you know if the medical building has a 7 foot wide public walkway in front of it like this one will have? >> Chair, uh, commissioner, I don't know off the top of my head. I I suspect that it was slightly before the 7 foot requirement and it might be at five because that's the county requirement. >> Okay, >> that was my concern as well. Alex, do you know the height of the medical building compared to this building? >> Uh, chair, commissioner, no, I don't know the height of the medical building off the top of my head. I'm sorry. I I didn't review that one. This one is uh I think 26 feet. Well, I've got it in the table here. Um, well under the total requirement or the total allowed. So 35 ft is the maximum in the zone or three stories whichever is lesser is what's allowed. Um in this case it's a one-story 26 ft tall building. That's two top of parapit as well. >> Anyone else? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Mr. Severson. >> Um on the fence, can you go to the picture on the fence? So you said that um the fence along Central, that's a um that's going to have to be a variance. Why I guess is is is there a fence going up Central and Huntington also, or is it just along the back [laughter] of the property? Can you explain a little bit more about the fence, >> chair, commissioner? Yes. So, right now the plans show a fence essentially from uh the front yard here to over here. I'm going to go to the zoom in of that because I'm using a the wrong graphic to display this, but I need to figure out where it was. Here we go. >> So, this is the the fence variant or the fence variance is largely because uh of the height. So, it's only allowed to be six feet in max height. In the front yard, which is anything closer than the building line here >> to central, you're only allowed to be 4 feet in height at 75% opaque. >> Okay? So, that green spot, but it's not going up. It's not going parallel. Okay? It's just along the back line. >> It's just along the back line. Now, contextually, just to share, uh the applicant will need to elaborate on this more during their presentation. Um I've had some conversations with nearby residents that right now the fence is only proposed essentially from here to here. The applicant has agreed to potentially adding the fence all the way over for additional screening. However, they will need to comment on that a little bit more as that's not what is included on the plans. uh it would more closely mimic what is there today of the existing fence if it did go over to the Huntington rightway. It's not a required screening because they're meeting all of their setbacks, all of their uh requirements for that section. And there is significant green space to this that will be vegetated. >> So, it's not a requirement of code. It is an item that uh the applicant based upon their public meeting has stated that they may have the intent of adding in. I during their presentation, I'll let them elaborate. Okay. And then um right now there's no sidewalk along what's now Malberry Dry Cleaners. So is the city going to extend the sidewalk then all the way to Central? >> So when you're referring to where the sidewalk is, you're >> um saying west. Let's go to the aerials. Actually, that'll be good. >> Apologies for making people dizzy. This is the area that you're referring to. >> Yeah, because Yep. So that's actually an applicant requirement to add the sidewalk in to connect with the existing sidewalk sidewalk that's on the western portion of the site or in this case right hand side of the screen and at 7 foot wide. >> So then will that tree that tree will then go probably >> I believe this tree would probably be removed. Um I don't I didn't look at that one in particular but I believe so. I think a lot of these street trees were elm trees and needed to be removed anyway and already have been in some c cases. >> Um all of them along Huntington for instance I know were elm trees that were removed as part of Dutch elm. >> And then can you explain more about the retaining wall? Is there one today and why do we need a retaining wall there? Um >> assuming it's >> so here's the existing conditions showing that retaining wall. Um yes it is in place today. Yes it is in portions of it are in disrepair. It is primarily for storm water prevention to prevent water from going down the hill too quickly into the residential properties and to essentially hold up the grades of that site. The applicant has uh stated in their narrative that they intend to uh replace sections I guess is the best way of putting of that wall or of that retaining wall based upon the damage that is currently in place but not the entire wall. So it wouldn't be a complete demo. Um part of that work will need to be reviewed for drainage calculations by our city engineer. So, as they're getting further along in their process, um essentially their storm water report, uh we'll need to address where that storm water goes so that we slow it down and allow for some infiltration before you hit the residential properties to the south. >> Thank you. >> Question. >> Yes, Commissioner Schwab. >> Um is there still going to be a stairway that goes um the south side of this plot down into the residential area? You can see the stairway actually here. Uh it's not part of this project or proposal. Uh it's actually within the rightway portion. So it will not be affected at all as part of this project. >> That existing stairwell will be there. It won't be changed. >> Correct. That's within the city rightway and would be fully within the city project and is not affected by this par parcel or this project. >> Anyone else? Chair. >> Yes. >> Um, >> Commissioner Blandon. >> Yep. Um, and this is for staff. I have a question on um, use designation. So, can we assign a use to a PUD? I guess where I'm getting at is right now it's a Lamborghini showroom. What would um, [clears throat] so it doesn't turn into a different kind of use. Even though it's designated, I wouldn't want it to be like a, you know, repair. I don't want to say a chop shop, but you know, a repair shop or a different um dealership. Is that something that can be assigned to a PUB? >> Chair, commissioner, that's an excellent question. The answer is yes, with a nuance to it. Uh the city attorney and I will need to work with the applicant to essentially create a series of conditions that will allow us to um explain the nuances of this use and restrict it to something that would be similar to what they're proposing and clearly differentially different than what it could be in the next 30 years if a new user were to come forward. Um, essentially what the city is going to be working with the applicant to do is ensure that the hours of operation, the total number of vehicle sales, the storage of vehicles on site and where they can be, all of that is identified in a way that reflects what the applicant is bringing forward at this time and couldn't therefore be amended in that, you know, new user since we're thinking of city and forever in zoning rather than other Lamborghini. We'll try to work with them to further define that down. >> Okay. >> I believe the city attorney would also like to make a comment. >> Um, chair and commissioner, it's a really good question. I think as you discuss this and make a recommendation to council, I think your input would be uh well served. And I would say any of your concerns that go to health, safety, welfare, or the criteria for evaluating a PD, to the extent this particular dealership and what they're proposing is tied to those things, we can make very reasonable and rational ties in the development agreement, the PUD agreement. So, for example, um I think at the concept plan stage, the applicant highlighted many things that were different about this particular dealership and how it was different from some of the other automobile dealerships along the 394 corridor. So, if those things go to health, safety, welfare, the well-being of the surrounding area, the neighborhood, that sort of thing, uh we can certainly tie that into the conditions and the terms of the PUD agreement. >> Okay. Yeah. just in protecting the neighbors. Um, next would be on this retaining wall that um