Welcome to the July 20th meeting of the Weisetta Planning Commission. My name is Chris Planton and I'm the vice chair and I'm sitting in this evening for our chair Blake Cameron. Um we have a hybrid hybrid meeting information. Um, as you can see on your screen, headblum, would you like to do the roll call >> or Oh, no. I have to call, >> chair. Uh, I'll do roll call, but thank you. Okay, >> call the meeting to order. >> Call the meeting to order. >> Thank you. >> I never did that. >> Nice job. >> Yeah. >> Commissioner Anthony >> here. >> Commissioner Schwabby >> here. Commissioner Severson >> here. >> Commissioner Elg >> here. >> Commissioner Vanl >> here. Vice Chair Planton >> here. Thank you. Uh, next up is the approval of the agenda for this evening. Are there any updates or items to add to the agenda from staff? >> None from staff at this time. Thank you. >> Okay. Um, if there are none um from any of the commissioners, um, I'd like a motion for approval of the agenda. >> So moved. >> I'll second that. >> Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Ben. I have a second. >> Yeah. >> Thank you, Commissioner Schwelby. Um, any discussion? >> No. All those in favor? >> Okay. Motion passes. Please note that the agenda has been approved. Next on our agenda is the approval of the consent agenda, which includes approval of our meeting minutes um from June 1st, 2026. Again, any comments from commissioners or items to add or pull from the consent agenda? None. >> Okay. Um, seeing none, um, I'd like a motion for approval, please. >> I'll make that motion to approve the consent agenda. >> Okay. Thank you, Commissioner. May I have a second? >> Second. >> Thank you. Any discussion? All those in favor? >> I >> Okay, the motion passes. Please note that the consent agenda has been approved. >> Item number five, old business. Um, looks like there's no items under old business, so we'll go right to the public hearing. um items. We have one public hearing item and that's to consider the application for Carpenters Point third edition preliminary and final plat 535 and 555 Bushawway. Planner Head Bloom, are you going to walk us through this one? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Once we get it up on the screen, that is very Okay. The application we will be reviewing tonight is for um preliminary and final plat subdivision of the properties at 535 and 555 Bushaway Road. Um the plat name is Carpenters Point Third Edition. Um, so as I alluded to on the title slide, um, the actions requested tonight are, um, to hold the public hearing and ultimately direct staff for the report and recommendation on this application. Um, and the application requests a simultaneous preliminary and final plot for subdivision of the properties at 535 and 555 Bushway Road. Um the proposed subdivision would divide the two existing single family lots into three separate single family lots and if approved the subdivision would create three new lots that conform to the requirements of the R1A zoning district. So to review the project location um these two projects which I will just refer to as the project site um this evening are located on Bushaway Road which is also County Road 101. Um they are on the west side of that road uh and they have um rear yard lake frontage um along both of the properties. Uh the two existing parcels are both vacant. Uh the total site is 6.27 acres um fairly evenly divided between those two existing properties. uh the existing zoning and land use guiding information is up on the screen. So these properties are currently zoned R1A which is low density single family estate. Uh and they are guided guided the same um so guided for estate single family which is um an a range for density between 0.25 and 0.5 units per acre. These properties also are within the shoreland overlay district. Relevant site history includes um 2019 uh the previous or most previous I think perhaps existing or original home to the site was demolished. Um and as part of th that project um there was a perpetual conservation easement granted to the Minhaha Creek wershed district for flood plane management and the city also issued a grading permit at that time um following the demolition of the building which uh allowed for the modification of the average grade across the two properties or the full site at the time um by approximately 2 feet. So just under two feet, which is the maximum allowed um by code without prior approval of city council. In 2021, um shortly after those projects completed, uh the property owner at the time came forward with a similar application and request for preliminary and final plot to create the two existing lots uh from three or four previous parcels. Um the configuration of the four previous parcels included two uh larger lots and then two lots to the north of the of the site that were very small and effectively non-buildable per our code. Um, so the purpose of creating the two existing lots at the time was to allow for two new single family homes to be built on this lot or these lots um following the demolition of that original residence in 2019. So my previous slide talked about a conservation easement. Um, a depiction of that is up on the screen in that yellow area. So flanking the um lot boundaries that do not abut the lake um is a perpetual conservation easement that is granted with the watershed district. Um that is a private easement between the watershed district and the property owner and all future property owners. Um the city is not part of that agreement. Um but effectively what it does or what's it what its intent is for is to protect that natural area on these properties and uh utilize it for flood plane