Let's go. Welcome to the February 9th, 2026 meeting of the Weisetta Planning Commission. I hereby call the meeting to order. My name is Blake Cameron and I'm chair of the uh Weisetta Planning Commission. First on the agenda tonight is the roll call. Um I would like to note that all commissioners are present as well as city attorney Schelzel and uh city director Sharp. Next on the agenda is approval of tonight's agenda. Um, does anyone have any uh changes or com uh questions about the agenda for this evening? >> None. >> All right. Hearing none. May I have a motion to approve the agenda as presented? >> So approved or so moved rather. [laughter] >> Second. >> Let's just go right to it. Right. Let's go right to it. Thank you, Commissioner Van. Thank you, Commissioner Schwabi. Um, further discussion. >> All those in favor? I I >> I >> opposed. >> The eyes have it. Um the motion passes and tonight's agenda is approved. Um next on the agenda um tonight is the approval of the consent agenda. The consent agenda consists of two items which is the meeting minutes from our last meeting on January 26 26th, 2026. Try saying that fast. Um and approval of our planning commission a report and recommendation for approval of the PUD for for Waler Lamborghini at 10:22 and 1024 or 1022 and 1042 sorry Boulevard. Does anybody have any questions or comments or wish to pull an item for further discussion? >> I wish to pull an item. >> Perfect. All right. Which item would you like to pull? >> Um the uh Lamborghini application. Okay. >> I have a couple of comments that I want to make. >> Okay. Before we get to that, then we will pull that for further discussion and move that. >> Okay. >> Um I'm going to insert that um as item five on our agenda. >> Old business. >> Uh no. And old business will become number item number six. So I'm just going to push everything down. So we'll get our meeting minutes approved. Um and then we'll have the discussion on that. >> Okay. >> Unless somebody wants to pull the meeting minutes for discussion, too. >> No. >> No. All right. So, um a motion to approve the meeting minutes for the February January 26th, 2026 meeting. um as presented. >> So moved. >> Perfect. Thank you. >> Second. >> Thank you. >> Further discussion. All those in favor? >> I >> opposed. The eyes have it. The motion passes and the meeting minutes from January 26, 2026 are approved. Um so next on our agenda is the item we pulled for discussion, which is the approve the planning commission report and recommendation of approval for the PUD for Walsher Lamborghini at 10:22 and 10:42. Visa Boulevard. Commissioner Schwabi. >> Thank you. Um I have a couple of concerns. >> Your mic isn't on. >> Pardon me. >> There you go. >> Okay. Thank you. Um I continue to have some concerns about the front of the building. Um I know that there are 25 ft from where the beginning before the building begins on the west side up until the front door. It's actually a bit of space and in that space um about 25 ft um we have a regular sidewalk, a public sidewalk [snorts] and we also have a sidewalk for the Lamborghini dealership. And I just continue to be concerned of how tight everything is from Weisetta Boulevard to the front of that building. um with two sidewalks, very little green. Um and I just don't want us to end up with something that we'll regret later because the building is so large for the space. So, I'm just I'm I just want to comment on that because I do have a concern about other buildings that have been that close that just don't seem to quite fit the space that they're on. So that is just an observation. >> Okay. >> And I have one other one that I just want to make sure I understood. Okay. And that is that uh Lamborghini will take tradeins, but the tradeins will be moved to an offsite location to be sold. I want to make sure that that is the case as opposed to them having any test drives or anything with non Lamborghini cars. So there's not going to be Porsches or anything else that might have come in as a tradein that are then being sold out of that location. Do I have the right understanding of that? >> Chair Cameron, uh, Commissioner, I believe that that is accurate. Uh, this potential sale to a third party may occur, but test drives and I believe if uh the applicant has explained at the public hearings and through their memos that that would occur. uh not to a customer sale but to a third-party service for additional sale at a later date >> and moved off site >> and then removed off site >> but you don't know for sure but can we clarify that before it goes to the city council? >> Yes, we'll ensure that that is clarified and within the staff report as it goes to city council. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Oh, so I guess I can move that we approve that. >> Perfect. With your comments as noted, >> please. Okay. So, uh, so moved. Uh, can I have a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Commissioner Severson. Further discussion. >> All those in favor? >> Chair. >> Yes, sir. >> Briefly. >> Sorry. Yeah, absolutely. Mr. Sharp, >> one note. >> Uh, I do want to uh represent that I misspoke at the prior planning commission. I'd accidentally uh stated that the city council also unanimously acted for approval on this concept application. And it was a 3-2 vote at city council, not a unanimous uh application as I had stated. So do want to make sure that is corrected within the public record as it moves forward for city council review >> for the PUD concept. >> For the PUD concept plan, >> that was the one from June. >> Thank you, city attorney Shzel. Uh correct. That is the PUD concept plan. >> Y >> uh not the current application but that uh you'd be acting on this evening. >> Okay, perfect. So noted. Um questions about that? Anyone comments, commissioners? No. >> Do we need to make a mo move a motion to No. Okay. >> No. >> Add that to the record. >> All right. Um so we have a motion on the table. Um all those in favor >> I opposed. Um the eyes have it and the um planning commission report and recommendation for uh the item from the consent agenda for the report and recommendation for approval uh with Commissioner Schwab's notes um and Director Sharp's message um are uh approved. Um okay. Uh next on the agenda is old business and we don't have any. So, we're just going to go right to the public hearing item, um, which is an application for a subdivision, uh, at 190 Cleon Lake Road and 121 Glee Haven Road, which I believe is, uh, two properties that they're proposing to subdivide into four. Um, so we're going to have, um, a presentation from the city. Um, there'll be an opportunity for, uh, the commissioners to ask questions um, of the, uh, the city's presentation. Then we're going to hear from the applicant. Um there'll be an opportunity to ask questions of the applicant and then we will have a public hearing for members of the public um to uh share their um views, thoughts, perspectives um on what's being proposed for those two properties. Uh so with that, Director Sharp. >> Thank you, Chair Cameron. As stated, uh you kind of took the wind out of my sales on the introduction on this one. This is Glee Haven third edition, a proposed subdivision of 190 Gleon Lake Road and 121 Glee Haven Road. The owner is David uh I don't know how to pronounce it so Heel Hyle and applicant is Lake West Development LLC. As stated the application requested is only for a preliminary plat of a subdivision of the two properties noted. This is the aerial that was included within your presentation. You will note that Gleon Lake Road, also County Road 15, is to the west or north side of these properties. And Glee Haven Road, a single family residential road, is to the south and east side of these properties. For discussion purposes and just to provide a larger context of the entire neighborhood, I did include this zoomed out version which shows all of the entire neighborhood that takes as access off of Glee Haven Road. One thing I would note is that uh 121 uh Glee Haven Road takes access off of Glee Haven Road uh near the intersection of Gleon Lake Road, but then actually the uh southern property takes access directly off County Road 15 or Gleon Lake Road. The properties are guided for low res low low density residential 1 to three units per acre and they are zoned R3 single and two family residential district. As noted there are two parcels as part of this application. Essentially the application seeks to combine them through filinary plat and then subdivide these two parcels into four separate lots. The existing conditions are uh as follows. The southern lot is uh 68 acres and 28,819 ft. And the northern lot is 73 acres or 31,680 ft. To provide the commission and the public with some general context, I did grab some photos from surrounding the neighborhood uh or from the surrounding neighborhood. So uh for example the uh photo on the left side of the screen is taken from immediately east on Gleon uh or Glee Haven Road approximately where the driveway access is. You can see that just on the right side of the photo. And then additionally there's a photo from Gleason uh or from Glee Haven Road uh looking essentially northwestward uh towards the side rear of the home. for 121 Glee Haven Road. We have a similar photo on the lefth hand side as what you saw on Glee Haven uh for the prior property, but then you I've also provided a image of the access off of the county roadway as well. So, you can see that it's uh high points are within the middle of the property and that that access comes directly off of a county road. Part of uh the history of this application is also explaining uh some of the original subdivisions. And so this is the 1956 Glee Haven Plat. Uh you'll notice that it's spelled slightly differently than the Glee Haven Road. They were two different words. So you will note that notation throughout the staff report and through the presentation. In this instance, uh there's an exception that you'll note for the northeast side of the property that was not included within the single uh or within the Glee Haven Plat of eight properties. Those properties were done at a later date. And then you'll see in a few uh in my next slide that lot 8 was subdivided at a later time as well. So going back to that exception, uh that was the Goodwin edition in northeast corner subdivided into two properties previously in 1983. And then in 2013, Glee Haven's second edition was the properties that I noted were lot 8 on the prior plat. The proposed preliminary plat for this project seeks to subdivide the two properties into four lots. Uh these four lots would come with new drainage utility easements around the perimeter and uh would have all of their access now off of Glee Haven versus any being able to access off of the county roadway. I put together this this plan was actually part of the utility or proposed utility plan. But just so that uh the planning commission could see it a little bit more clearly. I took an excerpt from that plan to show that these are hypothetical home configurations. These are not the actual homes that may come forward that would be decided by applicants uh or future homeowners as they bring their projects forward. These were put together for ill illustrative purposes by the applicant to demonstrate code uh compliance and what potential coverages and setbacks and tree coverage might be for the proposed lots. The proposal uh without going through every detail on this slide, the proposal meets the code requirements for the R3 zoning district. So, all four lots are compliant on lot size, lot width, depth coverage, and impervious surface coverage. I would note that this area is within the Shoreland Overlay zoning district, and therefore, there are more restrictive uh requirements. However, what that requirement is is that it allows up to 25% of the lot to be covered in impervious surface coverage. And then between 25 and 35, the maximum allowed in the R3 zone, the applicant must provide storm water mitigation. And they are proposed on several of these lots. As you can see, uh there are several that go up uh around the 35 or around 30% at the maximum uh for some of the smaller lots proposed, principally lot two. Additionally, all future homes would be required to meet all setback requirements or if unable to would need to come in for a variance. However, upon review of the application uh with that illustrative plan, it appears that homes of sufficient size would be able to fit on the lot without any variances required. got a little bit ahead of myself on the shoreland overlay zoning uh requirement on the last table, but this is the further detail that was included in your staff report uh showing that the maximum in the shoreland overlay is 25%. And then uh the proposed lots are seeking uh storm water mitigation for those that exceed that 25% up to the 35% allowed by the R3 zoning district. within the staff report was this table of a lot comparison and analysis. Uh I've highlighted two of the properties just to uh call them out as uh the lots that were subdivided across the street on the eastern side of Glee Haven Road in 2013. So these were the latest subdivision within the