connects um it separates the back parking just due to the grade changing. It says a retaining wall with a black chain link fence um on the top. >> So, it's um separating the main level access to the lower level access and it does not show it in the renderings. Is that going to be or maybe this is something the applicant can address? >> Uh, chair commissioner, I would ask the applicant to elaborate on it. >> Okay. >> I have looked. We do allow vinyl coated chain link as a permitted fence material. >> Okay. >> Uh, so where they have it where it's not required for screening, they could use vinyl coated chain link. If it is required screening, they cannot. >> Got it. I believe that you are correct that it I'm sorry I highlighted it with the mouse but I didn't say it verbally. I believe that it is at this location here. >> Correct. >> Based upon reviewing the site plans in between the building and the uh back of the parking lot and >> just my general assertion is that it's to help prevent vehicles from potentially going over that drop. >> Okay. Um, and then just a concern about the noise, you know, and with our noise ordinance that we have with exhibition driving and everything and hours of operation, um, the applicant states normal business hours, but they're not defined. Again, is that something that can be brought up in general comments? >> Uh, chair, commissioner, as uh, city attorney noted, that would relate to the health, safety, and welfare aspect. And so we certainly could limit uh hours of operation for a business particularly when creating a PUD above and beyond what standard code requirements would be. >> Thank you. [snorts] >> I just to piggyback on her question. Um, if the PUD if if it's not Walls or Lamborghini, instead of saying it has to be a certain high-end vehicle 30 years from now with the auto industry, who knows what that will look like. >> Can we ask them to reapply or re or is there a way to put that in there? Because >> if the owner were to change, >> well, if a Lamborghini dealership isn't viable in that space and they want to change it to another dealership, >> can we put that in the PUD? >> Um, chair and commissioner, I think this goes to what I was saying earlier. I mean, with with a PUD, we can be um very spec specific about the use, much more than just the generic types of uses that you see in normal zoning districts. Um I think again, we'd want to tie it to what the applicant is presenting, what they're saying about the dealership, how it's different from other dealerships, and how those things go to the health, safety, and welfare of the area, which is the commercial corridor and the adjacent neighborhood. So yes, I think we could tie those in. We'd have to be very thoughtful and specific and reasonable about those and I think we could work with this applicant on those things at that stage. If you have recommendations in those regards like ours or those sorts of things, type of dealership, you should let us know so we can work those in. And if 20, 30 years from now that dealership is no longer viable and the property owner at the time would want to change, they can come back and amend the PUD. and it would be a very similar process to what they're going through now. >> Chair, commissioner, um to elaborate on some of the items that came up during the concept plan, uh there was how deliveries are made was discussed by the commission and the applicant. uh number of vehicle sales um general traffic of the site potentially in terms of number of trips daily generated um were concepts I shouldn't say concepts during the concept plan but were initial discussion points during the concept plan that if commissioners uh have recommendations as we proceed forward with that level of specificity we could certainly touch on as we're getting towards that PUD agreement and I apologize commissioner I I did not mean uh interrupt. >> Okay. So once it's a walls or Lamborghini, if they wanted to change it to a walls or Kia, we in this same space, they would have to come back and change and get that approval from us or >> uh chair commissioner, I it would depend on the details of the final approved PUD. So, just to be uh for example, if if you're specifying certain hours, certain limited inventory vehicles that are considered high-end and would work whatever that term of art in the industry is for distinguishing between Kia and Lamborinis, we could use that in the PUD agreement. So if it was a change that would impact all those findings about health, safety, welfare of the area, yeah, they would have to come back and amend it. Again, we would work those details out, I think, with the applicant um so that we aren't unreasonably restraining things for them, but also protecting the uh concerns that you've articulated and made recommendations around. >> Thank you. And then just one other question I have. the other used tradeins. They said they would be taking other used tradeins here and may sell other vehicles, makes, models, so those would be inside. So there wouldn't ever be the tradeins outside on the exterior parking. >> Chair Cameron, uh, Commissioner, exterior storage is not sought as part of this. uh display or storage of vehicles for sale would constitute an exterior storage and require additional action or requirement from this PUD. It has not been described in any of the requests. So, it is not going to be included going forward, right? Unless the applicant seeks to clarify that, but it is not an item that staff has identified with them at any point and so it would not be permitted. They would be required to be stored inside. >> Okay. Vehicles that show up for repair may be stored outside for a limited duration basis. >> Okay. >> Service and repair, I should clarify. >> And there aren't any there there isn't any code that governs how long something gets sit out there. Not that I'm super concerned about it, but as long as we're on the subject. >> If it were a uh chair, I've worked with a fair number of auto uses. If it were to fall into the standard of it's um junk vehicle or accident vehicle, those would require exterior storage. There isn't for a vehicle that would be coming in for say a service of an oil change, suspension change, things of that nature of how many hours it could be there. >> Yeah, >> we could potentially work with the applicant to include some of that into the PUD, but we've got to it's threading a needle of that specificity as well with some of that. So, we'll want to make sure that we're cognizant of what the actual request is and what uh they'd be doing on site. >> Well, I think there's there's the law of unintended consequences, too, if you try to get too granular with things. So, I think what I what I heard you say just in terms of exterior storage. So, exterior to storage is really defined as vehicles that are being um sold, right? >> Sold or are there solely for long-term repair, like junk, things of that nature. >> Okay. Got it. Okay, cool. Um, anyone else? >> No. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you, Director Sharp. Um, so now I'd like to invite the applicant to come forward. Um, please, uh, step up to the podium over here. Um, please state your name and address for the record. Um, the address can be your business record is business address of record is fine. Um, and, uh, your role on the applicant's team. >> Thank you. Uh, good evening, uh, chair and members of the commission. uh Brandon Greece, 500 North Commercial Street. Uh had the opportunity to be the architect of this project and actually present this in concept development back in 2025. So uh really what we've done between now and then is took your comments that we heard during our concept review and went back and did the best we could to accommodate as many comments as we could. So I think if you remember um our original plan was Malberries was going to remain on site uh and then we were going to build the dealership with it. That created some constraints with some of the with some of the code because we needed to maintain access offetta with that additional drive that connected to central. We needed to create some drive space and some parking for for the laundry mat. uh which all can which all were variations or uh variance requests at the time to allow us to do that. Uh after our conversations in the concept review uh the Wallser team uh went back and did some additional conversations with the with um Malberries and were able to come to an agreement where we could take them out of this project alto together. So then that allowed us to take our building and push it north. uh to meet that 10 to 15 ft required setback off Weisetta. Uh move all of our parking and drive off to the side in the back of the lot. Uh also pushes our building further away from the residential on the south uh and opened up some more green space that we could use and and help us with some of the landscape requirements. So um overall the the the dealership the the intent of the store did not change. Uh we have, you know, it's a fivecar showroom, sixcar service bay, uh high-end Lamborghini, um new car and pre-owned car, uh sales happening from the building. Uh and then with some accommodations for, you know, employee break areas, tool area, and part storage. Uh it is a two-story building essentially with a ground level uh underground parking which would maintain most of the pre uh pre-owned inventory downstairs along with some of the employees. uh with the way they operate and sell vehicles, a lot of it is made to order. So with the with the parking stall counts of, you know, we have the 49 stalls, but the 34 surface stalls, it it's not we're not using the exterior for large amounts of inventory storage or even service storage. So I understand, you know, from the code standpoint, but we do feel like we have plenty of parking accommodated for for their needs on site. Again, a lot of it, you order your vehicle, you show up, or they deliver it um to your house. So, uh it's just a little bit different operation from what you would see in a typical dealership. Uh with deliveries, they do have um well, we did meet the turning radius, but they do have it's more of a box van, and I I would have a picture of it if anybody wanted to see, but it's it's not a large vehicle hauler that are dropping these vehicles off. So we do feel our site circulation is adequate. Um that allowed us to to do three things. One, we could eliminate that connection to central. We're able to eliminate that extra connection to Weisetta. Um we still have the lower level connection to central because we need that to access the underground. And we maintain the northern Huntington A Drive which is a request for variance. But um as you go south on Huntington, that grade gets steep. So, we needed to keep that driveway north in order to accommodate that. Uh, just a run through of the variances. Um, just address or talked about the parking stalls. We're comfortable uh that the additional five employees can can park downstairs and that we still have more than adequate parking. Uh, the fence on the on the south side of the property, that is really in reference. We do need the variance for the setback, the six-foot variance for the setback or we would lose those nine surface parking stalls. It's just an accommodation of how deep our building needs to be along with the setback. Um so that's a variance that we need in order to maintain those parking stalls which are critical to this uh parcel. Uh but then to help accommodate neighbors visibility headlights they had um requested maybe a little taller than the six foot allowable fence. We are requesting a variance to go to eight uh just to provide a little bit more privacy for those owners. And then the the I'll call it a cork with the front yard setback being along Central. Um we don't want that fence to be opaque because the concern is is headlight traffic going to those neighbors. So we'd like to ask for the variance just for their for their protection on the south. Um [clears throat] the access spacing for the drives. talked a little bit about that grade change along Huntington. It is the same driveway. The grades on the site do change slightly, which is requiring us to to regrade that existing driveway, therefore rebuild it. So, it really is in the same location. Uh we just need to change the grade slightly to accommodate our new building. Uh and then the last thing looking up along that front talking about that variation. And so by the time we get that 7 foot sidewalk for that that we originally did not have for the city but during the concept plan development comments were heard that you know commissioners really would like to see that and keep that connection and flow going all the way through. So, with us eliminating that little access drive along Central that that currently Malberries uses, uh, it pushed our building up that allowed us to get that 7 foot sidewalk, but then with our private walk, we really just didn't have the room. So, we're kind of fighting the two sidewalks being adjacent to each other in a property line. Uh, so we did our best to to meet it along the west side to meet that intent. most of the north side. I think there was just that little section that Alex showed you that we couldn't really meet that six foot gap between our building and the sidewalk. Um, [clears throat] so and that would be the same with the street trees. So we did, you can see on our landscape plan we there are a lot there is a lot of landscaping. there's a small portion where those two sidewalks are close to each other and there's a property line there and we just don't see that a a tree is viable in that small of amount of an area. So, um again, we we did our best we could to meet the intent and we have trees on either side of it. It's just that that area circled in red that uh we could not meet that street requirement with the 26T spacing. Um, so yeah, that really walks through uh what we're doing for variances and why we're requesting the variances. Uh, talk a little bit about that chain link fence. We are calling it, it is acting as a guardrail. Uh, I think we'd be happy to put it as a little bit more black decorative fence area, but we will need something to just prevent uh pedestrians and or traffic from going off that retaining wall. uh talking with the neighbors in the neighborhood meeting last week, we are uh open to adding that extending the south fence all the way down the south fence line or all the way across the western portion of the property because right now it just stops at what would be the the current property boundary that we're uh combining now. So, we will continue that all the way along the back. uh give the neighbors some additional protection against any headlights that may or may not come off the top of the hill. Um so with that, I'd open you up to any questions or clarifications. >> Thank you, Brandon. Um questions for the applicant. >> Commissioner Severson. >> Um so it looks like the original building that you had proposed last year was about 7,000 square feet and now asking for about 8,800. So, can you share a little bit about why you need a much bigger building, why you're adding nearly 2,000 [clears throat] square feet? >> Yeah, the footprint of the building really expanded um trying to help with our parking area. Uh one we one we were a little short to begin with on our last goound, which because Malberries was staying, we just we were building as big of a footprint as we could. uh this next goound with the with the laundry mat being gone, we were able to extend that footprint and it was really a source of what we needed dimensionally to get the underground parking to work. Um so the footprint of the lower level was directly related to the upper level. Uh it also allowed us to meet some of the minimum requirements that we weren't meeting originally for Lamborghini and some of their space requirements. Um, but it really it just had we we were able to work with more sight area since we were able to go down to a single building on the site. >> Thank you. >> I I really have two questions. Um, one one one is um just a personal thing from a um as you look uh coming off Wisetta Boulevard on the Huntington and then from Huntington to the dealership, you know, uh if if somebody has a uh uh a Lambo coming into that, do we know that they're not going to scrape without a lifting system going from Weisetta Boulevard uh across uh onto to Huntington and then on to Huntington in as you've designed or or looked at what's there. >> We know the driveway location works. Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. Good. Um wouldn't wouldn't have been a a policy thing. >> Oh, that's fair. That's a good [clears throat] question. I want to know too. [laughter] Uh uh second of all is is um what I've heard is people asking about noise and I think it's a um a question based on uh not just Lambos but other cars down on Lake Street that um rev rev their engines and uh and so I'm just wondering uh it's not really an architect question, it's more of an operational question. uh what what Walzer is going to try to do to uh ensure that their patrons understand and and try to control the noise as best they can. >> Sure. And I I can I'll let the owner group maybe talk a little bit about the operations, but I can I can at least answer some of that. So, one um you know, the building is fully heated and cooled, so you know, these service doors are going to be closed most of the time to keep the air conditioning in. So when they do need to run engines on the repair side, that will all be within enclosed. Um I also know a lot of the service vehicles and a lot of um even the customer traffic is not it's more delivery based um system. So customers aren't necessarily always pulling up to get their vehicle service more so than Waler's going to pick up that vehicle to bring it back in. So, I think with their employees being able to control more of the vehicle driving, they'll have access to control the noise. >> So, I'm sorry. Can you clarify that when when a buyer is purchasing a car, you will deliver it to them so they won't pick it up in Weisetta and drive it through? >> I'll have Katie facilities. >> Hi, I'm Katie Cohen, director of facilities with Waler. Our address is 4401 American Boulevard West. Um, our understanding in working with Lamborghini is a large majority of these vehicles are custommade and ordered. Um, and so for those reasons, we typically will deliver the vehicles to the customer as opposed to them coming to our office. Now, of course, we have not opened quite yet, but that is our understanding from Lamborghini. Um, as it relates to the noise question, um, it's largely an operational managerial question. Um, it'll be educational for our staff and communicating that to our buyers. Secondarily to that, we intend to install signage um asking our folks exiting the site that you're in a residential area and to respect those boundaries. Um but it is intended to be part of our operational um best practices, if you will, that our employees will be trained on. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> And what hours are you typically open? Is one of your dealerships open? >> Thank you for that question. Um, our dealership hours, um, for our larger, um, flagship locations are early for service. Um, typically 7:00 a.m. until roughly 6:00 p.m., but sales can be open till 8, so 10 to 8 um, for our other locations. This is going to be a boutique location, however, once again, more appointment-based um, specialty, and so we are still evaluating the hours for this location. Uh, thank you. By the way, Katie, uh, I'm I'm Paul Walzer and and, uh, um, I might be able to give you a little deeper insight on some of this stuff. First of all, you know, on the noise question, uh, the bulk of the inventory, uh, Lamborghini's got four products and and and 90% of what we're going to sell are hybrid products. So they are not going to be the the type of things that we are listening to in Weisetta that are going around at night. Uh this are these cars capable of making some noise. Sure. But that's mostly the the very topend product that's a million-doll product. I don't maybe we sell one of those a year. I I I mean it's there's not a lot of people that are going to be doing that. this the bulk of the business of this franchise is is the SUV and the more modest priced u coups that are available for and they and they they're hybrid products. Um secondly, um this is this this is so different from any sort of stereotype you might have about a car dealership in almost every way you can think of because um car dealers, you know, we need lots of volume. U the margins for what we pay for the cars are relatively small. We're dealing with two and three and four and 5% margins. So you got to push a lot of cars through the system. and balloons go up and flags go up and you know the whole shtick of what cardio ships typically look like. This is this is like comparing um Walmart to Chanel. Uh it is just a everything is different here and we have to be different. We we're not going to sell Lamborghinis the way that we sell Kia. Uh it's it's just a whole different thing. We get a we get 75 of these a year. They're all pre-sold. There is no inventory. And this has been the case for Lamborghini for several years now. So there is no such thing as inventory on the ground apart from they're going to require us to carry the four products that they do have. So we will have one of each of those. And but and then there's a room inside this uh dealership where you it's literally a configuration room. You're you're ordering a car in a way that you've never thought of ordering a car before. It's not just the color. You're picking out the stitching on your seat and you know, it's just a very different process. So, you order the car and then you're waiting two plus years to get it and it comes in and it's gone, you know. So, there's it's just um this is just a completely different animal. Um it's also the hours are going to be different. I don't know exactly what we're going to do yet, but the people that are buying these products are not coming in after work at 9:00 at night. It is just a again just different. Uh we're going to sell the cars during the day and um I we won't there's no way in the world we're going to be open till 8:00 at night. Uh there's because no one's going to be there. [laughter] So that that wouldn't make any sense for us. So and happy to answer any other questions you might have. So when you say you have hybrid, this is part electric, part gas. >> Yes. That that that's that the whole Lamborghini line is going that way. >> Okay. It's a good idea. >> I I wish that all of our dealerships carry nothing but hybrids right now because that's what everybody wants. So >> So will there be uh test driving of even the modest coup products from here? Will it be test driving? Yes. >> Okay. >> Um I mean if you're going to I mean these are not inexpensive cars. So I think the the the the least expensive product is 300 and some thousand dollar. It's just SUV and and then the uh so what are the those the coups are 500ish? This is my son who knows all this stuff. >> Sawyer. Um, yes. The, uh, the more modest, uh, sport line ranges from 350 to kind of 500,000. >> If you could state your name. >> Oh, sorry. Uh, Sawyer Waler, uh, 4401 American Boulevard West, Bloomington, Minnesota. >> You're talking about the Waler Corp. Yes. Okay. I was going to say, wait, did you move? Yeah. [laughter] Um, so I'm sorry, what was the last question again that was related to >> I was just asking about test drives. So there will >> Oh yeah. Yeah. So I mean someone's going to come in and spend a half a million dollars and they're going to want to drive, you know, and so there it uh um but you know it with hybrid technology, it's not going to be racing out of the dealership down Main Street or Weisetta Boulevard, you know, they'll get out on the freeway and drive it like they would. But yes, they will drive up. >> Maybe not a question for you, but um going back to the previous discussion about some of the site um what's the snow removal plan for that lower level because it doesn't look like there's really anywhere to put snow. >> Well, where we have Rich Syer can speak to this again. he's a snow expert, but we we uh you know where we have we we have a lot of dealerships that have restricted amount of space and so that we we just have to haul it out of there. But why don't you speak to that? >> Um ultimately based on the quantity is is going to be kind of