management. Um the conservation easement remains intact and will continue to do so with future potential ownership of these three individual sites. So, the proposed preliminary plot that we are reviewing tonight um would again divide those two existing lots into the three lot configuration that you can see on your screens. Um and again, if approved, this subdivision would create three new lots that conform to all the requirements of the R1A zoning district as well as the shoreland overlay district. those lot requirements um are included on the table uh for your review. Um just a quick overview is that all three lots meet the lot width, the lot depth, and the lot size requirements of the R1A um district. There are lot coverage and imperous surface requirements as well as additional lakeshore setback requirements included in the shoreland overlay district. Um without proposed homes on these lots, it's hard to it's impossible to evaluate that with this application. So they're included there because they're they are requirements for these lots that will have to be met at time of building permit or development. But for this application tonight, um what what was included in your packet and what we'll be reviewing as part of this presentation is conceptual. Um so we can't fully evaluate the lot coverage or impervious surface or building setbacks um as they relate to the to the lakeshore setbacks um with this application. >> Could I ask a quick question? >> Yeah. Or I can wait if you'd rather. You can ask it now. >> Well, just because you had that page up, if you just could go back one. Um, so in lots one and three, do those square footages include um the watershed requirement? >> Yes, they do. So those square footages are the total square footage or acreage of the site or of the proposed lots. So it includes the conservation easements, area of conservation easement. Um, but I I haven't called out the specific amount or percentage that that conservation easement would hold over each individual lot. >> And can the building be built right up to the conservation easement >> or does it have a setback? >> You can answer. Do you want >> if you want to? >> Okay. Um, Commissioner Schwabi, uh, the as long as the the future structures lie within the required setbacks of the zoning district and the shoreland overlay district, they can be built within that buildable area. The buildable area is defined by um, city ordinance, not the private easement. And the private easement does not include anything like a buffer from its edge or any any additional provisions related to proximity of structure. You just can't build within it. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Um part of uh the evaluation criteria uh for subdivisions is to compare or see how the uh proposed lots within a subdivision fit into a surrounding area. So the table on your screen is a list of lot area of adjacent or surrounding homes on Bushway Road. Um, there are quite a few in this list that are non-conforming lot sizes to current code and it's likely that those lot sizes just predate current requirements. Um, I didn't look into those individual lots or their history, but I just want to note it um because they are in some instances significantly smaller than the minimum lot size requirement of 80,000 square ft in this district. Um but the intent of this table is to show that those three lots that are proposed which are on the um far column do fit within or are above the average of the surrounding lot sizes along Bushaway Road. So, this is a depiction um that was included in the packet uh for this evening that shows the three lots with some convent uh conceptual home layouts um and driveway layouts. um that the intent is to show that these lots are buildable um or convey that there is enough buildable area on each lot being proposed um to fit the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Um but again, I I want to reiterate that these are conceptual plans for future homes. Um they no homes are being proposed to be built with this subdivision. Uh the application tonight is solely for the preliminary and final plat to create the three lots. Um and future homes and all details related to those future homes would be presented um at a future date um not related to this application. Here is a list of project considerations um related to the different factors uh on the site. So the topography and grading um staff makes a recommendation for future grading to uh require city council approval um prior to any issuing of a permit. Um, and this is to address the unique circumstances and history of the site and the intent of city code section 9164D, which is that city code section that I alluded to at the beginning of the presentation, um, where any grading beyond 2 feet um, from the natural and typical grade requires prior approval from city council. Um another consideration for pre for tree preservation would be that each lot is responsible for trees located on individual property. So once these lots are created through subdivision um any tree removal, tree preservation plans, tree protections um would be subject to the individual lots and will be reviewed at time of building permit. Um, with that being said, there is tree removal expected to occur with future building permits. Um, so it is a point of consideration with this application. Um, similar to that would be the storm water and utility notes that I have on the screen. Um, so there's the impervious surface requirements of the zoning district and uh the shoreland overlay district which requires that lots cannot exceed 20% imperous surface. um if they do exceed 20% uh impervious surface of variance would be