uh within this neighborhood. As part of the application, staff did require that the applicant provide a tree inventory and tree mitigation plan uh and tree removal plan. There are a number of trees that uh are proposed to be removed as part of the project. And principally what uh we're wanting to note out of this and you'll note the comments from the city forester are relatively minimal and there are a lot of tables with uh quite a bit of detail. We do want to call out that because the trees are so centralized in what would be lots two and three on this plan, staff has recommended that we bring forward a plan or that the applicant bring forward and they presented one that spreads those trees out amongst all of the properties rather than centralizing them just on two of the lots. Traditionally, the practice has been to require it on the lots of where the trees are being removed. But in this instance, uh so that we don't have all the trees on some lots and then very few on others, we've worked with the applicant to propose a tree plan that would spread them out. You'll notice on the proposal plan, most of the trees are proposed either in the front yards along Glee Haven or along uh kind of road 15 Gleon Road. city engineer uh included eight comments in the staff report. I've summarized them here. For additional detail, I would uh we can refer to the staff report, but I will go through kind of the high level uh comments here. They are grading and earthwork quantities will need to be uh determined when they actually apply for their grading permits or building permits. Uh most likely a land disturbance permit will be required despite a building permit uh because of the grades and preparation of the lot pads. Existing water services right now extend off of uh Gleon and they will require a full disconnection at this time. Uh the applicant is looking at ways to potentially uh work with our utilities department to determine uh the extent of which that may be necessary, but for the time being uh they are requirements of code. New water and sewer services will now need to be obtained off of Glee Haven Road versus the county road. Existing storm water management that is present already must be maintained. When the new homes are proposed, that storm water management that I referred to above the 25% for the shoreland overlay up to 35% must be pro convi provided consistent with that ordinance requirement. City rightofway permits will be required in addition to building permits uh and likely well before building permits as they are doing lot preparation because there are those disconnects onto county roads. County rightaway permits will also be required. And then as noted in those photos previously, there are some steep terrains on these lots. And so this has [clears throat] required bologs in addition to silt fencing to prevent uh potential impacts to neighboring properties while things are under construction. City policy did not require a neighborhood meeting. However, at staff's recommendation, the applicant did hold one. They held it on February 2nd, 2026. They had one uh neighbor or member in attendance uh primarily asking about construction timelines and history of the neighborhood. Attached to the report, there are four public comments. Uh these notably had concerns uh of increased density, tree removal, reduced property values, and neighborhood character that uh the impact to neighborhood character that this development would have. For the specifics of those, I would refer you directly to the uh to their items. These are meant to be a highle summary. When reviewing preliminary plats, the planning commission is asked to consider or shall consider the possible adverse effects of that preliminary plat within code. And over the next two slides are 12 provisions. Uh when you are in your deliberations about this project, I will happily flip to these so that you can see them. There are also uh within your packet there are some additional items in terms of the purpose and other pertinent code sections that are contained towards the end of the report that are also contained within the packet. Uh ultimately what the project must be is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Building pads must preserve sensitive areas such as lakes, streams, wetlands, wildlife, habitat etc. Buildings must be selected and located with respect to the natural topography to minimize filling or grading. Existing stands of significant trees shall be retained. Building pads that result from the subdivision uh shall be sensively sensitively integrated into uh existing trees. The creation of lots shall not adversely impact the scale, pattern or character of the city, its neighborhoods or the commercial areas. The design of the lot, the building pad, and the site layout shall respond and be reflective to the neighborhood character. The subdivision shall not be dissimilar from adjacent lots or lots found in the surrounding neighborhood or commercial area. In this instance, architectural scale, mass, and concentration of materials, and proportion is a little less applicable due to the fact that they aren't proposing uh exact home designs at this time. The design, scale, and massing of the buildings proposed on a lot shall be subject to the architectural guidelines. Again, with single family lots, we do not have full architectural guidelines. The proposed lot layout building pans plans must conform with all of the performance standards. As staff has noted, they do meet all of the requirements of the zoning ordinance for the R3 zoning district. The proposed subdivision or lot combination shall not tend to or actually depreciate values uh of neighboring properties and the proposed subdivision uh shall be accommodated with existing public services primarily related to transportation utility systems. One item of note is staff has s county comment on this application uh because this is adjacent to a county roadway. At this time, staff has not received any substantive comments from Henipin County regarding the application or concerns about the increased traffic or utility comments that they have had uh for their impacts on their roadway. With that, staff uh stands for questions. The actions before the planning commission this evening are to hold the public hearing and to direct staff to prepare uh report and recommendation of approval or denial. Thank you, director Cher. Questions for staff. >> All right. Well, I have a question for you. Um the so you were talking about the sh the shorland over o overlay um piece where their hard cover requirement is 25% versus code at 35%. Right. And I think in the presentation um it said the applicant is going to [sighs] do something with from an underground storm water management. >> Is that what they're what they're proposing? >> Uh Chair Cameron, there's some existing underground storm water management that needs to be uh maintained and then there is additionally storm water mitigation that will be required as part of this project. >> Yep. Um, I would let the applicant explain a little bit further about what they may do and the timing of when that would occur. >> Okay. And that just and that what that then gets them compliant with the requirements for the shoreline overlay. >> Correct. >> Okay. Got it. So, they don't need a variance. >> A variance is not sought and at this time no variance would be required. >> Okay. Um, and then um you you popped it up real quick. the 2013 subdivision. What was the the what were the two lot sizes? You had them highlighted real quick and I was gonna note them and >> uh like sorry I went out of order. >> There we go. So 176 and 133. >> Okay. >> Chair, I have one question. >> Absolutely. >> Your uh director sharp, you mentioned the tree plan. Is that a condition of this or is it actually something that would be submitted or it's agreed upon? >> Chair Cameron, uh, Commissioner Plantin, we could make it a condition. Right now, it was illustrative to demonstrate that they could meet the ordinance. >> Okay. >> The large piece and the emphasis that I was placing was that we would spread those out because that's slightly differing from how we've done with past practice and I want to make sure we're being transparent about doing that. and the reason why staff is recommending it. If the planning commission has additional conditions, suggestions about a tree planting plan, we could certainly add those as conditions as part of our as part of your report and recommendation. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Anyone else? >> Commissioner Van Good. No, you're good. All right. >> Not yet. >> Not yet. All right. Cool. All right. Thank you, Director Sharp. Nice job. Um so uh so then next we're going to invite the applicant to um to come up and give a presentation. And so if you would please step to the podium and introduce yourself with your name and your address um and uh who you're representing. >> Hi, good evening. Thank you for that presentation, Alex. Um my name is Kelsey Thompson. I'm the development director at Lake West Development. We are the applicant here tonight on this. And I'm might be repeating a little bit of what Alex already presented. did you did a great job. Um but I will be brief. So on your screen is the zone just an excerpt from the zoning map um showing the neighborhood where in orange that's zoned R3 um in the sur Thank you. um also in the surrounding area. So those the red uh squares and and shapes, that's where the Lexus um auto body shop is on the corner there. Um and then the brown I think is some uh twin homes or or duplexes. Um and I just stated here that you know the R3 purpose uh of the R3 district is for single family and two family residential district. um is to provide a district for highdensity um single family dwelling units. Uh so you can see the minimums for single family are the 9,000 square foot areas um the width at 60 ft and the depth at 100 and then for two family unit or duplex it would be the 18,000 square foot area and a couple other standards. Um we're also like Alex mentioned we're in the Shorland Overlay District and this low density guidance of 1 to three units per acre. um all of which were meeting or exceeding. So um going to tell you next slide, Alex, but and there is some confusion because I think the one house that's actually accessed off of Leon Lake Road is in fact the address is Glee Haven. So I'm not sure why that is. But um you can see here then that I've highlighted the the two subject properties in um or I'll line them in in red on the zoning map. And then you can see an aerial here from Henipin County. So, these historically have been rental homes. They've been rental homes for I'm not really sure how long exactly. Um, this is at 190 Gleon Lake Road and 121 Glee Haven Road. Um, the overall property area is about 1.4 acres. Um, and historically, I think that there was a plan that was uh explored, a sixlot subdivision plan, um, by the property owners. I don't know if that was ever taken through planning commission and council. Um I think they also explored a five lot plan that predates uh our our involvement with the property. But um we explored here this five lot plan on the left hand side and a four lot plan on the right. Um both of which you can see we put some detail into them. um different pros and cons with these. And I actually went around with both of these plans, including um the six lot plan that was previously contemplated by the by the property owners a while back. Um and I door knocked on all the neighbors doors and some of which are here tonight. Um and I showed them these different plans. We had a brief discussion. It was extremely cold out. It was the holidays, so it was brief, but um we just explored kind of the pros and cons and what what maybe some people had concerns over or some of their feedback and thoughts. Um I think overall out of these plans, the five and the four lot plan, uh there was some people who were maybe a little bit more un undecided, but it seemed like there's more preference for the four lot plan. Um so we felt like that was a better fit for the character of the neighborhood. So, we preferred where we pursue the fourlap plan also with help uh with staff. Um and again, these are the neighbors that I I got to meet with um as I as I went around the neighborhood. Obviously, the two subject properties on the corner, I didn't knock on their doors, but um overall, what I heard from the neighbors was there was some preference for maybe more owner occupied single family over the rentals. I think historically the house on the corner has been rented out as two units. Um there's kind of an apartment there, but I think it's labeled as a single family home within Henipin County. Um so it's really been, you know, used as as two units there. Um there was a preference for single family over the multifamily. Uh of the plan shown, again, I mentioned this already, there was a preference for the fourlot plan over the five. Um there were some concerns by a neighbor for drainage and runoff. um and some of the topography on the site which we took into account and we actually took back to our engineer and had them address that by