approval of the agenda. Um, does anyone have any questions or changes to the agenda for this evening? >> All right, hearing none. May I have a um motion to approve the agenda as presented? >> So moved. >> Thank you, Commissioner Schwabby. May I have a second? >> I'll second. >> Thank you, Commissioner Vanoy. Any further discussion? >> All those in favor? >> I opposed. The eyes have it. The motion passes and the agenda is approved. The next item on the agenda is the consent agenda which consists of one item which is the meeting minutes from February 23rd, 2026, [clears throat] excuse me, which was our last meeting. Um, does anybody commissioner have any questions or comments on any on the um meeting minutes from February 23rd? >> No. May I have a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented? >> So moved. >> Thank you, Commissioner Planton. May I have a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Commissioner Ankeny. Further discussion? >> All those in favor? >> I opposed. >> Eyes have it. The motion passes and the consent agenda is approved. Um, next on the agenda tonight is old business, um, which is a recommendation for amendment to the planning commission bylaws. Director Sharp. >> Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair. Real quick, I want to make sure that our team's meeting is up and running as should be good to go. So, apologies. Thank you for your time. Uh, as mentioned, this is a proposal to potentially amend the planning commission bylaws. You'd previously met on this item and discussed it on trying to flip to the page for you. My apologies. Um, on February 23rd, 2026, the planning commission met discussed the recommendation and potential amendments to the bylaws. They directed staff at that time to come back with amended bylaws which are attached for the commission's review. It is a markup copy that you have. want to highlight a couple of the pieces that uh the commission had really emphasized and spoke about. Uh primarily that uh this would be the only committee right now that needs to attend city council meetings on a regular basis uh and discuss the uh requirement that planning commissioners still stay involved but that perhaps that requirement be dropped from the bylaws. And then the other major portion of it was uh discussing kind of the report that planning commissioners used to do and the fact that that hasn't occurred in several years. And so whether the uh continued attendance had applicability. If you've got further questions on it, happy to elaborate. As staff was reviewing the bylaws, we did have a number of other items that were more cleanup in nature uh that were added to this. Things such as removal of the ordinance number uh that adopted the planning commission to order. It didn't actually occur by ordinance. So, we have the date, we have the motion, but removing that provision. Um, some outdated bylaw pieces and then formatting and additional corrections. The other real substantive area was specifically relating to the recordings of the meetings and the notations of the meetings, but as long as we're amending bylaws, it felt like a good time to bring things forward. A copy of the bylaws and the uh principal items for correction are attached for your review. And page 19 of the packet has the real substantive items that the planning commission went through specifically in paragraph 3.6. Uh that would outline the change that planning commissioners are no longer required to attend city council meetings. They are responsible for still maintaining knowledge of planning uh commission items and pertinent issues reviewed before the planning commission and I would say lightly encourages still attending as you're able on specific items that you would like to attend. That if there are any questions I can answer what your next steps would be as well. Um our recommended action this evening would be to recommend an amendment to the bylaws to city council and I've got that action when you're ready for discussion. Thank you, Director Sharp. Questions, comments. I I I read through and and thought they captured uh our conversation. Well, >> what he just read is exactly what I remember from that meeting, and I don't see any reason not to go ahead and recommend that. >> Cool. All right. >> Okay. Okay. Then for the commission's knowledge, we would bring this forward at a future city council meeting and they would discuss it before this could be officially adopted. So I will send out a message to you when we plan to bring it to a council meeting uh beforehand so that you're aware. I would encourage as you designated last time that the chair attend to present on this request directly to city council. >> And chair, if we could just have a motion on that, I'd appreciate it. And your motion could just be that uh the planning commission would recommend the bylaw amendments as presented to the city council. Yeah, we have that in the record. Thank you. >> Yeah. So, um like to make a motion to um uh recommend the amendment to the planning commission bylaws uh to city council um as uh presented in the packet this evening. Um I have a second >> that motion. >> Thank you, Commissioner El. Further discussion? >> All those in favor? I I >> opposed. >> Eyes have it. The motion passes. >> The recommendation will be made to city council. >> Cool. Um thank you uh city attorney Schelzel and director Sharp. Um next on the agenda is uh we have one public hearing item tonight. Um which is a cup for two golf course related improvements at Woodhill Country Club. Uh so this is Director Sharp. Planner Head Bloom. >> Thank you, Chair. Planner Head Bloom will be presenting on this item. >> Awesome. >> And