required. Again, that's something that's evaluated uh on a lot by lot basis and during the building permit application process. Um so not anything um directly applicable to the recommendation or approval of this application but uh should be a consideration for the lots being created. Um and then the utilities are a similar note. Um there are existing connections to sewer and water available. There are two available in the area um corresponding with the two existing lots. Um the applicant has been able to display conceptual plans that allow for the three connections that would need to be made. Those have been reviewed by the city engineer. Um that is something that again would be reviewed at time of building permit but is a consideration. um because only two are existing and it's something that requires further evaluation on a specific level to the future home being built on any one of the three lots. Um the city engineer also noted a potential need for private lift stations on one or more of these proposed lots and that is something again that would be evaluated at the time of building permit. Um and then driveway access onto Bushway Road. Um, so there are three curb cut openings being proposed with this subdivision. So, one for each lot. Um, there are currently there's currently only one curb cut uh access existing on the site right now. With the prior subdivision, there was approval from the county um for a second one. County approval is required for that because Bushaway Road is also a county road. Um staff received a a formal response letter today uh actually related to the application from the county. Um and it appears that they will approve the three proposed uh driveway access points. Um, but I included that as a project consideration as well because at the county is going to be responsible for both the final approval for the curb cut openings onto county roadway and then also any um work proposed in county rightway. Um so any permits uh that are necessary for the applicant or any future property owner from the county um should be a requirement um of the plat. Uh staff and public agency comments are included in your packet. Um those include comments from the city engineer and then also the city forester. uh they were quite extensive in nature. Um so to for the purposes of the presentation tonight, I pulled out the two recommended conditions of approval from staff. Um so we've talked through I I believe both of these, but the first would be um a recommendation for approval for uh review and city council approvements for additional grading on the site. Um and then a second recommendation would be to require um any applicants of future building permits to also inventory the existing trees and city rightway along Bushaway Road. um and that any tree removals proposed or um necessary for the building permit at a future date um in city right ofway would be mitigated according to city ordinance. Um that would also be um an area where a uh permit from the county for work in the right of way would be required. Um the comments on the second half of this slide are preliminary comments from Henipin County um provided for the application. Um these comments are related to the access of the driveways onto Bushaway Road. Um they expressed support of the proposed access in the three separate points. They also um expressed um support of the sidebyside driveway access um that is proposed rather than um recommending or requiring a single access point and shared driveway. Public comment and neighborhood notice um the required and typical process was followed. So public notice was published in the July 9th issue of the Sun Sailor. The applicant sent their neighborhood notification letters to all surrounding properties within 500 ft. Um a neighborhood meeting was not required as that is not part of the policy for subdivision applications. Um one public comment was received after the um packet was published. That's available on the DIS tonight. that public comment has to do with a um potential bald eagle nest on the property. City also the city staff also um received several phone calls throughout the last week. Um several of which were expressing concern about a potential eagle's nest on the property. Um we have not been able to verify the location of the eagle's nest. I believe that it's possible that that location may be within the conservation easement. Um so therefore that tree would have inherent protections due to its sighting within the conservation easement. Um but there's there's uh further research needed. Um and then the city attorney uh provided some direction. um this evening on the matter um the um sorry I would say that um we're working on how to incorporate it into the report and recommendation. Um but essentially plat approval follows all applicable laws and requires the applicant to follow all applicable laws. Um, and if there are laws related to a potential eagle's nest or protection of a potential eagle's nest, they would be required to adhere to those laws. Um, yeah, I'll leave it at that. Um, the review criteria for preliminary plat um is included in the screen. Uh if there are any questions related to this, we could walk through it and I can also come back to this slide as uh discussion progresses. Um there's 12 total criteria. Um but essentially the planning commission is asked to consider possible adverse effects to the preliminary PL being proposed. Um the actions for tonight would be to first hold the public hearing. Um the applicant is here tonight to answer questions in case you have them um as well. So you may choose to invite them up to the podium and ask any questions um of them or of staff before holding the public