including a little bit more of a swale along the property line there of the southern property line and also connecting the downspouts then to um drain tile to send that off the runoff off toward Glee Haven and not into a backyard. Um there's also concern so we'll actually be improving the existing conditions that are today for storm water runoff with these plans. Uh and then there's a concern for saving trees. I know that there's some nice trees um along the property line that we will preserve. And then also I think that there was 26 or 27 trees inventoried. One might be in the rightway, but um of those trees, three of them are heritage trees. We are saving all of the heritage trees. And in total, we're removing 10 trees on the total plan. Alex is nodding with me, so I'm making sure I'm getting my facts right. Um, and then in that mitigation plan that we were showing where we'd be planting double, more than double actually, 25 trees. So, it'll improve the landscape. So, here you have the four lot plan that we ended up moving forward with over the five lot plan. Um, this is the same table you saw in the staff report showing the minimum requirements and where we're coming in at at an average of like 153 for our square footage far exceeding that 9,000 foot minimum. Um, and yes, the lot coverage we will be and then previous service will be meeting that requirement. Um, if we exceed the 25%, we just need to make up for that by providing storm water management. So, we'll be treating the storm water. Um, and overall, again, the property area 1.411 acres. We're coming at a density in at 2.8 units per acre. Um, across the street, when we were studying the character of the neighborhood, we looked to the most well, we we looked at the purpose of the R3 zoning district as well as this area. there are some, you know, duplexes, multif family, commercial surrounding this neighborhood, but also within the neighborhood, the R3 purpose. Um, and look to the most recent subdivision across the street. So, you can see again, this is outlined in red, and then you have the aerial from Henipin County. So, this, uh, was the most recent subdivision at 108 and 110 Glee Haven Road. Um, so here's the same, um, table that was from the staff report. I've highlighted both of those 133 and the 176 square footages. So that's a total of just about 3/4 of an acre. So that coming that's coming in at a density of about 2.8 as well. So we're basically coming at the same density. Um and with that I'm happy to answer any questions you might have tonight. Um, in summary, these are very thoughtful, uh, compliant plans. We're asking for no variances. Um, we're meeting most, I mean, all of the requirements for meeting and or exceeding the requirements for the R3 district. Um, meeting the storm water, the landscaping, and the grading requirements. Um, we're improving the health and safety of the neighborhood. We're removing an access off of the county road. um treating storm water, improving the landscape, um both preserving natural resources and and enhancing them. Um fitting within the character of the neighborhood, and if you have any questions, I'm I'm here tonight. >> Cool. Thank you, Kelsey. Uh questions for Kelsey. >> I have a quick question. >> Mr. [clears throat] Doug, >> on the page where you had the uh five home plan and the four home plan uh there I thought I saw either in the commentary or uh in the uh numbers here likely size of homes and I thought in the five home plan it looked like each lot would fit about a 2500 square foot home. Is that is that what I >> on the five lot plan? I don't recall the exact footprint. Um it probably the foot you mean the actual home itself or the footprint? >> Uh the footprint. I thought it said on on that page, but I can't read it here. >> Yeah, it's very small. Um I don't know what the exact footprint of that would be. I would say just scaling it off my head, it would probably be like because we have to still meet the impervious surface coverage. So I would think that that footprint is probably somewhere around 1500 square f feet. Yeah. >> And any idea what the footprint would be likely on the four um >> Yeah. And again those will that you know this is like Alex mentioned they're kind of just placeholders to show that we can meet um code. And so I think that these square footages for these footprints were a little over 1500 square feet. I have a I have a commission a question. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> Um, uh, Director Sharp, if you could go to page 70, uh, this is the past application from 2017. just going to use that as so um if you look at the the the application in 2017 that went in front of the city council much of the points in the uh denial of that application were aligned with the uh the general um uh comprehensive plan as opposed to the code specifically. So I just was wondering if you've if you've got um points around whether the proposed view now uh addresses these points uh specifically the building pads um alteration of the topography. You talked a little bit about the trees uh the size of the lots in compared to the lots of the surrounding neighborhood um uh and uh whatnot. So, I just thought I would give you an opportunity to talk a little bit more about how that uh goes into the comprehensive plan as opposed to just uh the code. >> Definitely. Thank you for that. I appreciate that. The comprehensive plan is a very important document. I know it took a lot of great minds to create that. Um and yes, I would say that most of my presentation was pointing to you know these addressing these issues outlined um in the past application and that the proposed building pads I would I think have a you know enhanced um enhance the neighborhood um and I haven't gone through these like bullet point by bullet point but um you know definitely in character with the neighborhood especially considering the most recent subdivision um you know I think that the one of the lots is about 13,000 square feet and we're far exceeding that as well. Um and I think this past plan had proposed lot size was like 12,000 square ft. So um I think that that's being addressed. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Question for now. Commissioner Schwabby, go ahead. >> Thank you. >> So, given the shape of the lots, four of them fairly equal, um, and they're going to be within the side boundaries. Um, I I'm wondering as they're going to be entered all of them through Glee Haven, are you going to be able to recess those garage doors so that they don't stand out as prominently as they have in the past in other in other construction in Weisetta? >> Sure. We haven't gotten there yet. Um, we haven't started putting together, you know, the design of the homes. Um, so I I can't speak to that quite yet. We just we're just kind of going through the, you know, first step of of getting the the lots, you know, approved. Um, but definitely >> just curious because of how narrow they are, you know, that you could actually do a a garage attached garage. >> Oh, yes. We'll have three. We our plan is to have these are showing three car garages on the plans. >> Okay. And all three garage doors face the street. >> Yeah. We haven't like there could be a potential plan that you know we haven't explored that of like you're talking about sideloaded garages. Yeah, we haven't explored uh footprint of a sideloaded garage. Um so I just can't speak to that. >> Thank you. >> Chair Cameron, Commissioner Schwabby, if I may. >> Absolutely. Uh so in 2025 the city adopted an ordinance for the R3A zoning district requiring that garages have an additional 5- foot setback to specifically address the concern of front-loading garages and that appearance of how that can look on a home. However, this is the R3 zoning district which that amendment did not apply to. So, it was an exploratory review by the city to see how effective that requirement would be. In 2025, to my knowledge, we've received two building permits that would apply for that garage uh setback. Potentially a third uh that hasn't received its building permit yet. Both of those have been able to in the R3A zoning district push that garage 5 foot further back than the home. So, to better explain it perhaps, the home setback is 30 ft. The garage setback is 35 and that specifically pushes that garage slightly further away. This was our first year of 2025 evaluating it. Uh at the time that it was adopted, city council wanted to see how the development functioned, whether that and how that played out with our development. Two to three lots I haven't brought forward uh to city council yet to determine whether they'd like to amend that zoning ordinance to apply to additional districts such as the R3. So something that could be evaluated but not in place currently. >> So did you say that um that did not apply to the R3 area? >> Correct. It applies to R3A, not R3 which these properties are zoned. >> Thank you. >> Question. >> And that's just set back from street, right? Set back from property line. But >> property line. >> Yep. >> Correct. >> Uh Commissioner Severson, >> thank you. Um I I have a question I think both for um Director Sharp and then for the applicant. So are we looking at these are specific lots that they're going to be redrawing or is it just the concept of taking these two lots and making them for? Chair, if I may, this is a preliminary plat application that the planning commission is reviewing. So where the where the commission's responsibility is on a preliminary plat is to review those 12 provisions and then make their recommendation and then city council would ultimately act. That sets up the fi future action of a final plat which would only go forward to city council. So this is not a concept plan in nature. This is a formal action on a subdivision. So the actual action of subdivision occurs through a preliminary plat not through a final plat. Okay. So, so [clears throat] we're not determining what the lot lines are going to be. We're just determining whether or not going from two to four is reasonable. You're shaking your head now. >> No. >> Um, chair, commissioner, sorry to break in here, but since you're catching my no. Um, no, this is an actual plat of a subdivision. So, these are the actual lines for these four properties. So, it's like Director Sharp said, it's not conceptual, oh, going from four to two. It's this particular >> Yes, exactly. >> flat. Right. And for clarity on that, really what we're talking about is the thick black lines that are on this, right? Everything else is illustrative in terms of it looks like they've got setbacks. >> Yeah. I mean, it's difficult to determine. Yeah. This is a better illustration >> of the the four lots. Um some of the lines like representing setbacks are also very true, if you will. Uh but this doesn't have the footprint because that footprint building pad could move around and as long as it's within the setbacks and and as director sharp and the applicant have said those homes that we saw depicted in an earlier slider for illustrative purposes. >> Right. Okay. And so then if they once they have the um the the lines are drawn and then they sell the plats they come back to us only if a variance is going to be needed for those particular homes. Right. >> Correct. Okay. The applicant would need building permits to build the property. Those would be reviewed by our building official and staff. If no variances or other adjustments are needed or further entitlements, then then they would proceed with building. >> Thank you. >> Now I have questions for you. >> One other brief note, chair, uh on this, the setbacks are present, the property lines are present. Those are the solid black lines. The setbacks are the dashed uh red and blue lines. And then there's dash black lines that are the new drainage utility easements that are a standard condition around each new lot. >> Got it. Okay. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Director Sharp. Um, Commissioner Stevenson, has a question for the applicant. >> Yes. Okay. So, I'm curious. Um, it looks like today there is a driveway that goes out onto Gleon Lake Road. I'm curious why you went with four very skinny, long, narrow lots versus breaking them in half differently and having them go opposite two to Glee Haven and two to Gleason Lake. want to maybe explain how you got to these these lot sizes here? >> Yeah, that's a great question. Um, I think having access out to the county road, I mean, I've if you've haven't had a chance to drive by yet, it just isn't a it's um it's a quick turnoff into the neighborhood, I think it just makes a much better um, you know, livable area to have access off of a culde-sac and feel more a part of the neighborhood. It's a great neighborhood with great neighbors. Um, and so these this lot layout just felt like it was a better um better and fit with the character of the neighborhood and and just having all the driveways be access off of Glee Haven, which just seemed much safer for the neighborhood as well and for this these um residents, future residents. >> Okay. And just to piggyback off of um I think a variance was brought up and if I could uh just address one of your former questions, I do have this now in front of me, the staff report, so it's a little bit bigger for my eyes to see those different points that you were referencing earlier. I do think, and Alex, correct me if I'm wrong, I think that that application that was denied did come forth with variances. Um do you recall? Uh, chair um Kelsey, I'm not familiar with whether that came forward with an with variances or not. I believe that the um application didn't include a comprehensive plan amendment. It was just for a preliminary plot. >> Sure. So, I do think there were some maybe some variances involved with that former application as well. Um, which we've addressed all these points. I have some checked boxes by them and I can confidently say that we have addressed all these items on the previous application. Um >> well chair and uh just to address one thing uh about the variances there I think the denial was based on the same criteria that you're looking at now though there might have been variances I don't recall either but that those would have been weighed under separate criteria. So the previous proposal for the subdivision was denied based on these same 12 factors >> the 12 the 12 points that Alex had up earlier. >> Okay. and chair. One other note to Commissioner Severson's question on access to county roadways uh for driveways. Our code expressly uh discourages if not prohibits additional driveway accesses onto county roadways. Um I anticipated that if we had received an application onto a county roadway, we would have received uh comments from Henipin County specifically discouraging additional driveways onto a county roadway. So, we didn't receive that comment because that's not what was submitted. However, it would have been an anticipated item from staff. >> Got it. And then, um, what is the plan for once if this does move forward selling the home the lots? Are you planning on building the homes and then selling them? Are you are these going to be um custom build? What's the plan if this gets approved? >> Yeah, right now we are going through the approval process. We have not selected which builder we'd be partnering partnering with, but we'll definitely be partnering with a builder um for, you know, whether they bring in their own client. Um but yes, customuilt homes >> and you'll oversee the process of building these four homes. >> Uh it could it could go that route. Um like you mean as the developer, we would be subcontracting. You mean could go either way. I'm not sure. >> Okay. our desire and it would likely be that one builder would be building all four homes. >> Commissioner Schwabi >> um >> who's your question for the applicant? >> Yes. >> For the applicant. Yes. Thank you. Um, you know, there is another development not that far from where you're going to be at, uh, if this goes through called Waycliffe, and these are mostly twin homes that are beautiful. They're expensive. Um, and I just wondered if you ever gave any consideration to two twin homes as opposed to four separate homes. >> Thank you for that. I appreciate that. I'll definitely look at that um development, but we did consider twin homes. Um and I think it'd be a nice spot for that. It's it I think that there could be an argument to say that that's also in character with the neighborhood, especially given that there are some twin homes. Um like if you refer back to that zoning map where the brown was um just nearby adjacent to this neighborhood. Um but we felt that uh just the existing neighborhood being all single family. Um can maybe make an argument that the corner house is, you know, has has two, you know, they rented out as two separate units, but um we thought that the single family would maybe go over well with the already established neighborhood as mostly single family within the culde-sac. >> Okay. Thank you, >> chair. I have a question for staff. >> Yes, Commissioner Plan. Um, Director Sharper, I should have asked this um previously, so I'm sorry. Um, do you have the width of the lots as they were changed in 2014? So, would it be lot like you know that block one that changed across the street? Yes. Do you have Okay. 90 and 79. Okay. Thank you. See what wanted to see how it related to the proposed lots. Anyone else? >> Chair, if I may, uh, based on the definition of where lot width is taken from, uh, you're grabbing from the rear right now off the figures that you'd noted, um, it would be taken at the setback line from the front. >> Oh, >> so 30 ft back from the front property line. >> Okay. So 62 plus 60.99 for lot two and presumably around that 123 for lot one. >> Thank you. >> So I' I've I've just got a follow-up question. >> Yeah, absolutely. Commissioner Venley. >> So, as I look through uh your proposal, uh I believe it's the third lot is uh the most concerning in terms of uh in terms of uh topography and and how and the amount of of grading and uh uh uh cutting that might need to be done just because it's such a peak. Um, and I think that if I if if uh I remember as well, that's the one that has the greatest impact from a tree removal standpoint. Uh, I think that's the same one. So, I was just wondering if you have any comments in terms of of uh the significance of that topography and how it might uh how you looked at it as you're determined where the the lot lines were going to be. >> Yeah, I appreciate that. Great question. Um, so I'm not an engineer. I apologize. >> [laughter] >> Sometimes I pretend to be one. But um lot three, I know that we have submitted plans. There's a two-foot average for cut and fill for each of the lot that we need to meet as a requirement for the grading. And I know we meet that on all four lots. So we're able to demonstrate, you know, that we will not be exceeding a twoft um cut and fill average for that lot, including lot three. Um, so I don't I don't um you know I I'd assume that the trees you know are were that has the most amount of trees along the property line between two and three because of the way that the current houses exist. That's you know screening for those um for those properties. But, uh, we definitely took all of that into consideration and, you know, um, the removal of of of of 10 trees, um, I think, you know, is, uh, I think it's a reasonable use of of the property. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Anyone else? All right. Thank you, Kelsey. really appreciate it. >> Thank you so much. >> Um so now um so I'd like to turn us to the public hearing portion of our meeting. Um so the public the public hearing is really time for um members of the public to come forward um or online um and share their thoughts um on the proposed development of proposed changes here. Um, so if you'd like to speak, um, please come forward to the podium. Um, state your name and address for the record and let us know if you're connected to the applicant or anyone else in any in any way. Um, so with that said, um, I will now open public hearing, please. Absolutely. Hello, my name is Kathy Dascupta. That's D A S G U PTA. The owner of 110 Glee Haven Road, which is the home uh the lot that's been discussed quite a bit. It's the 13,000 square foot lot. Um, full disclosure, we're selling our home. And so you might ask, why would I care then? Because we're actually leaving. We're moving to South Carolina. But I do care because I really care about our neighbors and I really care about our little street and it's been a wonderful home for us. So that's why I chose to attend this evening even though we're making our way to another part of the country. Uh, a couple of notes that I took uh, regarding the neighborhood meeting. I received the letter about the neighborhood meeting the day of the meeting. That is the day it appeared in my mailbox. So, there was no chance to come to that meeting. I opened my mail at 5:45 that night and the meeting was at 6:15. So, that's why I wasn't here that evening. Um, I was looking at the criteria for approving a plat. Uh, a couple of points. Uh, 6 and2 are the two that I want to refer to. Point six is regarding character and architecture. Um it's been mentioned that the homes will have threecar garages. So that tells me some thought has already been put into these homes and what their eventual design will be. I'm currently building a home in a large subdivision in South Carolina. So I'm pretty familiar with how subdivisions work and how there are requirements about elevations and colors and and and to keep some variety. But if these homes already are determined to have threecar garages, all four of them, um, that's concerning to me because that indicates to me that these are going to be very similar homes and architecturally likely very similar. That's a concern for Glee Haven Road because all of our homes are different. We have an extraordinary contemporary home. We have my home that is a craftsman style. The house that is next to me is an authentic and restored mid-century modern. Um, our homes are really unique and that is part of the character of our neighborhood and why I bought my home in that neighborhood because I loved that everything was different and of [clears throat] course all of our beautiful trees. So, I do have concerns about it affecting the character and the architecture of uh and the the feel of our little tiny dead end culde-sac. Um, point 12 was about depreciating the value. I can speak to the real time impact of depreciating the value of my home. When we met with our realtor, um, he quoted a price of $1.495 million for my home. That is what we were going to put it on the market for. We then had a broker open house only for the brokers from his particular agency that is Coldwell Banker. We had about 20 brokers come through. Most of them mentioned what's going on on the corner. There's a big sign there about a pro proposed development and uh I had told my realtor Scott Stebec. I had told him what was going on. I had told them that I had spoken to the developer because she did come to our door and I was one of the persons who's one of the people who said, "Oh my gosh, don't put more than four. I mean, how many houses are you going to cram in there?" Um, so I discussed it with my realtor. I told him I was coming to this uh meeting tonight. He said, "Please keep me a breast of this." It was a concern of the uh other brokers who came through from Coldwell Banker. And in the end, my house was listed for 1.395 million. So, I've lost $100,000 in value um just after seeing that sign go up. So, that is an actual real dollar impact that I can tell you happened this week. Um traffic congestion. If four houses are going to go in there, that is, I would estimate 8 to 12 cars because we're talking about threecar garages. So, I think 8 to 12 is a reasonable number. That's going to add 8 to 12 cars dumping onto Glee Haven Road. I don't know how many of you folks have been on Glee Haven Road, but it's a little tiny road. And those cars are going to be dumping out onto Glee Haven, very close to the intersection with Gleon Lake. Right there is where the children get on the bus. I don't have children in the schools. My children are grown and married and gone, but I do see because I sit in my front room and I see the kids go and wait for the bus in the morning. Um, so I have concerns about safety issues for the children in the neighborhood who wait for the bus there. Um, the increase in traffic of 8 to 12 cars on rush hour dumping out right into the corner of our road. And also I'm we had a meeting this summer at the end of our road with the county because they are redoing that part of Gleon Lake. They have they started way down at the other end and they they're moving their way towards Weisetta. They told us they're looking at, you know, um uh the intersection uh the the exit ramp from 12. It's it it that's quite a dicey exit ramp. We've had accidents there, people like flying off of it. Um, so it's really close to there. The county is taking that into consideration. They're also taking into consideration we have kind of a hump. So when you're coming out of Glee Haven and you look left, the sighteline is not fantastic. I know they're looking at doing the sidewalks. That's unrelated. I'm just really happy that they're going to do that. But that's a pretty big increase in traffic and traffic patterns on that road. And I don't know if the county has taken into consideration four more houses right in that corner right where they're going to be redoing the road. So I think that's a further consideration. So just in summary, I would take issue with both um points number six and number 12 in approving a plat. And also I have traffic concerns. And like I said, I'm leaving. We're moving. But I care very deeply about my neighbors and the warm welcome we've had there. We've loved living in Weisetta. It's been fantastic. Um, and I would hate to see the character of that street change. Um, oh, and also in terms of sizes of homes, I realize I have a very small lot, 13,000, but make most no mistake, it is a significant home. It's 5200 square ft. Um, it's pretty high value. And if you put four identical homes across the street from me because my front room, I see the current two family house, which