welcome back, by the way. >> Thank you. >> Oh, I don't know if my button works. >> Really? Too fast. >> No. Can you just >> Yeah. >> I don't know. We'll make do with your computer. Oh, what? I turned it on. I guess we'll blame that on me not being here for a while. [laughter] Okay. Um, our application tonight is um a cup to construct two golf course related improvement projects at Woodhill Golf or Country Club. Um, the project location is 200 Woodhill Road. Um, here's a map of the project location. So, Woodhill Country Club is on the northwestern um section of the of the city. Um it's three parcels um that are within the city of Weisetta. The property as a whole um that Woodhill owns is comprised of parcels that are within the city of Weisetta's limits and then also the city of Orno. These are the three parcels um that are related to the application tonight and then the only three parcels of their property within our city limits. Um so they have two project locations. The first is near their clubhouse and tennis courts. So that's number one. It's on that top parcel or northern parcel. Um and then the second project location is on what's labeled here as parcel 3. Um the eastern side of their property within the city uh near the railroad. The guiding and land use um for the property is guided as semi-public private um and the current zoning of the property is R1 which is a residential district. Uh details on the application is that they have applied for a conditional use permit to allow the construction of two golf course related improvement projects. Those projects include a pavilion structure with minor electrical service for convenience outlets and then a satellite convenience station or restroom on the golf course served by private septic and water utilities. Um the applicable code sections are related to uh chapter 937.02 that is the use table that identifies the different uses that are listed as permitted or conditional uses within the zoning districts. recreation outdoor commercial which applies broadly to golf courses and their accessory uses is listed as a conditional use within the R1 zoning district. Um so the existing principal pre um land use which is a golf club chorus or country club likely predates our zoning code. Um so we don't have a conditional use permit for the entire property for the use that is currently in place. So any expansion or change of that use requires a conditional use permit. This is just a note on future or similar development within this property. Um Woodhill Country Club has indicated to staff that they have um they're forming kind of a master plan or list of future improvement projects that they'd like to tackle over the next several years. um any type of expansion on their use or new structure is going to require likely require a conditional use permit or other um types of approvals. So, city staff has communicated with Woodhill that we would like to work with them on bringing forward a master plan that allows us to kind of group things together and expedite approvals for them. All of that will depend on what they want to do and how that comes forward, but we just wanted to make a note on it um that we know you may see additional items from this applicant in the future. So, I broke our presentation tonight down between the two different projects. We'll start with the pavilion. Um this is a rendering provided by the applicant of the proposed pavilion. It's an open air structure. Um it's made with composite decking. um siding, some metal mesh railings, and then also some planter boxes around the side. Um it is approximately 1,000 square feet. It's meant to be a viewing platform for their uh tennis courts and racket courts nearby. It's approximately 14 ft tall. There will be no plumbing um and very minor minor electrical service um routed to the pavilion. Um the project does include removal of four parking stalls um and some new concrete sidewalk. Um the impervious surface that will be added is not a concern towards the limits on the property. The proposed site, this is just a zoomed in aerial um of the location of the pavilion. So, as you can see, it's it's located on the southern corner of that parking lot there. Um, and kind of mixed in between the different sports courts. Here's a site plan provided by the applicant showing the proposed shelter and then also the additional sidewalk and the removed parking stalls. And these are elevations of the proposed structure that have more material detail as well. getting into the convenience station. So, this is the second project um requiring or that would be under the conditional use permit that they've applied for tonight. This is um a satellite convenience station adjacent to T-hole T- box hole five. Sorry, I'm not a golfer. Um it's a small structure approximately 230 ft. Um it's going to uh include a unisex restroom and then a refreshment station for beverages beverages and water refill. Um utilities for this structure will include electrical service, private wellwater and then a private septic system. And the applicant has stated that the structure will not be used in colder months. Uh there's no mechanical system proposed with this structure. The water lines plan are planned to be purged in the fall and just close up shop for the winter along with the golf course. So this is um an aerial identifying where on the site that approximately is. This is an this is identified as an approximate location um because the architect has determined that they will do final sighting uh during construction. Um, but this is where they've indicated that it will approximately be located. And then this is an aerial that uh the applicant provided