the answer. Um but ultimately what we've had to do at some of the other locations is use a a bucket attachment to haul snow to other areas in the lot where it it is uh easier. >> Okay. Yeah. No, I just because like in in kind of in conjunction with that um fence setback that you're asking for along the south line there, right? There really really isn't anywhere to push that snow because a fence will be right there if you're 4 feet off the property line and then you got a retaining wall to the west and you can't push it across the street to the east across Central Avenue. So, I was just curious where where >> That's a good really good question. Gordy, you don't want us to dump it on your lot. I don't imagine. [laughter] >> Okay. Ultimately, the issues with the the snow arises with the quantity. Uh but um the idea would be to bring it to a place on the lot that's um easier and a little bit more appealing. >> Okay. >> Um other questions for the applicant. >> All right. Thank you, Sawyer. Um thank you, Paul. Thank you, Katie. Thank you, Brandon. Um, all right. So, um, I'd like to turn to our public hearing now. Um, and this is a time for you as, um, members of the community to come up, um, and for us to listen to your thoughts and your concerns, um, about this application. Um, it's very important part of the process. So, um, we are here to listen to what you have to say. Um, any questions raised during the public hearing um, will be held until the end of the hearing. Um and we may be addressed at that point. Um so with that said, I now open the public hearing. Um if you'd like to um speak, please come forward to the podium um where they were previously. Um state your name and address for the record. Um let us know if you're connected to the applicant in any way or representing anybody else. Good evening. I'm Gordy Straka, 130 Huntington Avenue. I'm the house immediately south of the where they're proposing the dealership. And I did he also brought already brought up that we asked that they could continue that 8 foot fence all the way across the way the one is currently from the top of the when they finish the top of the hill. I understand there's going to be one more short retaining wall, but then to bring it up to the level of the parking lot, but we'd like to see a 8ft fence there because it does not only for the dealership. I'm pretty well protected from the dealership, but the rest of the neighbors um as Huntington goes, it goes back up and they're it helps the site view for those people also. And um so I'd like to see that also with them uh regrading going to regrade the lot. Um they um will I know they will take care of the water cuz now from the the dry cleaners parking lot it all comes over the back hill across the um and it's washing the hill out across the park parking lot of the cleaners I mean excuse me of the apartments and across then it comes down to the fence at Marty Johnson's house around the fence and into my backyard and then goes down to the to where there's a pickup down there. So, that will definitely be an advantage. And about this little setback on the sidewalk and whatever, that's causing a big concern. If you look at that um building that Edina rents that was built, that is built on zero setbacks. That has no setback at all. They allowed them to do that cuz they went through all of that. Also, there was supposed to be no windows to the back side of that building. Well, if you look at it now, that changed, too. So, we've seen things change over the time. Also, the Dina sign bright red like that is supposed to have times when it's not on cuz we did end up taking a window out of the end of our house because our TV room was lit up in red all the time. So, um, they've really they've worked with us for quite a while now and everything and all the neighbors are in favor of this. So, there's some other ones here, but not all of them. So, that's what I have to say for now. Maybe I'll think of something else. Thank you. >> Thank you, Cardi. Uh, Robert McNe, 1000 Superior Boulevard. We have the building with the nice red sign. Um, I'd like to just understand from you guys uh the impact on Huntington Boulevard and what that's going to do. Um we've enjoyed a a long period of time of having that that road to ourselves. Um we plow it, we take care of it, we have for a number of years. So I just want to understand the impact now having someone there. How that's going to change with the I mean it's already a very busy intersection. We've already had a car ride and drive right into our building um not too long ago. I'm sure you guys are aware of that. So I I just out of interest, we are in favor of this, don't get me wrong. I just really we need to understand how that's going to impact Huntington Boulevard and act our building. Our tenants are very are questioning that and they want to know how that's going to impact parking. Edina realy does use that parking um for overflow on Huntington. It's not a through street. So it's basically a parking lot for everyone. So we're just interested to know as how that's going to impact because that's all >> just we'll hold it till later. >> All right. Thank you though. Nan Sloan, 144 Huntington Avenue South. Um, I've been before you all before because we've had several proposals for this spot. And one of the major concerns prior to the Waler proposal was noise and traffic and safety with the drive-thru. And I want to say I believe the people at Huntington are pretty unanimous in thinking this is a good solution for this site. Um I do have a concern about noise and if there are test drives if there is as they said best practices a little map reminding sh you know be be cognizant of the neighborhood before you get out on the freeway. But I trust that the dealership could do something like that. And I think that amount of noise is going to be substantially less than what we would have had with the two lanes of drive-thru and people ordering their lattes, etc., etc., etc. Um, I think Walters have worked well with us with our concerns in terms of extending the fence and the height because that's another thing. It is a little unique neighborhood. There's maybe a dozen houses there and um we are very much getting you know um a lot of uh traffic sound already from Weisetta Boulevard and lighting. So whatever we can do to mitigate and minimize that would be great. Um but otherwise I want to say that I'm in favor and if I have concerns later I think I can bring them to the Walzers. [laughter] Thank you. Thank you, Nan. >> Evening. This is uh Bruno Silakoski, 173 Huntington Avenue South. Uh it's Huntington Avenue, not Boulevard, just for record purposes. But um so Nan just said something was very very important. The prior applications that have been tried to be put go forward on this piece of land really were challenging. Um it's going to be hard for me to describe this, but believe it or not, where I'm on the far south tip of Huntington as it approaches Circle A, but if I go in my front yard, I literally can see the the wheels of cars driving on Yisetta Boulevard. So it does dip and go back up. Having a tall fence would actually benefit us. So we think, you know, we're thankful this is a proposal. I think that at the end of the day, it'll control both noise as well as visual. So that's positive. Really positive. Out of the various things that we've been involved with, which you know, we've tried to be active in this community. Um, this is probably one of the best uses of this property. It's a tough parcel. There's nothing you can do about it. It's narrow, not what I mean by not very deep. It's weird because it shares a driveway. So when it comes down to it, this you're talking about a very few amount of vehicles being sold and I do hope you you know wish the success of this thing anyways how how difficult this might be for you but but uh [snorts] it's I don't see it as an issue and as a neighbor my voice is very much in support of this. I what's nice about it is you got a number of people here from Huntington. We're all saying the same thing from the standpoint of listening to an a latte being ordered at 6 am that would be awful and we would hear it all. Right. This is