by the way is stunningly beautiful when it snows. It's a great view. Um, you're going to further depreciate the value of these homes. I've already experienced that and I would really hate for it to happen to my neighbors if they need to move, too. >> So, thank you very much. I appreciate your time. >> Thank you, Kathy. Good evening. Ryan Schultz, live at 108 Glee Haven Road. Um, not reiterate a lot of the points. I submitted my most my issues with the plan uh by email. Just a couple notes that probably have not been mentioned. First, the 2013 variance that ended up being the the lot that we bought and and built our home on that. There was a one ho oop, sorry, one house on that lot. That house also was a meth house that had to be torn down and could not be remediated. So, there was already a reason to do something with the lot, whether it was split in two or one, but there was that house had to be torn down. That's not the case here. These houses are fine as far as I'm far as I'm aware. The other is the Glee Haven Road. You can see it on the maps. You know, it's got a curvature and so even just like parking in general on that street is really difficult. And now you're going to add four homes, people are going to have friends, family over for the holidays. that that road is not very I'm sure it's code per width but because of the curvature it really does impact your ability even just to get around that there are cars parked on the street so if you add four homes four more families four more Thanksgivings it traffic just to even get around there is hard I do have kids in in the school sixth and eighth grade while I would like you know the idea of them having more people in potentially other kids in the neighborhood great this is too much for me. Um I do worry if my kids do take the bus and and walk down that street and additional traffic uh with the addition with more homes would be a concern as they continue to uh go to the Weisetta schools. Uh and then the last point that I would just make is in the 2013 variance I have two points sorry. So in the 2013 variance that one was not opposed by any of the neighbors. our builder had gone around gotten approval from all the neighbors for that that subdivision of the lot and went forward with it. This is now the second time as Commissioner Vanly noted that this something similar has been proposed both times has come with some objections by the neighborhood. I think it's ind indicative of what the neighbors think of of such a division in that um I forgot my last point. So I'll just end on that. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ryan. >> Hi, Michelle Schultz, 108 Glehaven Road. So, Ryan is my husband and I have a few other points I'd like to make as well that are important to me in looking at this subdivision. I also submitted my comments via email, so um I won't go through all of them, but to um layer on what Kathy and Ryan have already said, again, we were out of town for this shortly convened um neighborhood meetings. We were not able to attend. Um, another piece of this in talking about the topography of the land, um, Commissioner Van Loy, you mentioned, um, I think lot three, but but probably three and I don't it's four or two on the other side, but from our vantage point on Gleven Glee Haven Road looking out towards Gleon Lake Road where the one house on the corner is right there and the other home is hard for us to see the the hill and the trees that that that view the hill in the trees really um block noise and view from our home and from Kathy's and other neighbors as well to the um fairly busy county road on 15. So if there's four houses and and a lot of topographies um I would imagine have to be leveled, we're now likely going to see straight onto 15 where we had trees and and and and grass that we see now. And so noise and um in in view is a concern to me. In addition to the four additional um homes, we've had kids go through all the school district and we're still taking the bus. Um and you know, my son and daughter wait on the corner and it's it it can be kind of dangerous coming around the uh the curve of the road. In addition, I want to um address the rental property um issue. So Ryan and I have um been at our house since May of 15, so almost 11 years. Um those were owner occupied homes until I think about about COVID time 2020. So um they have not been rental for long. Um the small apartment there's often turnover there. We haven't seen any. We've had no issues. And there have been longer standing renters in the corner home. And I don't really have any access to the one that is I'm bad with directions northeast further with the one with the um access from County Road 15, but it's um we had no issues with with the renters. And as I pointed in my in my email, these homes could be sold to be owner occupied as well. Um but I I don't think the fact that these are currently rental properties, that's just what the current owner has chosen to do. um should be a consideration in in whether to subdivide or not. Someone could buy these subdivided houses and rent them as well. There's nothing to prevent that. Um I think those are the points I wanted to make in addition to what others said and what I stated in my email. Thank you. >> Thank you, Michelle. Good evening folks. Dan Poss uh 133 Glee Haven Road and uh I'm here to try to better understand what the commission does at different communities and you know our neighborhood. I don't know if has anybody driven show of hands through the neighborhood of the block. Nice to see. Appreciate it. You can kind of tell it's a little unique in that that culde-sac is about six acres out of all those homes and that in in the beginning it was 10 homes before the last two folks came up in that subdivision but it was uh six acres amongst 10 homes and so that's 6 of an acre on average you take those 10 homes my math was correct and so now we're talking and so that's about 27,000 square feet I'm rounding up of course for easy math and you're and I I hear different things as to what an R3 single family and two family residential area is 9,000 square feet you can go down to if it makes if it meets certain criteria um so we have an area where the average is 6 of an acre 27,000 square ft how did it get to be an R3 and in this area the packet from the developer says high density single single family dwelling units. So if I take 6 acres, that could be 30 homes could go in that area when it was 10 before 2013 or whatever that first subdivision was. I'm just trying to understand how did it get to this point. For over half a century, the block has been 6 of an acre, 27,000 square feet roughly. And through whatever reasons, now we're talking about it could be 30 homes on this block. Does anybody know why it's zoned the way that it is? I think that history is important. If you lived there, I've been there 26 going on 27 years now. Um, and I'm wondering why is a city allowing this because it doesn't fit into a certain size or a certain zone I should say versus for its size. Well, I think we can all agree in a residential acre that 6 acres average for the 10 homes is kind of unique. And somehow the city of Weisetta planning people could allow 30 homes in there. What am I missing? Show of hands if I'm missing something. Staff, somebody. How did it get to that point? Precedence for over half a century has been 6 acre. And then so now because we opened up the Pandora's box with 108 and 110. Sorry folks, but hope you understand what I'm saying. We're all saying the same thing. Why such a drastic change? No one can answer that question from the city. So as somebody that's been there 26 years also we, you know, everything fits code. You know, code this and code that and R3 and low density and high density. I'm hearing both seems really mixed up. The other thing that we don't look at, we're we look at this even this conversation today is everything's two-dimensional. There's three-dimensional. This whole 10 home area, 6 acres was ramblers. Pretty simple onelevel ramblers. Well, I see what's going to happen. is going to get ravaged into what I've been seeing in Yisetta because no one's stopping and looking what the precedence was. Not preced pre president doesn't rule but it should matter I think for folks that have lived here for quite some time and we have transient politicians coming and going you know like a cup of coffee. Well, we're here for a while and I just want to understand how it gets to this point after this many years. No one can answer that. I would like an answer for the folks that we hired to represent us. Anybody have any answers or know? Anybody have any idea what it is? Why it's our three high density, low density? We're hearing two things tonight. We all heard that. Just doesn't make any and I just want to understand where I live and why why it's that way. So I I was talking about two-dimensional. The other thing is again ramblers. I am at 133. If everybody can see the uh a home that's adjacent between my house high point, I think the high point to the property next to me, it's six feet difference in height. It's pretty significant when you start developing now a two-story home. you know, the the term mansion next to you because we're trying to fit more square footage on a smaller print. I have a feeling that's probably what's going to happen. So, you know, we we opened it up to in 2013, I believe it was, to subdivide that one parcel into two. So, now I guess the whole area is going to be that. Hopefully this doesn't turn out to be I'm making an exaggeration to make a point to how it's zoned, but 30 homes in that area is ridiculous. Could be that though under the rules. So, I hope you keep that into consideration. Um, a lot of us folks have lived there a long time. We appreciated the uniqueness of the neighborhood. Even the newer folks that live there appreciate it. And uh I I would like at some point somebody to tell me why it's R3 high density. Thank you. >> Thank you, Dan. >> Hi, I'm Doug Weston. I live at 106 Flee Haven along with my wife Harlson. We're relative newcomers. We've been there 16 years. We got the largest lot right now on the street. Uh the reason we bought there was because we loved the lot. We loved the neighborhood. Loved everything about it. And everything that was been said before was true. We loved all the uh differentiation and all the housing. Uh our house is a split level and it's tucked into our lot and we have a beautiful southern space to go ahead and grow vegetables and we're always out there good part of the summer and spring and fall just hoofing around the yard. We took 64 loads of uh buckthorn out in my F250 and uh that was the first two summers we were there. Love doing it. And what I'm trying to say is we're there because of the character of the neighborhood. Everything about it we love. So, I've been hearing all the talk about storm water management and I can tell you that my wife and I uh George and Mary Norren who aren't here who live uh at 100 Glee Haven, we would have some concerns about what we're seeing about storm water management because from our perspective, all the water is coming down from the hill which is south to north and then it's draining into our drainage ditch on our property. It's going underneath the culvert of our driveway and then it's meandering through George's property uh on the north side of us. He hasn't been happy about it for years. Uh as far as how the water flows through, it's like a river nowadays. Every summer and spring when it really starts to rain, the water gushes down. It hits the rain garden that got put in several years back and then it's like a river backing up and actually the sediment through the years has raised the level on the northern end of our property so that the culvert now sits literally pretty much below the sediment on the north side. So the water comes through and there's like a natural dam right now. The water is not clear flowing. So, you're going to have some water issues continuing just the way things are. And if you actually go ahead and do away with a lot of the uh seepage that can go occur on that open ground, it's only going to get worse. I mean, that's a huge concern for us right now and I'm sure it be for George and Mary, too. Uh they're not happy with this Ben. George has pretty much thrown up his hands over it. I can't speak for him because he's not here, but every conversation I've ever had with him about the [clears throat] water drainage issue, it's been ongoing throughout the entire time he's been there. And I think he's been there probably since 83 or 84. And again, I think more than anything else, the character of the narhood, the character of the neighborhood would change dramatically if you allow four more houses to go in directly across the street. The reason the six home development got shot down was because of a character issue. They wanted to dramatically change the character of the neighborhood by increasing the density to way more than what currently exists on the street. That's why the six house project got shot down. City council at the pro at that point agreed with us. I'm hoping you'll do the same thing again. Thank