to us just showing us where the proposed water line is coming from. So their well and pump house is actually located within the city of Orino. Um, and we'll be servicing across their their uh property and coming east and then north to this proposed building. There is you'll see another proposed building at the bottom of this uh drawing that is a similar convenience station that is being proposed but it is within the city limits of Orono. Um so they are also revealing reviewing a similar application there. Here is a zoomedin site plan of the convenience structure and then also you can see the proposed location of the septic system. And here's a sketch of the the details related to the septic plan. Um the applicant also provided a management plan um and additional details that were included in the staff report and your packet tonight. This is the interior floor plan of that structure. So, as you can see, the small restroom on one end and then a another interior space with counters, beverage station, sink. Um, yep. And then a service window under an awning. Um here are elevation drawings showing where the different uh site fe or structure features are. So the windows, the doors, there's also additional materials um called out for that project that we'll get into. It's difficult to read from this slide. Um, I'm going to pass this before we get into the details on design deviations back to uh, Director Sharp. He does have some policy level related items to talk through before we get into the specifics for this application. >> Thank you. So, first I want to highlight that for this evening, uh, the commission is reviewing this application and these design standards. Um, we don't have current provisions that would allow for an exemption. However, what I wanted to highlight for the commission is that quite a few of our design standards apply to bigger structures and it's very clear that they're intended to. So things such as distance from window to interior wall don't apply to a structure of this nature. It also meant that the applicant couldn't necessarily be aware upon their initial application that they needed to apply for design deviations because that scale is not in kind with a structure of this size. So, we've worked with the applicant to be able to amend that, bring that forward. We're comfortable with where things are at. However, we are going to ask the commission uh review these design deviations because there aren't current exemptions that uh staff could find within the design code just because the structure was smaller. What we will be evaluating from your comments this evening and city council comments is whether staff recommends at a later date to be determined not to do with this application whether there whether we include some recommendations for potential exemptions for structures that are clearly not intended and there are some already included within the design standards but we may need to make them a little bit more robust or push them more towards the minor deviation where they're administrative and don't require an application. In this instance, we had a conditional use permit application that needed to come forward anyway. So, it felt proper to bring it forward, make sure they have their approvals on the books. There isn't any issue with what they brought it forward and then as a city issue potentially talk about those future items. So, for your discussion this evening, we will not be looking at you to or looking for you to discuss those items, but it may be uh your discussion will help guide me as I move forward, as will city council's discussion on whether staff tries to bring something like that forward. With that, I'll defer back to uh Planner Head Blooms as she will go through the actual review of the application. If there are any questions though on that item, I would open it up now as well. >> Can I ask a question, please? >> Commissioner Severson. >> So, it says the pavilion doesn't meet the applicability requirements. What are those requirements and how do they not meet it or is that what she's going to go through that right now? >> Haley's going to go through a lot more of those details right now. Um, but pavilion without walls was one of the harder things to evaluate on a design standard requirement. >> So that's where that one really doesn't come in. And then she'll answer a little bit more on that. >> Thanks, Director Sharp. So that was part of the difficulty evaluating the writing the staff report and trying to evaluate the design standards with this proposal. um we were able to determine our code does define what a building is. So we were able to um deem the pavilion as not applicable because it is not a building because of it being an open air structure. Um, so this the more broadly the design standards apply to all development within the city that has a non-residentidential and or multifamily component and involves any of the activities list listed in 99 904B. I did not um outline those for you in our presentation tonight just because it's not total it's not fully it's not worth going through that at this time in the details related to this application. Um but one of those requirements is that it or one of those activities listed in that section is that it's a a new building construction. Um and that is where the convenience station meets the requirements that it needs to be um evaluated within the design standards um because it is a non-residential new building construction regardless of its size. Um so the applicable code sections there's going to be the whole chapter of the design standards. I did pull out um the guiding principles or the guiding um um I can't remember what