hearing. But then we ask that you hold the public hearing and from there uh direct staff to prepare a draft planning commission report and recommendation um for either approval or denial with appropriate findings and that will be brought back at our next meeting. >> Thank you. Planner Headboom. Um at this time, do any of the commissioners have questions for staff? >> I have one. >> Okay. Uh, regarding the Riperian principle, does this only apply to those three lots or um are neighbors on either side also included with how that will be computed or determined? >> Commissioner Schwabby, are you referring to the Lakeshore setback of the principal structures? >> Yes. >> Um, so that is a provision that's relating to the uh most adjacent principal structure. So, it kind of depends. It's a yes and response that I'm going to give you. It depends on how these lots are eventually developed and which lot is potentially built first. So, let's say if a building permit comes in for the middle lot, um that lot would be subject to the closest adjacent structures. So, it would skip over the the flanking um vacant lots and be subject to the lot to the north of the entire site and the lot to the south of the entire site. Um and then if the southern lot gets developed from there, it would be subject to the middle lot and the southern lot and kind of >> it depends on which um >> order the the lots get built on. Um, but yeah, it it could and likely will extend beyond just the existing site to the lot to the north and the lot to the south for determining that setback. >> I hadn't actually been out on the water to look at how it looks from the water. Might be a bit of an indent there. I don't know. But >> that's possible. >> Okay. I just I just wondered if the if the other neighbors would be notified of this and have the ability to make their desires known. I mean, were they part of the people notified about this? I would imagine. >> Yes. Tonight they were notified. with a building permit. Typically, if it meets all uh zoning requirements and there's no variance involved, they would ordinarily not be um required to give any notice to surrounding properties. um with the provision of um section 9164D related to the grading that would should um that recommendation move forward and be included as a condition of approval um that would then go to council um for approval of any future grading on the site. But even with that going forward in a public meeting, there's not um a required neighborhood notice for that provision alone. It would have to be some sort of additional condition of approval or requirement on the property. >> Thank you. >> And I'm assuming that that condition for the grading would go directly to the city council. It wouldn't come back in front of the planning commission >> as written in code. That's correct. >> Thanks. >> Mhm. >> Any additional questions for staff? >> Okay. Um, is the applicant in the room? Would the applicant like to come forward and make a presentation? And please state your name and address and your relationship to the presentation. >> Thank you. My name is Nathan Brandenburgg. I'm a partner with the Maslin law firm in Minneapolis and I'm here on behalf of the applicant. Um, with regard to the application, I think um, Halen staff did a phenomenal job laying it out. I don't have anything additional to add, but I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> Commissioners, any questions for our applicant? >> I have a question. I always have a question. Um, so we're talking about the possibility of more fill needing to be brought in in order to get it above the the 3 ft above the flood zone, the latest flood zone. Uh, what's the word for that? Yeah. So, what I'm wondering is there was something that confused me in the way it was written having more to do with me than you, that you already brought in some fill. Is that right? the previous owner did bring some fill in to the site under under a grading permit. I don't know. I think possibly to the to the first point of your question. I don't know if a determination's been made as to whether any fill would need to be brought in or not. I think that's going to be dependent upon um you know what a potential um buyer of one of these lots may want to do from a from a home construction standpoint and what that grading plan's going to look like. And because of the prior grading that's taken place, that as um was indicated is likely going to result in a request that's going to have to go before the city council at that time. >> Okay? Because we've had other situations where a great deal of fill needed to come in and it was really a >> very large amount and it concerned all of us. Just want to make sure though that you're looking at the front of the house facing the water has to be the ground level 3 feet um above high water mark. >> Yeah, that is definitely a consideration that that uh somebody who may build a home on the site um will have to take into account. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Any additional questions? >> Okay, >> great. Thank you. Oh, I have a question. One more. One more. Okay. >> Do you know where this eagle's nest is? >> I don't. >> Well, I coming out of my driveway, so I know right where it is, but I don't know what parcel, you know, it happens to be sitting on if it's >> on the watershed part or >> Yeah, I'm not sure. But we will. >> But we sure do enjoy that eagle's nest. >> But it's in a very wooded area, so it looks like perhaps it might be in the watershed area. >> Okay. >> Let's hope so. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Vice Chair Planton. I would like to just add something um for the record to answer Commissioner Schwab's question. >> Um the there is a requirement that the lowest floor elevation for these homes or any future homes built on the lot need to be three feet higher than the highest known um high water mark. Um so that's was likely the note that you you are referring to in your packet. Um those elevation points have been identified and are included in the conceptual plans. Um that is a point um of the preliminary plat uh criteria that the applicant had to provide with their plans um to prove buildable lots. >> Okay. So, are all three of these lots then 3 ft above the the proposed building sites? Are they all right now? Do they all fit that criteria? >> Commissioner Ankeny, that's correct. So, the the floor elevations um that are included in this conceptual plan do meet that um and that is something that again would be evaluated on an individual basis with at time of building permit and it would be a requirement um held at that time. Okay. Thank you. Um, at this time with no other further questions or comments for the staff or applicant, I'd like to open up the public hearing portion. Is there anybody that would like to come forward and speak? Anybody online? Director Sharp or >> Vice Chair? There is no one at this time. >> Okay. At this time, I'd like to close the public hearing. Oh. Oh, sure. I'm sorry. >> My name is Aktar Aktar Chadri. I live at 600 Bush Road. I'm literally across from you guys. Um I just saw the letter so I thought I can come by. This is the first time I come to any hearing for that matter. And I've been living here since 2007. So it's about time. So um I knew the lady who was used to own the property um when there was a big task force going on fighting with Hannipin County to make it fun uh work. U so I was very involved. So I I have just uh just couple of comments. So I thought I'll be stopping by. So one is that it's good that um the lot is big size. So hopefully um while you guys are doing that and I don't oppose the project but I was trying to figure it out is that uh we talked about driveway. Right now there's one driveway and if you're going to create will will there is there any traffic analysis done and how will it impact the like you know the neighborhood the way it is the character one of the reason I or many people who come to Bush way um come is because of the um the character of the neighborhood right so that is one thing I wanted to know is there any kind of analysis done on that and number two I came a little bit late so I was not sure about the trees removals or whatever mature trees there are what I was and the third one was grading and things like that so Those are the three things. Maybe you already considered it, but I wanted to make sure that particularly the um the driveways because right now is one serving it, but now if you're going to do three, how it's going to impact it and some kind of traffic analysis of visibility in sight, etc. when you're driving it. That's my comment. Thank you. >> Thank Thank you very much. There there was a concern about that that you wrote about um that someone had a concern about um the three driveways and there was one of them whether he would be easily able to make a left turn onto Bushway in order to get down to 394. Well, I'm putting that part in because Okay. So, I'm just curious. I can't open my thing right now or I would try to find it for you, but I know I read a spot that talked about a concern about the ability to turn left and what the line of sight would be. >> Commissioner Schwabby, thank you. I believe you're referring to the um preliminary comments provided by Henipin County that were included in the packet um which I can read aloud. Um county staff um in their preliminary comments expressed concern with sight distance for the southern driveway. Um and they said at that time that staff would take a closer look to ensure safety for those using the access. Um but again this afternoon we received uh a formal comment letter from them. So they provided these preliminary comments. um in the case that they may have not been able to provide their formal comment letter on the plat before the public hearing. Um the formal comment on the plat that was received uh this afternoon um did not express such concerns or relay any requirements or recommendations from the county related to the site line or um any safety concerns with that access point. Um, so I would assume that the county staff uh did their further analysis and found that there was not a heightened level of concern. >> Vice Chair Plant and Commissioner Schwelby, uh, I would reiterate what planner uh, Bloom has said or head Bloom has said. Took me a moment. First, I've had to refer to it as such. Uh, Hannib County is ultimately responsible for the traffic management for driveways coming onto county roadways. And so while the city will have a uh a voice in that if we were to express concerns, ultimately the city engineer deferred to Henipin County for this application, their initial comments discussed it. And as uh planner headboom had identified, they have their formal letter or the one that is the official letter for the approval of this plat did not cite that as a further concern. >> Okay. My experience is that if you're going to get on to Bushway during high traffic times, you just have to be patient. >> Just saying. >> Chair, Commissioner, Bushway has a number of driveway accesses that can be challenging for the users at a time and thankfully the homeowners will need to start adapting some of their behaviors as they become more familiar. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um, I'm going to need to close the public hearing um portion of this meeting. Thank you for your comments and no one online. I just want to confirm >> that is correct. >> Okay. All right. Um, with the public hearing being closed, it allows us to bring the comments back >> to to the to the gentleman's point, I just want to make sure that my understanding is correct. So, for the uh there's a driveway on the south that isn't there yet, but has been approved. And then uh the there's an existing driveway uh on the north that has some stonework. And I think if I read correctly, the proposed is to demolish that stone structure and have two sidebyside driveways, one for each of the properties. Is that correct? They're not sharing a driveway, but they're going to be basically side by side. >> Vice Chair and Commissioner Vanl, that's correct. >> Thank you. So, can I ask question? So, that driveway structure that has been approved and that's what's going Is that part of our concept plan tonight that we're considering and is that something that we should be considering? >> Vice Chair, uh, Commissioner, it is something to be considered with this application. Um the the official plat letter received by the county um is a an official comment letter for the application. Ultimately the process is for the city to approve or deny a plat and then it gets reviewed by the county again. Um but from their comments on the official letter, there appears to be um no concern with the three curb cuts being proposed. um and approval of those access points. >> So, we should with some certainty assume that that's what it's going to be. >> Yes. >> And again, any any official approval or work done within county right of way is the responsibility of the county to issue um final approval and any necessary permits. Well, I mean, if if we look on P on the packet on page 16 and 17, it lists those criteria uh that the planning commission should look at and I'm sure that we have all looked at them. I haven't. I've checked them off and I haven't found anything to be of concern. Um, that would keep us from keep me from voting for it. So, I've looked at them all. Do we do we need to go through each one individually? Okay. It's it was well very well put together the whole thing. Thank you. Thank you. Any other commissioners? >> Yeah. My my um my only question is from an approval if if we indicate approval um do we need to specify or should we definitely specify that about the grading needing to go to the city council so it's very clear I mean I went out to the site um uh yesterday and you can definitely tell there's been a lot of fill that thing is sitting really high um and so I'm hoping that there's not going to be a need but I think it would make sense uh at least for me to include it so there's No question about their need to go to city council. >> Yeah, vice chair and commissioner staff's recommendation is that that would be an express condition of approval. I think we're recommending two. Is that right, uh, planner? Um, so if you could pull those up. uh if if the commission moves towards making that recommendation of approval and directing us to prepare a report to that effect, we'd ask that you include those two conditions there um of approval. The the first one goes to your point, Commissioner Vanley. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else? Okay. I um like Commissioner Schwabby, I also went through the criteria and um didn't find any objections as long as we're including the two conditions um for motion of approval. Um I would like to add the comment about the eagle's nets to be sensitive to that. I know that there has not been a comprehensive tree audit at this point or inventory and maybe once that's done, we'll be determined where that eagle's nest is and hopefully it is in with the conservation easement. Any other comments? Or would any commissioner like to make a motion? >> I I certainly would make a motion that we um direct staff to uh uh make a recommendation or or write up a a packet on approval, including the two items uh about the grading and about the future building permit applications. uh inventorying the existing trees etc. >> I would second and add the eagle the eagle tree >> sighting. >> Okay. >> And then I'll second your >> okay >> motion >> any >> uh Vice Chair Commissioner Vanly are you okay with that addition to your motion? >> I am fine with that. Thank you. >> Um and vice chair if you're at the point of discussion having a motion that's been uh made and seconded. Um I would just say that um the way staff will interpret this unless there's an objection from commission is we'll we'll definitely include those two conditions that we're recommending. I think the eagle's nest is a little uh tricky because we don't have all the facts yet as uh our planner pointed out. A condition of approval that's standard in all our resolutions is that the applicant comply with applicable law. So, any law that protects eagle nests, should there be one, will be applicable and binding on the applicant. Um, but we'll do a little bit more investigating on that and I think when we come back at your next meeting with this report on the consent agenda, staff report, we'll make a note of how we handled that. So, if that's okay with you, I think it's consistent with the motion that's been made, but I just wanted to elaborate on what we're thinking presently about that particular issue. >> I would agree. That sounds great. >> Okay. So, we've had a motion. We've had a second. We've had our discussion. Let's take a vote. All those in favor? I >> I >> Okay, looks like the motion passes. Please note that the request for Carpenters Point, third edition preliminary, and final plat 3 535 and 555 um Bushway Road has been approved and will