not if if you get somebody I think Paul has really kind of tried to say this. You you get people who are buying these vehicles. They they really what's the thing they have in common? Well, they they have the resources but they also don't have time. So what they do often times is have vehicles picked up. Trust me, I know this stuff. I'm kind of a little bit little bit in in in the industry as Joe knows. But anyway, long story short, I I just don't see this becoming a problem for the neighborhood. So, I'm very much in support of it and thank you for your time. >> Thank you, Bruno. >> Okay. >> She wants to make one more comment. >> Yeah, absolutely. in >> um when we were here last Monday, we looked at the proposal and I can't recall who it was that said something about the Walgreens and how it was not a very great entree to Weisetta, the Lamborghini dealership on Weisetta Boulevard. I'm proud to say I live behind them. Okay. >> [snorts] >> Thank you, Nan. >> Director Sharp, do we have any online questions? >> Chair Cameron. No, not at this time. >> All right. Is there anyone else who'd like to come forward to speak before I close the public hearing? Perfect. All right. Closing the public hearing. um bring it back to the commission for discussion. And we had one open question um uh around the impacts on Huntington Avenue um and the parking from um Robert. Um I'm going to uh Brandon, do you want to just come back up and address that real quick? >> Uh yeah. So on Huntington, we're going to be eliminating one of the drive openings. So they're actually going to open up an additional parking stall or two out on Huntington. Outside of that, we're not doing any grading or um any other adjustments to Huntington. Uh as far as traffic flow, uh it's pretty light use. So they, you know, between what they're already getting from the laundromat and what was the gas station, there should be no, you know, increase in in parking traffic on that intersection. Cool. Thank you, Brandon. Uh, Director Sharp >> Chair, um, if you'd like, you can send me an email. We did have a traffic impact study as part of this project. Uh, publicly available, quite long. Didn't want to attach the full report at 80 plus pages. Um, certainly available for your review. The city engineer did review that traffic traffic impact study and does not have any additional comments mitigation requirements out of it. Ultimately, uh, it actually represented less use than what prior uses were on this site. Um, so there were no further comments from our engineering department related to traffic concerns. Uh, that's not to say that the two applicants couldn't work uh together once they reviewed that, but that would be more on the private side than um having city involvement potentially. I can certainly understand the concern, right, if it's if it's something you've been accustomed to using. Um, so I think it's a fair question. Um, but it is at the end of the day also public space. So, um, all right. Uh, back to the commission for discussion then. Um, does but before we hit discussion, does anybody have any last questions for staff? Negative. Well, one question that I think it was Gordy that brought up was wanting to have that one retaining wall 8 feet rather than six >> fence. >> The fence. Yes, the fence. Um >> I think that can we can just include that in our recommendation. >> Okay. Does does Lamborghini have an issue with that? Does the city have an issue with that having that be an 8ft fence instead of a sixoot fence? Uh, chair, the commissioner. So, the six-foot fence uh is the maximum height allowed by code. There is a variance before you for review this evening to allow a fence at 8 feet. Where it differs from their current site plan submitted is that it would that 8ft fence would extend into the western parcel on top of the retaining walls. Uh, the commission could certainly make that a condition of approval to add that 8 foot onto the western parcel. >> Okay. But you're already reviewing the variance for the height. So you'd simply be extending fence that's not shown on the current site plan, not changing the height of that fence. So no additional variance or action would be required. It would still submit within their actions and what we've published the public hearing notice for. >> Can I ask a question on that? >> Sure. >> So So basically what you're saying is they've already asked for the 8oot variance. If we say yes to that or recommend yes to that, then that goes along that entire span. So it doesn't matter what they've proposed, whether it's like half the property today, they choose to go ahead and expand further, then it's still an approved variance. >> Chair, commissioner, that's correct. So essentially from approximately here >> to about here is where the fence is proposed right now. My understanding from uh hearing the comments at the public hearing is that uh the neighbors would prefer that the fence and I've lost track of the mouse, apologies. Uh would prefer that the fence extend somewhere in this area and I'm just approximating over that would not change the action of the commission at all other than to add the condition that they would extend it onto the western parcel uh consistent with perhaps the location of the existing fence on site. Although it sounds like they would like it even higher up on the retaining wall. So >> at top of grade. >> Yeah. At top of grade. So it essentially doesn't change the commission's action other than adding that additional condition of the location, but no additional variances required. >> Cool. Anything else [snorts] for staff thoughts, discussion, commentary? Anyone want to lead us off? >> I can I can start. Okay. >> Um, so I think this is a a significant improvement uh to the previous plan. Uh, not not not quite as much uh trying to get put into a small spot by u being able to have the dry cleaner uh um uh no longer in play. Um, I think it's a a big improvement for the city to have the three uh locations into those parcels removed, uh, entrances removed. Um, uh, so I think that's a good thing as and, uh, uh, as as long as the the Lambos, uh, the ventadors and whatnot could get into this lot, I think, uh, I think that'll work great. Um, I I have um, as I understand it with the grade and whatnot, I'm I'm not really concerned about the uh, the private sidewalk and the six-foot uh, and the six-foot uh, requirement. Um, uh, I I I look at some of the ones that, you know, uh, the I mean, if they wanted to, they could just cement the whole thing. uh um the grading would be weird, but uh that that would that would solve that would solve it to some extent, which I don't think is requirement. So, I'm not sure what we'd be solving by by trying to um uh to not provide that uh that to them as well. Uh the fences make perfect sense. It sounds like they're um uh having good good discussion with the uh with the neighbors and um um it doesn't really affect them, but they're trying to be good neighbors by applying uh uh some some additional fencing uh to those uh to those components. the um the parking restrictions uh both the uh requirement on the south side uh of that to be less than 10 ft. Uh from my standpoint, uh I think that's going to be up against a big a big a big fence. Uh so it's not going to impact uh that those neighbors uh significantly. I think that was a uh a reasonable item. the uh the fence on the side in terms of of uh it being opaque again u makes uh makes great sense the required parking stalls uh uh I think they have enough parking stalls outside uh uh they're going to have uh any inventory uh uh I can't imagine that if they're doing uh work on a half a million dollar car they're going to want to be parked outside in their parking lot anyway um so uh I I think that given the business and and what it is, it makes sense. uh as some of the commissioners talked about, I do think there is um some work to be done to ensure that we encapsulate um the sort of functioning that I don't think it necessarily has to has the Lambo sign, but functioning of of this dealership so that um if Lambo goes out of business and and and uh uh Walter's looking to repurpose this that we're all uh on the same page in terms