code says but the the the the guiding goals or purpose behind the standards um and I do want to review those. I will read them out for you because that will be part of your evaluation or consideration for these deviations um for your recommendation. So the first is to guide the expansion and renovation of existing structures and the construction of new buildings and parking within the commercial districts of the city. Second is to assist the city in reviewing the development proposals. And the third is to improve the city's public spaces including its streets, sidewalks, walkways, streetscape and landscape treatments. >> Can I ask a question? Um, so point number one, guide the expansion and renovation of exist existing structures and the construction of new buildings and parking within the commercial districts of the city. This isn't a commercial district, it's zoned R1, which is a residential district, >> correct? But it is still a nonresidential type building construction. So because it's non-residentidential and or has a multifamily component, it doesn't fall under new building construction for residential and therefore it needs to be considered under the design standards. >> Okay. It just seems I mean it seems like it's very administrative and >> sure we don't disagree. uh staff was looking for as many ways as we could to try to exempt the structure from the design standards, including when we hit this provision going into okay, can we do it administratively through minor deviations? We didn't even want to require them to have to submit the full design standards that you would for a larger structure. So ultimately for this application, it's more prudent to leave it in, make sure they get their approvals, they can move forward, and then if we need to revise or tweak language at a later date, u then we can do so. But we don't need to figure that out this evening. Thankfully, this application, we can go through these items if they need to be included. We've got the provisions and we went through them for the planning commission and got your recommendation. >> Good enough. Sorry. Thank you. >> Thanks, chair. Okay. So there are three uh design deviations that we were able to identify in our evaluation for the convenience uh structure. So I'm going to go through those three. Two of them would fall under the category of significant deviations and one would fall under the category of a minor deviation. Significant deviations are the types of deviations that need to be evaluated by planning commission and ultimately city council. um minor deviations can be approved administratively by staff. I did include the minor deviation tonight just for um the purposes of our discussion in a in a broader sense um for bringing this type of conversation forward at a future date. Um so the the two primary design deviations um will be the significant ones. uh the first being the unobstructive depth of the required glazing on the building and the closest par parallel interior wall should be at least 10 ft. Um based on the floor plans of this structure that wind that first window on the western side is only about 8 feet from the next interior closest wall. Um, again, that's just going to come down to this size of structure and what those design standards were created for in terms of larger buildings or larger developments. So, that's our first one. Our second one um has to do with building materials and quality that are outlined in the design standards. um 909143B through C um have provisions related to the building base. So again, this is meant for or at least in my interpretation written for larger buildings um that are much taller than 14t tall. Um so our code uh requires that a building base should extend 2 to 3 feet in height above ground level. Um and it should also be composed of masonry materials. Um this building again I put some details in in this note here. Um the building has a approximate total height measured from grade to the top of roof pitch of less than 11 ft. Um and the facade between the base of the structure and the roof is less than 9 ft. Um, we can go back and look at the elevations if you'd like to. Um, but staff was able to determine that the foundation that's included with this structure is is standard and proportional to what's being proposed. Um, and it's worth also noting that the proposed siding exterior for the facade is otherwise meeting the requirements of the design standards. Um, so that's our second significant. And then third, just kind of as an additional note, there was a minor design deviation noted within their application um, related to main floor entrance doors um, and what type of glazing or um, materials those could be made out of. Um, so based on the plans that were submitted, the proposed doors to this structure are going to be solid material that makes sense with the nature of it being a restroom. Um, and they are shown as having decorative panel features. So, for that reason, we were able to determine that that would likely be categorized as a minor design deviation and would ordinarily be able to be approved administratively by staff. Okay, so zooming out a little bit back to the um overarching cup um consideration for both structures on the property. These are staff comments received um from the engineering department and then also our city forester. Um engineering mostly uh has comments related to various permits related to what's being proposed. um that's included for you here and was also included in your staff report. And then the city forester noted that this type of property, golf courses are exempt from our tree preservation ordinance. Um, but we would recommend that the applicant