appear on our next consent agenda. And yes, I'd like to also echo it was a very nice presentation. Thank you. Um for item number seven, other items um planning commission meeting schedule. >> Thank you uh vice chair. The next city council meeting is uh tomorrow, July 21st, and your next planning commission is August 3rd, 2026. It should be a short one. We don't have it. I just can't believe it's August already. Take my note. >> I was like, what did I do wrong? >> Um, we do not have anything other than this on the agenda that we do have a number of applications coming forward, so stay tuned. Uh, we will have a busier fall as I kind of anticipated. We're going to get some of the backlog that we've had coming in. Uh, with that, that'll be the planning commission schedule. Would you like me to go directly into the review and development activities? >> That'd be great. >> Sounds good. >> Thank you. So I'm going to start from uh kind of anformational side of things. Uh the planning commission had expressed some concern over the state of retail in Weisetta. Staff did prepare a memo to that effect and present it to a workshop at the city council and got some initial findings. I would encourage the planning commission to read that staff report and reach out to me with any individual questions. Ultimately, where the findings were at and where city council directed staff to do some additional research is update on some current ordinance trying to refine some language and define uses uh research particular development economic development activities and incentives that the city might be able to offer, what those impacts might be uh to city budgets, to uh the potential businesses in terms of what we might be able to offer all the way to tax abatement which would potentially negate portions of the tax responsibility for that property. Right now, staff's next step is to bring forward a general schedule for city council. Uh starting with some of the lowerhanging fruit on the retail side of things, which would be tightening up on some of our desired uses on the ground floor along Lake Street principally. Um but a major focus was on Presbyterian Homes and that development uh in terms of the priority over Lake Street from council. So we will likely need to do that in a two-step phase as they are relatively different districts in some ways. Along Lake Street may have some similarities, but then as you get deeper into the development, it may not. Council did want us to work with a citizen group to start going over some of those initial uses once staff has uh generated them. And council has a short list of suggested uh business leaders, chamber, etc. within the community that staff will be doing outreach to and seeing whether they are interested in helping us determine what those uses might be as they are prominent property owner owners, etc. Um that will all be happening in this late summer, early fall as things move forward. So stay tuned on a schedule side of things. I'll be able to potentially provide that update during one of our agendas that we send out uh when we inform you that a packet will be coming. >> Can I can I ask a question? >> Yes, certainly. >> Um the you mentioned the um hotel development, the landing development. Is there anything in our city ordinance that says you can't leave it vacant? uh >> forever. >> I mean, can they can we encourage them to lower the rent to a certain point so that they can because it seems like that's been vacant for 10 years, the bottom floor on the when you're turning the corner there. >> Chair Planton, Commissioner Hanken, it was an item that they asked staff to research. >> Okay. My initial response to council just to be uh clear so the public hears it as well is that can be a challenging item for cities to be able to have a financial requirement that they leave space or find tenants for space uh due to property rights. But it is something that we want to have a direct response for city council to be able to answer the question. So, the city attorney and I have been tasked with some of that research and uh do not have that readily available and would want to provide it to city council on an initial basis through a memo, but we could certainly inform the planning commission when that memo is published. >> Thank you. >> With that, I'll go into some more kind of fun aspects. Uh so, the planning commission will soon be reviewing an application for the trappers cabin, our property. uh or I'm sorry, our um structure uh located in Shavers Park. Trafford's cabin is going to get some muchneeded love where uh it will be coming forward for a site alteration permit first through our heritage preservation board and then through planning commission and then city council. Anytime a historic site or a designated historic site within the city is having any alteration, a site alteration permit is required. So this is something that we don't see very often but is actually a required action. Ultimately the work being done is not heavily significant but I don't want to preview the entire application. Just wanted to let you know that it'll be coming forward uh likely in the month of August. Uh harbors canisimo oneetta did receive a second extension. This is the site in the northeast portion of the community uh right up against the border uh immediately adjacent to the Ensley uh retirement community up in that side of town did receive their extension. However, uh one of the things I wanted to make sure that the commission was aware of is that city council heard a concern from nearby residents over the number of dead trees on the property. And while we did not condition their extension upon it, it was a very clear