of the type of business that could be run here. Um, so I think we have some work to do to capture exactly what that is, but as it's presented, uh, I think this is a very good use of a very tough piece of land. >> Thank you, Commissioner Vanl. >> I'm not going to say anything. I'm just going to say I agree with that. >> Perfect. >> I mean, I don't know. [laughter] People don't often say I'm articulate, so that's kind of cool. [laughter] >> Excellent. >> Well, I guess I have to agree also. I think it's a beautiful looking building. It will definitely be an asset to the neighborhood. Um, what's the most important thing is that you've been able to cultivate a good relationship with the neighbors because they are in a tough spot down there below and um and if if if this works for them uh and it's not causing any issues on the Weisetta Boulevard side um I think it's a great use of the property. I never in the world would have thought that it would be a Lamborghini dealership. I will never be driving a Lamborghini, [laughter] but I'm like liking having them in the neighborhood. >> Never say never, >> right? I mean, yeah. I mean, we could go through all all the questions about does it. Um, does it encourage innovation? It certainly does. uh a higher standard of site and building design? It certainly does. Um does it encourage creative use of land and related physical development? Absolutely. Does the PUD create a development pattern in harmony with the objections of the WATA comprehensive plan? And I think that it certainly does. and does it create a more desirable and creative environment that might be possible through the strict application of zoning and subdivision regulations? And I think that's a yes as well. So, it hits the high points for me. >> I have nothing to add. Commissioners have done a great job. [laughter] >> Same. >> Yeah, same. I mean, I think it they've done a nice job of addressing the um the concerns of the neighbors with the additional fencing. I I think I would just make sure to include in whatever we approve to continue that fence all along the back of the property, whereas it doesn't say it today, but sounds like that's something that the neighbors are very much in favor of and I think would um would help with, you know, little bit noise, a little bit of light um privacy for them as well. But, um, I think it's a good application. >> I'm assuming, director Sharp, that there's a it's a to-do as well around the, um, the diversity of the of the, uh, tree plant. Is that something we have to include as part of the um, uh, approval or is that just a to-do that comes later? >> Uh, chair, commissioner, they have to either meet code requirements. It doesn't need to be a condition of approval by uh, the planning commission. So if they were seeking a deviation from those or a variance essentially from those code requirements then that would have to have been part of the action that the planning commission has taken. It is not something that they have stated they have multiple ways of achieving that achieving compliance with code that would be either changing species or fee in lie of as they wouldn't count towards their requirements. So there is a way of of achieving code compliance. If for some reason they couldn't find a way of making that, then they would need to come back for a future variance at a later date with another public hearing. >> Thank you. >> Um I I would I would echo I think a lot of what you guys said. I think um I don't I and I don't mean to be that person, right, that harps on snow removal cuz it's not a thing, but um I really do love the idea of the fence tracing the tracing the top of the burm um contining all the way to the western edge of the property. But I think um somewhere in there there needs to be some allowance for where they're going to put snow too cuz so I trust that you guys are going to figure figure out a way to do that. Um I but I do think that that needs to be one of our conditions is just that that fence goes all the way to the western edge of the of the new combined parcel. Um but other than that I don't have um I don't have any issues with any of the variances. I think the variances are um uh in harmony with what the city wants to do, in harmony with um the the piece of property, right? Trying to do the best that they can with the piece of property that it is and not um things that they've done, right? I mean, I think there's there'd be some it'd be possible to move some stuff around, but it would require a tremendous amount of grading, and I don't think that's a fair ask. So, um I I love what they've done um in terms of doing it and I don't have any issues with um the variance from a a PUD perspective. Um again, I think it's in um it's in it's consistent with what the city wants to do, right? It's it's as all of you have kind of echoed it's a it's a tough piece of land and I think um given where it is right it's a it's a lowra solution um to you know what could have been a really hightra uh piece there what was prop what was previously propos proposed for that parcel right and I think um you know it's a I like what they've done with the with the proposal I like kind of how they do it I think my the um my my hang-up really is the Huntington Avenue parking lot. I mean, I'll let's be honest, right? That's kind of what it is. And it's a it's like it's a weird thing, right? Cuz it's been a parking lot for so long and now it's going to be um kind of the main access point to um that dealership, but it is a city street at the end of the day that just happens to have parking spaces in it. So, it's kind of a weird thing, but um that's not a property owner piece. That's a city piece. [snorts] Um, so yeah, those are my thoughts. Did I miss anything? >> I'll just add I I think the reality is you put a building there, you put an 8-ft fence along the entire back, that community is going to have way less noise than they have currently from a boulevard and and fewer lights. Coming back to the design deviations here on screen. Um I I I don't have um I think again right I think what they're trying to do with the property um is kind of the best thing that they can do. Right. So in terms of design deviation for the for the tree spacing um and for the sidewalk spacing um I I don't have any issues at I think that if they if you try to if they try to be compliant with the design the design standards I think the um the end result would be um a lot less fun to look at if you will right >> or even to navigate >> to navigate too. Yeah. Fair 100%. >> All right. Um anyone else? I have a question if we still want to talk about assigning you know to the health safety and welfare of the area assigning some use designation or how that would be worded when we are you know making um a proposal recommendation. >> Yes chair and commissioner I I think um I'd highlight a couple of things including what you've just brought up commissioner plantin. So there really four types of requests in this application. There's the approval of the PUD general plan. We've seen the criteria on the screen. There's approval of a a set of I believe four variances or >> five >> how many variances? >> Five variants. >> Five variances. And that's another set of standards. There's the combination of two parcels. That's the fourth type of request. And then the design standard deviations. So, in the planning commission report and recommendation that will be brought back to you next week based on the motion you're about to make, we'll have detailed findings on all these things, but I think we can easily draw them from the comments that the commissioners have made. Um, so just noting for the record that you've reviewed all those criteria and we'll be sure that you review your planning commission report and recommendation, all these things. To Commissioner Planton's question, I think there were I heard at least maybe three conditions or recommended conditions of approval. I think the first one was um that the uh final approval in the in the PUD development agreement would have and refer to a particular type of use and operational plan that's very specific to the Lamborini dealership. and we'd work on that with the applicant