work with a qualified arborist to determine protection plans for trees that they intend to preserve related to this application or in general neighborhood notification and public comments. Um, the applicants sent out their notification with a different additional information on April 8th. The city also sent our letter notifying uh residents within 500 ft on the 8th. Um there was public notice also published in the Sun Sailor on the 9th I believe. Um there was not a neighborhood meeting required for a conditional use permit um request or proposal and to date of this meeting. There were no public comments received related to the application. So here I have outlined the conditional use permit criteria for evaluating this type of request. These are pulled from code. um if you'd like me to read through them for you, I can. But I know that we've had um similar type requests for conditional use permits um within recent memory. So, I'm going to skip forward to the review of design deviations um since this is a little bit less common of an item to go through for planning commission. Um so, significant deviations are departures from the standards that do not qualify as minor deviations. Approval requires a finding that one or more particular factors outweigh any potential negative impact. So the planning commission and city council should evaluate the following. Is the negative impact of the deviation or potential negative impact of the deviation outweighed by one or more of the following positive impacts. One would be the extent of the project the extent in which the project advances policies and provisions of the city's comp plan. uh two would be the extent the deviation permits greater conformity with the other design standards and the guidance and policies behind the standards or with other zoning ordinance standards. Uh another would be the positive effect of the project on the area in which the project is being proposed. Four, the alleviation of undue burden taking into account current leasing, housing, commercial conditions. Five, the accommodation of future possible uses contemplated by the zoning ordinance or the comp plan. Uh, six, a national, state, or local historic designation. And seven, the project is the remodeling of an existing building, which largely conforms to the design standards. So all of those um potential impacts are pulled directly from code which again is why some of them may seem like they're totally out of left field related to this application. Uh the proposed conditions um if planning commission seeks to provide a recommendation of approval on this application tonight staff recommends the following conditions are also included. Um that would be that the applicant will also apply for and receive all pertinent permits related to the project from various organizations and entities necessary prior to construction. And the second would be that the applicant meet the conditions outlined by the city engineer. So the um proposed actions or requested actions of uh the commission tonight would be to first hold the public hearing related to this application and then ultimately direct staff to prepare a draft planning commission report and recommendation of either approval or denial with appropriate findings. I can answer any questions that you have. Otherwise, I know our applica our applicant is here tonight and has some materials to present as well. questions for staff. >> The only the only question I had I was um interested that there's uh still within city limits that um sewer systems are being installed or you know or mound systems are being installed. Apparently that's the Henman County it sounded like it was a Henman County deal uh based on your presentation but I just thought I'd make sure I understood that correctly. Chair Cameron, Commissioner, uh, that is correct. There are very limited sites within the community that are still on well and septic. Those sites are all managed by Henipin County for both the well and septic permits um, in terms of their overall review and then ongoing maintenance and checking requirements. As time goes on, if city sewer and water is available, we've often required that sites connect. This is not one of those that would likely be applicable for that. It it may eventually need to, but we would need to work with the city of Orono on this site and would be a much more uh more significant project than what this application entails. >> Thank you. >> Cool. Anybody else? All right. Thank you. May come back to you after the applicant. Um I'd now like to invite the applicant to come forward. Um please uh step up to the podium and introduce yourself. um and uh let's hear what you have to say. >> Sure. >> Uh thank you very much. My name is Matt Buyers. I'm the managing principal at Plaid. We're the architect that is representing uh uh Woodhill Country Club and Planner Headlum. Thank you very much for that. Uh the presentation that I uh Oh, thank you. >> Could you load that up? >> Thank you. >> Oh, that's okay. I'm really not going to be going through >> anything more than just showing some additional renderings for for context. So this is the first one. Uh this would be the T-box 5 convenient station and I'm just going to flip through since uh Planner Head Bloom already went through all of this. U just some additional renderings to show context and scale. Um, as you can see, it is quite limited in in scope, and I appreciate the the understanding that not all the design standards necessarily apply to a structure of this size. Um, but we do agree that it's handsome and in keeping with the existing structures that are already at Weisetta or excuse me, that at Woodhill and