expectation that staff has since conveyed to the property owner that trees will be cleaned up in a timely manner because there are a number of them on the property. Um, so you may see work neighbors may uh report to you and that's one of the reasons why I wanted to make sure you were aware that that was actually a strongly worded suggestion by city council to bring that forward. uh Westway Condominiums at 2011 Lake. There has been some family uh health issues holding that one up for some time. However, the applicant has reached out to us and while they will be seeking an extension for another year, this will only be their second extension and they do intend to move forward. Uh so, we're actually pleased to hear of the progress and uh when staff brings forward a application for that extension, more details will follow that. Those are typically on consent at city council, but be aware that that'll be coming forward hopefully within the coming weeks. Uh 200 Lake, we have some really fun news uh for the commission on that one. So, as I told the commission previously, the city of Weisetta actually applied for a deed grant to clean up some of the contamination on that site. We were the highest awarded grant within the county at $548,000. >> Nice. Uh now for that to proceed, I want to be very clear that would require uh that the application be submitted at least presently as the city council conditioned with full massing breaks. Um so if there were other outcomes that would need to be determined, but for the moment that's great news and we're pleased to move forward with the applicants on a potential project of getting that site cleaned up and developed maybe starting as late as late fall, early spring of next year. So, that would be really exciting news. And then on uh another exciting news note for major development, Waler Lamborghini was able to pick up or fin uh pay for permits today and get final building permit approval. Do expect work to happen pretty quickly there with the demolition of the former Malberries. Now, they moved to another site in town and do expect there to be a significant hole in the ground. Do not be surprised over the amount that needs to be removed from that. it will be replaced but there is contamination on the site that will need to be uh pulled out and then uh replaced with new fill clean fill in order for the development to proceed. So you will see some significant changes right there. Um and for those that are fielding questions I want to make sure you're aware that that is not due to the Lamborghini dealership. That's actually due to the former dry cleaning use. >> With that uh concludes my development updates. So, no below ground storage of Lamborghinis if we're worried about the depth of the hole. >> Actually, chair, they did have a basement in that site. >> I know. >> But they're worried about the future health of the Lamborghinis. >> Yes. >> As we are. >> Got it. >> Okay. >> One other quick question. I know that um uh there's been a lot of discussion about uh the former Caribou site. uh in those buildings and it looks like there's a new tenant that at least has uh put signage up. I didn't know if that was uh approved and ready to go. Uh that I would ask if you knew >> chair Commissioner Vanoy. Yes, that's actually a good note um because the commission hasn't met in some time. So, one of the things that the retail study went into is this concept of service commercial within our ordinance and how broad that definition is. And so while we require 50% retail or service commercial on the ground floor, service commercial went to just about any use, including some of the financial consultants. Um staff looking back at past approvals and past uh concerns tried to determine where were that had been narrowed down and ultimately conferred with the city attorney to confirm that ultimately what we need is a amendment to ordinance to clarify what we're really seeking on the ground floor of Lake Street. Um so yes, those tenants are moving in. Yes, they are present. Um it I think that is a set issue for now and then moving forward the city will need to determine what we're trying to seek and what synergies we want to try to create along Lake Street. >> That's a good point. Um Planner Head Bloom just pointed out to me that we did in slightly a panicked analysis um determine that they would also be able to meet the 50% commercial because the parcel extends just beyond the or retail. I'm sorry. Thank you. um beyond the 641 section of that building, it extends quite a bit to the east. >> So, they are actually able to meet the 50% retail requirement regardless of the service commercial use. >> Thank you. >> That answer the question. >> Well, it answered a lot of questions. Not the one I was trying to ask. >> There's a uh uh where where Jewel Weed used to be, there's uh signage in terms of something coming in. I just didn't know if we knew what that was and if it's been permitted. >> Parcel is what you're referring to, we believe. >> I don't know. I can't remember. >> Uh, we've approved a use going into that site through signage and initial building permits. >> Okay. >> What kind of business is it? >> It's a coffee shop use. So, they are a um pick up and go primarily order coffee shop. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> Bakery deli. >> Thank you. Is that >> that's all we have? >> Okay. Okay. Wonderful. That brings us to eight adjournment. May I have a motion from a commissioner on adjournment? >> Move to adjourn. >> Thank you. May I have a second? >> Thank you. Any comments? No. All right. And all those in favor? >> I >> I the eyes have it. We are adjourned. Oh my gosh. Okay, so this is what I get.