you. >> Thank you, Dan. Dr. Sharp, do we have anybody online with comments? >> Chair, there is nobody at this time. >> Thank you. Anyone else? All right, I'm going to close public hearing. Uh, thank you members of the public for your um thoughtful commentary um and experience. [clears throat] Um question for staff um that was brought up um just during the public hearing um find my notes. Sorry, too many pieces of paper up here. Um Mr. Pos um had a question about R3 um density and he referenced high and low and my understanding is that R3 there is no high or low. It's just guided at 1 to three units per acre. Is that correct? So chair where the difference in this is coming in is guiding versus zoning. >> Okay. So the guiding for the property is specifically when the guiding of low density [clears throat and cough] let me go back to that slide. The guiding sets the zoning. So the way that comprehensive guide guiding works within the city and all cities is the city sets uh different guides that then set the maximum densities that are allowed within those zones. They are the overarching rules that allow up to three units per acre. Within that, the city may select a numerous different zoning districts that then must reflect that guiding. So it could be R3, it could be R3A and they may allow for smaller lots. Those could then go into central core residential as much of R3 and R3A does. However, that overarching three units per acre limits that potential zoning when if they were to be subdivided at a future date. So both do apply. The zoning district is the more nuanced and detailed version that reflects the on the ground of what a comprehensive guiding does. >> Okay. >> So, the minimum lot sizes uh of a specific size would hold for that zone, but only so long as they are still compliant with the guiding of that zone. The purpose of the R3 zoning district is stated to have a high density of single family dwelling units. However, that is high density within the context of Weisetta and still must meet the overall guiding of 1 to three units per acre. Does that help address the question or can I help further clarify? >> It does. So, just to put a finer point on it just kind of mathing off of what I heard from Mr. Pos. Right. So, if I if I take that, he said there's just forget there's property lines anywhere in there right now. It's guided it's guided at low density residential 1 to three units per acres. It's six acres. So it would be guided for 6 to 18 houses on that 6 acre parcel in total. >> Correct. Or I believe 10 acres was used again. That would be that. >> Okay. >> 10 to 30. >> Yep. Got it. >> 10 acres. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> All right. I understand. Thank you. Anyone else questions for staff or the applicants before we have some discussion? Well, I would like to ask the applicant uh about the last minute notice to the neighbors. I think maybe you got off on the wrong foot with them. >> Thank you, Chair, and thank you, um, Commissioner Schwelby. Uh, yes, I do apologize about that. Um, and I wanted to come back up here to speak to that because, um, as as um, Mr. Sharp noted a neighborhood meeting was not required. Um I did you know so that's why I went around to the neighbors and knocked on all of your doors and I apologize I miss some of you. Of course um I tried a couple different states and then it was later um recommended from staff that we um you know they said you don't have to hold one but if you'd like to we recommend hosting a neighborhood meeting um that there's a process to that. I had to check you know city hall when there was an opening here. I couldn't get in Tuesday because of the caucus. Anyway, so it ended up being Monday. I got the mailers in the I got the notices in the mail as soon as I could um on that Thursday. I you know asked the the couple that came, Mr. and Mrs. Pos, they said they got it I think on Saturday. So I do apologize for the short notice. I had short notice. Um and I really wish I could have had you all here because I got a babysitter for that to be there and I you know it would have been more productive to have everybody here. So that was not an intentional um you know mishap by any means. Um, and I just want to mention I I I hear everyone's concerns and I appreciate you all caring so much about this neighborhood. Um, and I heard a lot of um, you know, four new lots are coming in here. It's really it's just two more. There's already two existing homes here, so it'll just be two additional homes. Um, and the threecar garage comment, you know, we were just showing that on the on the plan that it's possible to do a three-car garage. That is not the, you know, end all be all like every, you know, home that it does look cookie cutter when you look at that footprint, but that is just showing just shapes to show that, you know, how we can calculate from an engineering perspective. Um, these homes will be custom. They will be beautiful. You'll love these neighbors. You'll have other kids to hopefully play with in the neighborhood. Um, you know, more people to to help out with the bus stop and and and that. So, you know, I I really hope that this is a celebrated um development and and and uh you know, a welcoming neighborhood to future um future residents here. Um and you know, there will be park dedication fees. Some other just benefits to this project is that there will be park dedication fees that will be, you know, going to the city for the two additional um homes here. Um, and the only reason I I mentioned rentals was just that was kind of some of the language I was hearing just from, you know, I was just recapping what I heard from from the neighbors when when um communicating when I was when I was door knocking. Um, and and yeah, and about the zoning, we've we've talked about this for for a while, and you know, I think that R3 zoning came into effect. I don't know when it was in the um Mr. Sharp was it in the 70s or 80s or something like it was resoned as R3 or >> Cameron uh to address the comment staff research finds that in 1971 the properties were zoned R2 in 1980 they were zoned R3. uh it's unclear at what date during that time frame they may have been reszoned if that was separate from a comprehensive plan or when that uh exact action may have taken place. >> So it's been a while >> at least since 1980 potentially sometime before that as well. >> Okay. >> And just to address further um Chair Cameron that concern you know and I hear the principle of of where Mr. possesses going with that. But I I think that even like the lots they are today, I don't think you could sub like a lot of them are not subdividable because they just wouldn't meet the criteria um for like lot width and depth and other criteria to be able to squeeze out that many homes. But that's all. Thank you so much. Um does anyone else have any other questions? And we will look into the drainage. Not sure what your issue is with the drainage, but we can definitely look into that with our engineer and potentially meet up on that and see what if there's something that we could do to to address that. >> Sure. >> Yeah. >> We can't have >> Yeah. No, that's fine. Um conversation. >> Yeah. I think we'll take this offline. Um I think that's we'll let you deal with the the land owner on that. Um is that fair? Yes, we we can communicate chair offline. >> Okay, thank you. >> Um, cool. Anybody else questions for the applicant? Questions for staff? Kelsey, thank you again. >> Thank you. >> Thoughts? >> Well, I have a first thought. I may have more later. >> All right, Commissioner Schwabi. >> One of the >> Can you turn on your mic? I'm sorry. >> It's on. >> It's on. >> It is. Okay. Okay. >> We'll just put we'll push a closer door. >> Yeah. Thank you. Usually I talk so loud they tell me to be quiet. >> Um well, I just want to talk about the the couple times I drove through the neighborhood. Um, I have to say that if I were going to pick out a couple of homes that were probably rentals, it would have been these two. Um, I don't know how old they are. I don't know what they're like on the inside, but from a maintenance point of view, they look like they're not carefully taken care of. So, I did have that sense that better buildings might go in there just fine. Um, in that these two particular buildings were not wellmaintained. Um, I noticed it's a beautiful neighborhood. I liked all of it really except those two. Um, and in my opinion, I thought that building something new there would be a definite benefit to the neighborhood, that it would look more beautiful as long as we could maintain the trees and the brightness. Um, and and like Kelsey said, it is it is two new homes. It's not four, it's two new homes. um which which is far less than 15 cars a day. Um but I at this point I just wanted to say I thought that it would be an advantage to the community as a whole to have new construction there. And I understand about the building across the way thinking that there was even less than what she thought was going to be offered for her house if it went on the market. But sometimes um and it's happened to me that one guy comes in and says, "Oh, I think we can do this." And then they have an open house and everybody comes and it's a little less than you thought. So, that's my thoughts at the moment, but I'm going to continue to think about it as I listen to what other people have to say. >> Thank you, Commissioner Schwabi. Commissioner Aneny, >> I uh drove through the neighborhood several times as well, and I did think the two existing homes looked dated and maybe not in character with the rest of the neighborhood um as far as maintenance and taking care of them. And I also felt it might be uh better for the neighbor to to have two new homes there or four take care of the old ones. And if you do the you know the square footage of the existing homes on 110 and 108 155 and then you say they're 4500 which again they have to be they have to pull permits to build. though they're saying they can be 3,800 to 4,700, but we'll see what size there when they uh apply for a building permit. They're on they're within their uh right right of way and size. I think they will look to scale in the neighborhood. So, my first thought is this could be an improvement in the neighborhood. Thank you, Commissioner Anthony. >> I've got comments. >> Yeah, Commissioner El. [clears throat] Alex, can you put up the second set of criteria? Sorry. Go ahead. >> I appreciate >> Or did you need the first first set? >> Um, yeah. No, this is fine. >> Okay. >> I would just uh appreciate those comments and um I have mixed feelings. Of course, I live on a street that is almost identical to this situation. I'm at a c It's not a It's a little turnaround at the end. There are nine homes on it and uh there's a lot that's been vacant for I don't know 30 or 40 years probably since 12 was redone. And um it has finally sold and a developer is coming in and of course they weren't seeking any variances of any kind. So now a home is coming in that's going to be a two-story with a fourcar garage which will be completely out of character with my street. Um so I'm sympathetic. Uh at the same time I look at it as uh it's probably going to decrease some of the noise from Highway 12, which I suspect these homes would do as well. Um probably far better than the trees even. Um, and I too thought, "Wow, these are not very attractive homes." And uh, we've seen what our developers do in this community. It's highly speculative and highly unlikely that they would be four identical homes with threecar garages in the front. Um, I it's more likely they'll be very unique customuilt homes. Um so you know it meets the comprehensive plan. I mean there are a few things that we could say um yeah it they may not be in character. They may be two twostory homes with three car twocar garages. Um they might be one-story homes with two we don't know. Um, but beautiful new homes are a lot better than two ugly homes. [laughter] >> Thank you, Commissioner Al. >> I'll give you a couple of thoughts. First of all, uh, the fact that these are rentals, um, I don't think should be part of our, uh, thought process at all. Um I I would hate to think that uh that people would think, oh well, if I buy a house and and and quit taking care of it, may maybe somebody will think about uh how that should be impacting the neighborhood. I uh if it gets to the point where it's um uh where it's concerning, hopefully uh we'd find a way to put some pressure onto the to the homeowner in order to make that that case. Um, I too have have uh some split split feelings here. I I think that um four the four homes on this uh uh track of land um is knocking on the door of the smallest lot, the oneoff lot in the neighborhood. I'm not sure why in the uh in the time frame that the one uh lot got pulled off. Uh but if you look um there a couple there they're a couple uh thousand uh square feet less than the vast major than the median ones and significantly less than the rest of the houses uh in that neighborhood. Uh I'm not sure uh how the move from R2 to R3 happened. Um but uh based on the size of those those lots um I think that these lots are