if you wouldn't mind going to the next PDF unless there are questions about this one in particular. Likewise, I'm going to fast forward here just showing some additional renderings for context again and scale. It is open air ex exposed structure and very limited uh electrical service for convenience. So, thought that might be helpful in the discussion. I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have. >> Questions for the applicant? >> I have a question. >> Sure. >> Is this an 18hole golf course? >> Yes. >> Okay. And how many convenience stations do you already have? >> I'm looking at uh Mr. Edmonson here. I think that's zero. Correct. >> Well, we currently have one current state. Nothing like this. >> And and what hole is the other convenience station on? >> Our current is between >> I'm sorry, Bryant. Uh could we we won't pick up any of that and we should have it on video. So, thank you. We currently have one convenience station on course. It's a very small scale uh rudimentary near our whole three and four location >> near three and four. And this is going to be on five >> 5T. Yes, ma'am. >> Uh >> that that that existing one will no longer be there. It it doesn't fit the needs. It's it's very very old and Yeah. outdated. >> You don't have any on the back? >> Correct. Okay. >> Yes. >> I'm just just curious. >> Yeah. Thank you. Anyone else? >> No. >> All right. Well, thank you, gentlemen. Appreciate it. >> Thank you very much. >> Appreciate you coming this evening. Um All right. Well, now I would like to turn to the public hearing. Um public hearing is time for us to listen to the members of our community um for the requests that we're considering. Um questions asked during the public hearing will be held until the end and may be addressed at that point. So with that said, I now open the public hearing. Uh Director Sharp, do we have anybody online? >> Chair, not at this time. >> All right. Do we have any members here that would like to come forward and speak? >> Right. Well, I will now close the public hearing. Um All right. Commissioners, questions for the applicant or staff about um anything that's been raised. >> Can I ask one clarifying question? >> Absolutely. >> Okay. So um when um when you were going through the design the significant standards I think it was what it was it was um seven or eight feet but if it were 10 feet so if the structure were bigger would it actually meet design standards? I just wanted to clarify that. uh chair and commissioner Severson, that's I don't I don't want to say that it would meet um the standards if it were bigger because we didn't have anything to concretely evaluate. Um so based on what was presented, it doesn't currently currently meet the standards. If it were bigger and it had 10 feet between a window and the next parallel interior wall, it would meet the standards in that particular case. Um, yeah. >> Okay. I just was when So, if it was bigger, we wouldn't even be talking about that particular >> correct that particular one as long as there wasn't a wall within 10 ft of a required opening or window glazing. >> Okay. Chair Cameron, Commissioner, uh, it would still require the deviation for the Wayne's coding. That has been required on Waler. It was required on the retreat. It was required on several recent applications. So, that one is would still be applicable even if the structure were larger. And if it were larger, it might apply to additional design standards, too. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um, major deviation two. I actually have a question for one of you two gentlemen. Um, is it slab with frost footing? Is that what's going on? It's just stick framing. >> Yes, >> that is correct, Commissioner. >> Okay. It's just like I don't know. I I I struggle with right like it seems like something that shouldn't even kind of like the the whole wall thing, right? It's like a tiny little building and [laughter] here we are. you guys have had to prepare for this and take your time to do this and it just I I don't know it just seems like it there would be should be a better way to do something like this. So thank you. Um uh that was yeah that was my question. Anybody else? Our discussion. If if we go back to the design deviation questions I think that uh um to answer this question in my opinion the number three that the positive effect uh uh on this project on the area in which it was proposed would outweigh any negative impact. So I think we can check the box in my opinion in terms of the design standard deviations. >> Commissioner Vanoy, I was going to agree. I was going to say kind of very simply that I I recommend approval of both the significant design deviations as well as the minor one. Um, and for that reason of number three, >> I also think number four does it is kind of an undue burden because our our design standards don't apply to buildings of this size particularly well and um yeah, so I think four is another uh another one that uh >> provides that. >> Yeah. And I think um so as for the CUP, right, that's what's up on screen here. Um, for sure. I think it's I mean, it's totally consistent with the comprehensive plan. I mean, it's a golf course and it doesn't seem to it's been around for a long time. It's not going anywhere, right? It's in that way it's very compatible with the area that it's around. Um, you know, I note that it it it met all of the code requirements they had set back off the property line. Um there's nothing around it to affect from a property value perspective because it it's adjacent to the railroad. Um if anything, right, I think it's probably going to be a nice addition to their golf course. Um combined with