to make sure it captures all these things about time of operation, inventory, all the things we've heard from the applicant tonight. I've taken a lot of notes. We'll refer to their submittals and propose something uh that would go to that because I think your findings are all predicated on that. The second aspect, which is really related to the first, I think, are those noise standards um that the applicant has said that they would incorporate as best practices in the dealership. That could also be part of that plan. Then of course extending that fence in the back all the way to the western side of the property. Um I think those were the three conditions I heard. >> And are those conditions on the which one of the things do do those conditions apply to? Is it the PUD? The there's the PUD there's the variances there you know you just went through. So which which one do we attach that to? Um I think the way we would engineer it is that they would tie to the PUD approval. Um I mean on one sense it's sort of a theoretical question. I mean they they can't do this without approval of the PUD and I think most of those conditions have to do with the particular particularly those first two have to do with the PUD itself. Maybe the fence something else but I think that all has to has to do with the PUD. >> Thank you. And commissioner, I'd also say that that's really the one I think where we have the most latitude to attach conditions to. This is a essentially resoning request. It's a legislative decision and anything that goes to health, safety, and welfare. And that's a reasonable condition. And I think everything that you've articulated is something the applicant is well aware of or has suggested or is willing to do. >> Thank you. All right, other questions. I mean, it sounds like we got some alignment. So, if um if anybody wants to uh make a motion, >> is it one sweeping motion for the five variances in the two design deviations and the PUD or is it eight different motions? Chair and Commissioner, I I think that you could make the motion as it is on here just to say with approval of the application, we we know all those requests. I've just articulated them again. So, I don't think you need to go through every one. Um I think it would be good to articulate th those three recommended conditions. You could even refer to what the city attorney just said if you want to make it simple, but no. that >> so motion to uh motion to prepare draft uh planning commission report and recommendation of approval um for the um Wall Street Lamborghini project at 1022 and 1044 10:42 10:22 and 1042 Weetta Boulevard East with the conditions of um we somehow massage or we somehow include massage sorry uh it the business description gets included into the um PUB plan. Noise standards get included into the PUD plan. Um and the fence extension all the way to the western property line gets included in the PUB plan. >> Can I say so moved? That was very good. >> Perfect. So second. >> Second. >> Further discussion. >> All those in favor? >> I opposed. >> Eyes have it. The motion passes and the draft planning commission report and recommendation of approval with the three conditions will be on the consent agenda on our next meeting in two weeks. >> Uh moving on, that concludes our public hearing portion of our meeting this evening. Um next on our agenda tonight is other items. Director Sharp and uh let me just take a real quick here. Thank you all for coming this evening. appreciate your time um and your thoughts and your willingness to share your concerns um with us. It's much much appreciated. >> Thank you, chair. Now that we're not having technical difficulties, uh in terms of review of development activities, uh we've had very minimal building permits coming in right now. Um I will start including some of that as we go forward. One of the other items that I really need to note is that um we need to get a schedule for planning commissioners in terms of when they're available to attend the city council meetings. What I'd like to do is ask that uh all commissioners send me a list of dates that they wouldn't be available to attend a council meeting throughout the year. So, if you could, you'll notice within the packet is the c packet for the or the council schedule for the year. What I don't want to do is assign at this point commissioners to meetings where they wouldn't be able to attend and then you have to go through trading. That'll help me get that full schedule together. And then I think potentially at the next meeting or the following, we'll have that discussion about changing the planning commission bylaws potentially to see whether we need to have a planning commissioner at every council meeting or whether uh you attend one meeting, two meetings, three meetings a year to determine how that would be the best use of your time and following planning applications going forward. Um ultimately that will be uh really kind of fostered and directed by the chair and that discussion will happen based upon what your recommendation would be. Staff would then bring that recommendation for the bylaws to city council for final review and approval. So we would encourage that uh when that goes to city council that the planning commission discuss whether with representatives whether that be the chair or other commissioners would come forward to help present some of that point. Um, so we will discuss that at our next meeting and fully flush that out, but I wanted uh to make the commission aware of the fact that we are going to be looking at those bylaws and we may ultimately end up not uh recommending amendment of them and if that's the case then we wouldn't have an action moving forward. Um, in terms of general uh activities, Clapri Park is an item that a lot of people have really been uh bringing up. It is uh available for use. The warming house is fully open and has been used extensively already. Uh with our recent slate of cold weather, we've had a fair amount of use of the rinks and we've been able to keep those open. Um so that's proceeding well. The sl uh large slide is still closed, but the small slide is open. The large slide is proposed to be open up in the spring. Uh in terms of applications that have come forward uh from the planning commission, there isn't a lot to update the commission on. Uh 220 Centrals isn't going to be moving forward until potentially midsummer at this time with their schedule. They have coordinated with the neighbor per condition um that they speak with the neighbor at the last time. At the time of building permit, we'll do a a check in check-in with a neighbor and a check-in with the developer to make sure that they've spoken and I'll be able to report back to the commission um any of the findings or uh results of that discussion. In terms of our meeting schedule, um, our next meeting is on February 9th, so two weeks from today. The next city council meeting is on, uh, February 10th. >> With that, if the commission has any development questions, >> are they not meeting tomorrow night? >> No, >> they met last week. >> Oh, okay. >> You made me panic for a moment. >> All right. I was >> We got on the off schedule for a brief time frame >> because like most of the time they're like Monday, Tuesday, right? It was a holiday. >> Because of the holiday, we got on an off schedule for this month. >> Got it. Okay. >> So, we realign again in February. >> No, we don't. We're still on second and fourth in February and March. >> Well, it's the 10th and 9th for the next one. So, those are the backtoback. >> Yeah. Oh, yeah. But it's the second and fourth versus the first and third. >> Yeah. Okay. I apologize. Yep. I see where you're >> But yeah, you're right. We are back toback then. Yep. It's the same week, which is standard, but we aren't on the standard second. >> Absolutely correct. Good note. >> Any other questions for staff? >> You guys are great. [laughter] >> Just saying. Move to adjurnn. >> Move to adjourn. May I have a second? >> Second. >> Thank you. >> Any further discussion? >> All those in favor? >> Opposed? Eyes have it. Motion passes and the January 26, 2026 meeting of the Weissa Planning Commission is adjourned.