not necessarily in character uh with with the rest of the neighborhood. Um have having said that uh um change is hard uh and I'm not sure that the change uh would necessarily be bad, but I but I do think that uh the lot sizes are significantly um different than the vast majority of the lots that are in that in that neighborhood. >> Thank you, Commissioner Vanoy. I've got a few random thoughts of my own, so I'll share them here. Um, I think um I think much like Commissioner Vanl, Commissioner Ain, right? I I I come down kind of in a kind of an in between spot here, right? So, um I live I I live in a actually a similar neighborhood and we had a um a lot that was subdivided um about eight years ago. Um it was a whole neighborhood of houses that were built in the 50s, all ramblers. Um and um the result was two larger homes that were like basically looked like garages, right? When you look at them from the street because they took because they had to be so narrow and everybody that wants any kind of house anymore wants threecar garage, right? Whether that's just sort of the deacto standard. So, um, you know, when I think about like a 75 foot wide lot, right? I think, you know, if you got 75 ft of width on your on your lot, a a three-car garage is going to be somewhere between 35 and 40 feet of that in width, right? So, that's half of the street frontage is a garage, unless [snorts] you somehow get creative and go double deep or something like that, right? And and of course, right, that's not um really, I think, ours to choose because we're really talking here about about the land use. But when I think about, can you go to the previous previous one? When I think about point five here, um on the creation of the lot shall not adversely impact the scale pattern or character of the city, its neighborhoods, and I would specifically call that to be this neighborhood, right? If you put four car four houses next to each other, bing bing bing, and over 50% of the frontage of those houses is garages, I think that's an issue, right? Because that is very out of character with this neighborhood. [snorts] Um I've driven through that neighborhood twice. I actually today um I went and walked the neighborhood, right, to get a different perspective. So neighbors, if you were there, if you saw a guy in a bright yellow jacket with a dog you didn't recognize, that was me. Um u I just I brought my dog because I was like we'll go check something something new out. But you get a different view I think when you walk it versus drive it, right? Um and I what I was struck by was um number one like the houses all the houses in this neighborhood have big front yards which is kind of cool, right? There's a lot of grass between the street and the houses. And then there's also other than the two houses on the end of the culde-sac um whoever's houses those are cuz they're kind of like stuck together, right? But there's also a lot of separation between the houses. Um, which I think we lose with what what's being proposed here. So, um, I in that regard, right, I I think I really have a hard time with that. And again, like point six here as well talks about the design of the lot, the building pad, and the site layout shall respond to and be reflective of the surrounding lots. And I get hung up on that point, right? The surrounding lots. because I think four lots shoved next to each other 75 feet with threecar garages is really does not reflect what's around it. Right. I think you know I I can't tell them what you know tell them what to what they want to do but I think three lots feels like it'd be better fit than four. Four just feels like one too many just from a width perspective personally. >> [snorts] >> Um, so again, but I think Commissioner Vanoi, you you made a good point, right? Change is hard, right? I think, um, we had a couple of neighbors in our neighborhood who were really resistive to any kind of change. Um, and you know, the change wasn't bad um, in terms of we got a couple of really good, really cool neighbors out of the deal. Um, with some with some newer housing stock, right? The house that was there had um I think they said they there were 200 snakes in the basement of it when they tore it down. Um it kind of might be like the meth house that they tore down for one of those for that subdivision in 2013. It wasn't a meth house, right? But there were a lot of snakes. But so we got a couple cool neighbors out of it, but I I realize change is hard and change is difficult. Um but change also occurs, right? So I think that's kind of my where I really get torn on this one. >> I go ahead. Oh, I was gonna say I I agree. Commissioner plan. >> Okay. Yeah. Um, you know, I am sympathetic with the neighbors. Um, I am and the concern and our community's weariness of this happening over and over again. Um, you know, but our job on the commission is to go back to these guiding um, what we're supposed to kind of use as our guidance. Um, and the resulting four lots, it requires no variances, no reasonzoning. it aligns with the comp plan um and the density guidance and um if they did it on the other lot and they're very narrow lots and very large homes. So, the precedent has been set. Um, and I hear that you all like those two homes that are there and you love the neighbors that moved in. And so change is hard, but based on what we're reviewing here, the storm water management will be improved. Um, the tree plan is generous and sensitive to the heritage plans and would be across all four lots. Um, it's [clears throat] consistent with the most recent developments in the 2014 in the neighborhood. Um, we're going [clears throat] from three families living on the lots to potentially four. Um, so I have that disconnect as we all do with what our guiding principles are and what how we feel. Um, that's where I am at the moment. So, I'm not sure. I'd love to hear the rest of the dialogue from the commissioners. >> Thank you, Commissioner Platinum. And I and I agree, three would be better. And if you recall, we did have a situation down by the Landings Hotel. Um, Yep. >> where they were seeking three. >> And we encouraged them to come back with two and it turned out beautiful. And I don't know if we could do that, you know, could do that here, but >> I think because they've applied, they would have to come back with a new application in this case, but [cough] >> yeah, if I could add, um, I agree with pretty much everything everyone says and it's as I'm looking at, um, the photos of the neighborhood, the one thing I'm kind of getting hung up on, and Commissioner Vanlaw, you mentioned it earlier, too, was the scope the the slope of three >> lot three I think they're going to lose a lot I think your um Kelsey I think your clients in lot three are going to it's going to have to be a flatter lot in order to get I think the kind of size and scope of home so that's one of the things that I'm getting hung up on is I think they the neighborhood character would look a little different by having um having flat and having things so the lots being so narrow um but at the same time. I'm also in a neighborhood that I have an 80-year-old home and I have behind me brand new homes. Um, and they're a lot bigger [laughter] than my little cracker boxes. So, it's it's changed and it's changed in the neighborhood and there's already been change on this street with some newer homes. Um, and so I I could I could go either way on this one. >> Okay. I think that one of the the hardest things when you live in a developed neighborhood is what's going to go on during the building process if this goes through and it's not that pleasant. I've been in that situation and there's there's uh trucks and dirt and noise and more trucks and dirt and noise and we're talking about four houses so it's going to go on for a while. But in a lot of areas it's you have to look ahead to what it's going to bring you in the future because it will bring you you will have if this goes through four maybe three if a change is made um maybe the twin home thing is a possibility but um you will have I believe beautiful homes and you'll have to live through a year or two of dirt and and that's the truth. You'll probably have to walk your kids down to the down to the bus every morning. But that's development. And I'm not sure at this point how you even take a subdivision from being an R3 to an R2. It's it is an R3. That that is what it is. And that's basically what as a planning commission we have to deal with um is what are the requirements and does this meet the requirements. So I just wanted to say that as I empathize with the whole possibility of living through that process but it is it is short-lived in the long term and I I I think you'd be fine with it when it was over. I mean, if you look at the if you look at the uh criteria, there's really only one that we're talking about that is the issue, right? It's going to change the character, but all of the other ones we they meet. I mean, um so, uh to your point, Chris, you know, we that's our that's our guiding principles there. And yeah, the character is going to change. So is mine in my neighborhood. It's an old it's all old people and uh they're going to go and one of the houses is has to be torn down when they leave. So who knows what's going to happen. Um I'll live through it as I am right now. >> Chair, I have a question for staff. >> Yeah. Um, Dr. Sharp, could you explain the garage setback right now? Is an R3A proposed? >> Chair, uh, Commissioner Plantin. So, in R3A, >> right, >> there are two setbacks that apply. Essentially, the house set back of 30 feet and then garages must be set back 35 ft. 5T in addition to the house setback. >> Okay. >> R3 does not have that current requirement. >> Okay. Thanks for that clarification. Can we make that a condition of approving this if we >> and our three-f frontont setback is 20 ft according to your presentation? Correct. >> Apologies. Sorry. Uh let me look back at that. >> Uh >> yes, sorry. >> Yeah, 20. So 20 ft >> correct. >> Oh house. So basically the front of the house, front of the garage 20 ft off the >> 20 ft would be the requirement. Sorry, I was stating it for R3A of 30 and 30. >> No, for sure. Apologies because that's where that is for this zone. It would be 20 feet. If if code were amended, a similar ordinance would be that it would be at 5 foot, but that ordinance has not yet been even proposed. It is not in place. >> And could we make that a requirement if we were to to approve this going forward? Could we make >> to that? I'll defer to the city attorney as I I see him eagerly uh seeking to provide his input. Well, chair, I don't know how eager I am, but um I will address that question. I also want to before I do that, just maybe if it's helpful for the commission to how you think about these uh 12 criteria, because you know, we spend a lot of time really focusing on the standards and criteria when we review applications. And sometimes when that criteria is you must meet A, B, C, and D or you don't get it. This criteria is a little bit different than that. Your charge is really to look at possible adverse effects of the subdivision and your judgment is based on these factors. It's not even limited to these factors. It's based. So this isn't a test where every single one of these must be met. It's more we look at this do we you know certainly does it meet all of the zoning standards. But so it's a little bit more nuanced when you look at that. I just wanted to make that point on conditions and whether we can impose conditions on the applicant. Um the code does allow for that as long as those are appropriate and go towards protecting the health, safety, welfare says comfort of and convenience of the city. I think basically the conditions need to be reasonable and I would add that's probably tying it to one of the criteria that you're evaluating now. So if it's a condition like you know they must be care you must work with a city engineer on a drainage plan for example uh because that goes to one of the criteria. So I'm not answering uh that particular question about garages because I think you'd have to link it to something for it to be be uh reasonable. The other thing I would say is um a lot depends on timing too. So, if council makes a change to the zoning ordinance between now and the time things are built, that could affect how these houses are built, too. >> So, then can I make a comment? >> Yeah, Commissioner Stevenson. So then if that if that's what you're saying is to look at kind of more subjectively then I would say five and six may be possibly adversely impacted with the scale and the character of the of the neighborhood and the design um the design of having four houses on very narrow lots is not um is not the design of the character of the neighborhood. And if you go to the next page, there was another one. Um, number eight, I think just in terms of the architectural apparent scale mass. Um, yes, I believe that they will design for beautiful homes, but I think you drive around Weisetta today or new homes today all have kind of the same look and feel that's very different from, you know, looks like probably something was built