what they're doing on Hole 14 in Oro. [snorts] Um and it's got no impacts on traffic because it's uh far away from a road and um it's all private served by private services. though I did know one of like like my own mind when I saw that water line and the length of that water line coming from your pump house and I was like that's a long line right to have to drain in the winter or in the fall but right that's private services so my mind went to the fact that if you have any golfers like me I likely will be on top of that mound going back to the to the fourth grain [snorts] >> so yeah I don't see any reason not to approve not to recommend approval on the CUP either And I agree with you. >> All right. Um so um yeah motion to um I'd like to make a motion to uh recommend uh to prepare a draft planning commission report and recommendation of approval for the CUP and the design deviation variances both major and minor um for consideration at our next uh meeting um with the conditions outlined on screen. also included in it to contain um the applicant applying for and receiving the pertinent permits and meeting all conditions laid out by the city engineer. >> And I second that. >> All right. Thank you, Commissioner Schwabby. Further discussion? All those in favor? >> Opposed? >> The eyes have it. The motion passes and the um draft report recommendation will be on our consent agenda um in our next meeting in two weeks. Thank you for coming, gentlemen. appreciate your time. Um, next item on our agenda this evening is other items. Director Sharp or Planner Head Bloom, which one of you is taking? >> That'll be me. >> All right. So, uh, we have kind of started to come out of our lull. We received, uh, I don't have full details on all of them yet. I'm still playing a little bit of catch-up from being out last week, but we received, uh, five more building permit applications last week alone. We were in a lull through the end of last year through right now. One of the more significant items of note though is that the Wells Fargo site will likely be uh issuing CO uh here in early spring to early summer or late spring to early summer here. Uh so they will actually be able to have the apartments occupied in the very near future. the town homes will lag behind likely to that midsummer time frame that they were sharing previously, but they've had enough time to be able to get uh interior work done on those apartments. So, you'll start seeing now leasing signs and additional activity. Full site cleanup is still scheduled towards fall with everything taking effect, all plantings and other items being in place. So, that'll be the most significant one that you'll note. Uh the city is still working uh with the owner on 200 Lake to bring forward that project. There's still ongoing um items that need to be discussed on that one. However, the city is going to be working with the applicant to try to address some of the code issues with it. Uh principally making the site secured and working with them to further enhance some of the visual side of things. So that the commission is aware, the city did receive authorization to submit a grant to the Department of Employment and Economic Development uh for about $1.1 million to clean up contamination on that site. If awarded, that would allow things to move forward. I think that would be the impetus for them to move forward faster. They've already received a $200,000 grant from Henipin County for cleanup on that site. Um, so it's a it's a benefit for the city if that site gets cleaned up, regardless of whether that uh proposed and approved development were to come forward or not. With that, I'll uh present a little bit more at the next one when I'm a little bit caught up on what some of those development applications are. But as always, if you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to me directly. So those cleanup grants is that that be done to the property by somebody on behalf of the property owner? >> The applicant uh would be the property owner, I'm sorry, the applicant's the state for one of them and uh the city or the city for one of them and uh the the owner for the other. They would contract with somebody to do that work. That has to be a third-party firm. It's Landmark Environmental in this case. They're a certified firm that then needs to submit the reports of the cleanup, what happened with it to the MPCA. The MPCA signs off on that. Then they submit it to the city showing that they've done that. We submit it to DED. DED sends the money to the state or to the city if awarded and then we would send it back to the applicant. >> Got it. Okay. >> Can I ask is this I know we've gone and it went through litigation and the judge sided with us. Are they appealing or they're just waiting to develop? What is I I noticed in the last city council that somebody stood up and was asking for the city and the developer to get together. >> What is the hold up now with the developer? >> Uh Chair Cameron, commissioner, they have appealed the decision by the court. >> Okay. >> So, it is in active litigation currently. >> Okay. >> Can't provide timelines or any further details than that. I just was [clears throat] wondering what >> Yep. So that's the status of where the project is currently. However, the deed grant or a demolition permit for the building the property owner has been hesitant to submit for that but could come forward in advance of that final application. The approvals that came forward are PUD general plans. So similar to Waler as an example, they've received their approvals for a PUD general concept and general plan, but they need to bring a final plan forward which is on the uh