in the 40s and the 50s and the, you know, 80s in this neighborhood. They're all they're all, you know, single level or twostory. There's very different um appearances in scale and mass to the home. So, I would say that those couple of um those couple of impacts here would I think would negatively impact the character of the neighborhood. Now, enough to say we shouldn't approve or recommend approval, I don't I don't know if I can say that, but I would say that there are some possible adverse impact impacts then um to the application. Number seven. >> Yeah, I the seven I I kind of go back and forth on seven, right? Because there's actually a lot that's smaller than seven, right? So I I don't know >> possible adverse effects, right? Like I mean >> I I just I think about it just from a like if I picture four houses, right, that are largely, you know, I mean, nobody builds small houses in Zetta anymore, right? So, you got to assume that it's going to be a fairly large house. It's going to have a threec car garage, right? So, it's going to span most of that 75 ft width, which is and they're not obviously clearly they're not proposing anything in here, right? Like this what we're talking about is actually just the the subdivision of the land itself, right? But, um, you know, by inference, if you will, um, it's going to be a larger, wider house, which is, and I think that's where I was getting caught up in the character of it all, right? like it doesn't fit in with the the the other houses that are in there. Um where there's separation between them. Um you know, just given the lots themselves, I got to imagine that most of the houses are going to be built for far fairly far back from the street because to build them close to the street, you would just have a tremendous amount of grade kind of behind the house coming towards the house and that you wouldn't want that because the water would just run right into the house then instead of draining off. So I I think they'll be further back, right? But there's still just going to be it's going to be a lot of house if you look we're looking at staying in the street looking at these four houses. It just and that's not in character with the neighborhood. So that's I think that's my hang-up, right? I think that's where I kind of come down on this. I said I think you know personally I it would feel better with three and that obviously that's not what's being proposed but um I I I oppose four. There I said it >> again. Anybody could come in and buy one of these single family homes, tear it down, and if they're not asking for any variances or anything, they can build it without input from the neighbors. So, it it could happen regardless >> um in terms of changing the character. Uh sometimes we just >> Yeah, for sure. I mean, if you're if you're building a a compliant house that does that doesn't need any kind of variances, it's a must issue, right? Like happened to me. I I I I know it well. [laughter] The ne the neighbor next to me um they picked the they picked the point at the G where the garage was and they built the house um uh fully across the thing and uh there is 6 to 8 feet drop from their garage to our tree line. Um so it's and it's very steep very quick. Um, I look at this especially uh for lot three. Um, you're going to have a you're going to have a huge house on the hills. It's going to be a beacon on the hill. um because that topography uh goes up uh so far. Uh and if you uh uh I'm really looking at uh the character of the neighborhood and I think that alone would very much um uh stand out uh as not in character with with the rest of of the neighborhood. Did I read somewhere um that there that there was going to be some leveling of land that would take place or am I getting confused with the application? >> I think the applicant the applicant said there was going to be some earthwork and Alex mentioned that they were going to pull have to pull probably likely have to pull a >> what' you call that permit. >> Sher Cameron land disturbance permit. Yes sir. >> So we have a maximum amount of grading that's allowed the two uh the applicant referred to the two foot uh cut over the size of the lot without city council approval. They are underneath that grading requirement for their current proposals as that was part of our uh the city engineers review of the project. Um, so they are not proposing to bring forward additional cut and fill that would be required, but there would be grading as part of the proposed application, >> but nothing that would lower that hill or even things out because then you wreck the trees around it, don't you? >> Chair Cameron, Commissioner Schwabi, there would be some grading that would lower it out, but not exceeding where it would require the additional approval of city council for that action. So there there is some cut and fill uh as part of this application. It's hard to describe the exact quantities for you in the plan. Um they don't exceed the amount that uh is required for uh further review by city council or the city engineer because they far exceed this uh the standard that the city has set for a uh essentially a more normal development. That's not to say that they are insignificant however by any means either. So not trying to add a quantifying view of that or a quality view of that. Just adding the pure number quantity that we've set in ordinance. It would not exceed at this time. >> I have another question. Um can we look at the um plan guidance slide or the Uh, I'm sorry, which slide? >> Um, where we have our land use slide. It So, this neighborhood backs up to >> You're looking I understand. >> Okay. Yeah, land use. Um, okay. So, we're backing up to service district >> car dealerships. I think >> excuse commercial. That's the blue >> and the beauty. [clears throat] >> Mhm. >> That's the hammer building. >> This >> or one of them. Yeah. >> It's that big brick kind of brick development. There's like two buildings, two or three buildings. >> Yep. >> And so we have multiple high density. We've got Okay. [snorts] So service district PUD high density low density and then our C three okay three I'm sorry >> I just have one more thing I just want to add that I think it's commendable when a neighborhood comes together when they have similar concerns and they go out to support each other. Regardless how this whole thing goes, I think you're really good neighbors to each other. Just wanted to say that. >> Anyone else have thoughts? >> Are you looking for a motion? >> No. Well, some we need to make one, right? So, I was I was I was actually I [laughter] >> we're either going to we're either going to recommend um approval or denial um of the uh of the uh application. >> Well, I'll throw it out there. Um I would make a motion to direct staff to prepare a draft planning commission report and recommendation with denial of this application >> with the appropriate findings. >> With the appropriate findings. Thank you. >> Is that an appropriate motion council? Um, chair and commissioner, it is. I would recommend that either uh on it would be good if we knew the findings ahead of time that you're basing that recommendation on. I I've heard you articulate that earlier. Um maybe even just point to the particular criteria you think >> so I would I would have then the the criteria being um altering the character of the of the neighborhood and um not in not in accordance of the density or the character of the homes. I think that's what I heard from my fellow commissioners too. >> Anyone else want to add? I'll add that specifically if you if you look back to the list uh I think five six and seven are explicitly problematic with the way in which this is uh laid out. Um >> so chair you'd need to have that motion amended to >> so amend amend the motion to include um the scale pattern density um scale pattern character of the neighborhood negative impacts on the scale pattern character of the neighborhood the density of the neighborhood I get all that anything else >> the the motions made by Severson sorry she has to you have to amend them >> I will amend them I will amend my bad five six and seven >> yeah okay thanks Yeah. >> Thank you, [laughter] >> team member. >> Uh, second. Further discussion. That was my second, by the way. >> Nice. >> You seconded it. >> I seconded it. >> Okay. >> Cuz I can do that. >> Yes, you can. >> Jody, you might want to do a roll call. I think we've had some >> Yeah, I was I was holding off for for anyone have further discussion on it. All right, then. Yes. for director uh city attorney Shelzel um the recommendation. We'll do a roll call. Director Sharp. >> Commissioner Ankeny. >> Uh I approve the finding. So I disagree with their with that finding. >> Commissioner, then that would be a nay. >> Nay. >> You wouldn't be for that motion. Yes. >> Commissioner Planton. >> Nay. >> Commissioner Schwabby. >> Nay. >> Commissioner. Sorry, I was going to say chair. Uh, Commissioner Severson, >> I. >> Commissioner Elg >> nay. >> Commissioner Vanoy >> I. >> Chair Cameron >> I. >> So the nays have it. >> So then we have to do a new motion, right? >> And the motion is not approved. >> Think. >> Okay. >> Sorry. >> So, uh, we need a new motion. Uh, would anybody like to make a new motion? Even if it's the same motion >> cuz you voted wrong. >> Wouldn't have changed it. >> Okay. Uh new motion. >> Well, then it would have been for >> So the then by inference then the motion on that needs to be made is a motion to approve. >> Recommendation to approve, >> right? I'm sorry. What did Commissioner Alex say? He voted wrong. >> I did. I should change my vote. I I That's not what I meant to say. [laughter] >> You wanted to vote I >> I meant to say I. Sorry. Well, chair, uh, procedurally, I think you can ask for that same motion again if you'd like. >> Okay. >> Um, and we can take another vote on it. >> And to be clear, uh, maybe please restate the motion in its entirety. And, uh, so folks know if they get behind that motion or they're going to vote against them. >> Yep. >> Don't do it. Okay. I will do it. Um, okay. I make a motion to direct staff to prepare a draft planning commission to report a recommendation of denial with appropriate findings of items five, six, and seven regarding the character and the size of the new homes and the new plats. >> Second further discussion. So an I vote on this is a vote to deny a a recommendation of denial. A nay vote is in opposition to that. Does that make sense? Did I get that right? >> It's a double night. >> I think so. Chair, the the the motion is to direct us to prepare a recommendation of denial. >> Denial. >> So if you agree with that, you would vote >> yes. I And if you don't agree with that, you would vote nay. >> Correct. >> Director Sharp. >> Roll call vote, please. Commissioner Anne, >> nay. >> Commissioner Planton, >> nay. >> Commissioner Schwabby, >> no. Nay. >> Commissioner Severson, >> I. >> Commissioner Elg, >> I. >> Commissioner Vanl, >> I. >> Chair Cameron, >> I. The eyes have it. >> The motion passes. and the draft report of uh draft planning commission report and recommendation of denial with the appropriate findings will be on the consent agenda in our next meeting in two weeks. Cool. All right. Um so the next item on our agenda this evening um is um item other items. >> Thank you chair. uh development activities. Uh we've had a slow spring uh with building permits coming in. We've had a number of interior building permits that have come in, but we haven't had significant home demolitions or uh significant building permits of new homes or new projects going up. It's mainly finishing up projects and items that uh began at the tail end or fall of last year. If you've got particular questions, we can certainly connect. Uh but the other uh location to take a look at for these is that we do put them out in our weekly newsletter for any significant building permits that will be posted. Uh you'll notice for the last four weeks we have not had any of those significant items. So I don't have any other items to report. Uh at your next meeting is when I'll be bringing forward that draft schedule and then I plan for some discussion. We don't have any additional items other than what's planned for on consent. And so we will have a discussion uh specifically noting the planning commission schedule for visiting uh city council meetings and then whether the planning commission would uh provide a recommendation to amend the current bylaws to the city council and then I'd bring that forward at a later date to city council for their review depending upon what the planning commission's deliberations uh flesh out at that time or at this time. No other items. If you have any questions, happy to answer them. >> Just a reminder, I won't be here next time. >> Thank you very much. >> Questions for >> If you'd like to weigh in on the bylaws piece, feel free to send me an email. >> Okay. >> All right. Um, nothing further. Uh, motion to adjurnn. May I have a second? >> Second. >> Further discussion? All those in favor I >> I >> opposed. The eyes have it. The motion passes and the uh February 9th, 2026 meeting of the west planning commission is adjourned.