city council agenda for tomorrow night. uh Lake West or 4200 Lake has not yet applied for their final PUD plan. So, they would need to do that prior to their project being able to move forward. >> And is there any enforcable way we can encourage them to keep that property safe and um while it's going through litigation? >> Chair Cameron, that is what I was uh alluding to with saying that we are trying to work with the applicant for additional activities and cleaning up of the site. Got it. >> So, we're working on partnership with them with that to try to enhance that a little bit more as we have heard regular comments on that. >> I was trying to bring it up proactively as a we will be working towards that and uh in the ways that we are able to and we are determining what those are and we will do what we are able. >> Thank you. Well, my question was right about uh that line of reasoning as well, and that is the building becomes more and more vandalized on a regular basis. It's almost shocking even monthtomonth how much it changes. And I worry about liability. Um I imagine that's with the owner of the property. But do we just because we're a good city send our police by there regularly and hopefully disrupt anything that's going on? >> Uh chair commission. Yes. Um the specifics of that I would encourage us to discuss outside of planning commission hours. We can speak with the police chief. We've done a number of activities. They do go by, but um and they are working actively with the property owner. The large piece that we' worked on prior to winter was securing the site. That was the boards that you saw go up. So, we do understand there are activities going on. Wanted to be proactive about making sure that I addressed it because I know that it came up with the last city council as well. Um, however, the code enforcement and security of the site is something that the city staff are working on with our police chief to make sure that we develop a plan and with the guidance of our city attorney. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Uh, one question for me just um I know we've kind of talked roundly about it. Is is there some work underway just around Lake Street retail as well? >> Uh, thank you, chair. Yes, the there city council has not designated that staff should create a subcommittee or anything yet. We do have it on a workshop agenda for I believe late May uh is when it's scheduled to go to city council for them to start directing staff on where they want us to start working on that and how much should that be tied in with comp plan. How should should that be different? Uh some other additional questions will be do we do a study area of Lake Street versus uh Pres Homes in that area as th those are two different fundamentally areas. Do we then extend that to Weisetta Boulevard or is the Weisetta Boulevard not the area of concern? And so those are the things that staff needs to determine with council direction at a future date, but the time has been tentatively scheduled for that second meeting in May, I believe. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh, one question I have, uh, is, uh, I don't know the address where where the caribou used to be, uh, on Lake Street. That that seems to be being built out now. Uh, I think that last time it wasn't quite, uh, an understanding of what it was going to be there, >> the Caris building. >> Mhm. >> Yep. Thank you, >> uh, chair. I think that's 600, >> uh, Lake Street. And it, we do not have applications right now that tell us what interior tenants would be. Numerous parties have contacted me telling me of potential users that would be going in there and I don't know that it's official until we've received building official or building submissions. So, while several users have announced they're coming to town, you will see that in lots of local papers. It's always interesting for staff when they announce they're going to be opening up in June and still haven't applied for an interior building permit. Um the state plumbing uh review will require 8 to 12 weeks. So that's outside of the city review and we have no control over it. So I don't know fully what's going in there yet. Uh we don't have interior permits. It's all been shelled thus far. >> Thank you. >> So it appears the corner is being built interior. interior shell can be built, but interior uh actual plans have not been fully submitted for that site yet. So, interior walls can go in. They have an idea of where their tenant spaces were going to be, but that's part of the original Shell permit, not a tenant permit that has been submitted. >> All right. Anybody else? >> Caveat. Unless it was one of the ones last week. >> What's that? Unless it was one of the ones that was submitted in the last week that I haven't seen yet. >> Oh, >> so the Parcel Organics. >> Okay. The Haley had reviewed those and she believes those are all residential. >> Oh, so Parcell Organics that was just in you you don't we don't >> I've heard about them for probably since February or March. Okay. >> I do not know where they're necessarily going. We've encouraged in in fact I've spoken with their broker to reach out to me. But >> thank you. >> Move to approve. >> All right. Anything else? Meeting schedule >> was attached. Next meeting in two weeks, >> May 4th. >> Thank you. >> All right. Perfect. >> All right. Um motion to adjourn from somebody. >> So moved. >> Perfect. Thank you, Commissioner Plant. Uh second. >> Second. Thank you, Commissioner Stevenson. Further discussion? All those in favor? >> Opposed? Eyes have it. The motion is approved and the April 20th, 2026 meeting of the Wisetta Planning Commission is adjourned.