WCTV and at the city's website at weisetta.orgwv. Public comment during the public forum and/or public hearing hearing portions of the meeting may be provided in person at the meeting in advance or by logging into the team's call and raising your hand during the public hearing. When your name is called in the meeting, you will be seen and heard in our chambers and on the cable channel. You'll be asked to unmute and you may begin your comments and your camera needs to be on. All public comments must include your full name and address. The next item on the agenda is the pledge of allegiance. I would ask you to stand if you are able for the pledge of allegiance. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. Next item on our agenda is roll call. Um, let the record reflect that the entire council is present this evening. Next, I need to read a statement about uh a closed meeting that occurred earlier this evening. So, earlier this evening from 4 to 5:00 p.m., a closed meeting of the Weisetta City Council was held pursuant to Minnesota statute 13D.05 subdivision 3B, the attorney client privilege exception to the open meeting law to discuss the following litigation. Lake West Development LLC 200 Lake Street East LLC and Kurt Freom Pliffs versus City of Weisetta Defendant. And the second item is Dre Trustee LLC versus the City of Weisetta defendant. The meeting was closed to permit the city council to meet with its attorneys to review and candidly and openly discuss absolute, confidential, and privilege matters related to the above reference or the previously referenced litigation. Um following our closed meeting, we had an open workshop meeting and reviewed the following. We reviewed and updated our long-term financial plan. We review had a review of our preliminary 2026 general fund budget and fee schedule and we discussed future council workshop topics. So that was the open meeting after the close meeting. Uh now we're moving on to the next point in the agenda which is to approve the agenda. Um, so I need to have a motion to approve the agenda as presented or any suggested changes. So move. Do we have a second? Second. Our other discussion hearing none. All in favor say I. I. That motion passes. The next item is the public forum. Um, just as a reminder for those and the members of the public attendance tonight, you're interested in speaking, please state your name, address, and indicate if you're representing a group and limit your comments to three. Is actually on the agenda. Uh, please fill out a a card in the back of the room and hand it to staff, and you'll be able to speak at that time. Um, so are there anyone on teams that wanted to speak at the public forum or do we have any public forum cards? Uh, Mr. Mayor, we do not. Okay. So, we're going to move past that one. And the next one is new agenda items. Does the council have any new agenda items that they would like to discuss and bring up? Okay, hearing none, we'll move on to the consent agenda. The next is uh the approval of the consent agenda and honor consent agenda tonight is approval of the city council workshop minutes of June 17th and June 24th, regular and meeting minutes of June 17, 2025. Um, approval of the check register, adoption of resolution 1925 accepting donation from the Miles family fund of the Minneapolis Foundation, uh, approval of a grant agreement extension for the intensive comprehensive peace officer and education training ICP program. Approval of special inspection and construction materials and testing services with braraw inter house renovance of the city manager re resignation and leave request. Uh I would accept a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented or if there needed any items to be pulled. I have a question on 7E. Go ahead Mr. Park. So, um, we have a foundation there at the warming house and, um, so apparently has to go through some sort of testing. There's part of its inside, part of its outside. Is it the outside that we're worried about that maybe needs to make sure that it can become inside an inside foundation or what is the purpose of the 6500 spend? Uh, Mr. Mayor, uh, Council Member Park Hill, um, all I can tell you is that it was part of the plan construction project in terms of the details. So, it's in our budget. Um, uh, Director Kelly, I think, could probably speak a little bit more eloquently about it than I can. Glad you're here, Mike. Director Kelly, Council Member, Council, Council Member Barhill and Council. Um, the special materials and testing is exactly that. We are expanding the building, requiring additional foundation around the outside of the building. This testing is for that additional foundation that's to be constructed. So, the new part, not testing the old. That's correct. Okay. Thanks. Dress your question, Mr. Park. Okay. So now I would approve uh a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented. So moved. Is there a second? Second. Further discussion? All in favor say I. I. That motion passes. So we're on to the new business uh part of our agenda. And the first up is to consider approval of the first reading of amendments to the tree preservation ordinance to allow for an exemption for golf courses. So I'm turning that over to you, Mr. Mr. Doll or to Mr. Sharp or uh Mr. Mayor, Director Sharp's going to walk us through this one. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Sharp. One moment. Sorry about that. Want to make sure I bring up the presentation. Thank you, mayor. So, as stated, this is a potential amendment to the tree preservation ordinance contained within the zoning code of uh our city ordinance. So I started with this slide because this is a little bit unorthodox and going forward but with that I wanted to make sure that I could provide a good introduction. Traditionally when staff brings forward ordinance amendments we bring forward a single ordinance amendment for proposal. In this instance we have three different ordinances and the council may choose between one of the three options. I'd also like to entertain the ability that if council has reviewed their pack and it is ext is comfortable with a single option that staff could expedite the presentation this evening and present a single option if that was council's choosing. So if there was one that was predominantly sought by council after review of your packet. Uh I would be open to hearing that going through that particular item and explaining how that would affect the ordinance. If not, I can certainly present on all three items and we can proceed through and then act on a single ordinance at the uh end of the presentation and meeting. Council, anyone have an opinion on what has been proposed? Um, so mayor, if I understand what's what's been discussed here is that um if there's a preference for one option, now would be the time to say it. I mean, and if depending on how that went, it could save you're just trying to be efficient. I'm going through other options in in an effort to be efficient. As the mayor stated, if there is a overlying option that council's very comfortable with upon review of the staff's memo, we could go through that one to expedite your time. If there's not, I could still move through all items and do so promptly. Well, I guess I would um suggest to the council that maybe we look at option one at this point only and have discussion about that in the terms of potentially saving time. How do others feel? Go ahead, Mr. Black. Um I guess I take a little different tack uh for the benefit of the public who might be interested in this. I thought that the uh packet was was very good in explaining the different options and why the planning commission came to a different conclusion than the standard and I thought that was valuable to go through. I think to hear it in the public forum and for the public to hear it all would make sense. I don't think it take that long but even if it does I think it's for the best interest of the public. Thank you Mr. Anyone else want to weigh in? I think those are very good points. I was wondering if you could director sharp um explain more specifically the difference between two and three. I think that's something the plan includes. I think there's consensus to go through all three. Yes, I think there is as well. I think I'm going to start through that. Uh so I'll start with my original presentation then. Council's being presented three different ordinance options for first reading this evening. That is an irregular path that is not a standard one. However, it is one that staff wanted to bring forward uh based upon the history of this ordinance. So, opening up the presentation with that. I'm going to go into the general background of the tree preservation ordinance as a whole. So, originally in October of 2022 is when uh city council first adopted our tree preservation ordinance. You can see our general uh guiding principles behind that ordinance here. But it was to expand the city's tree ca canopy, ensure the safety of that tree canopy and then collect fees were applicable when uh tree canopy was being sure that it was a sustainable practice and those trees lived for a number of years. Since that time, it's it's been a bit of a living document with the city and that we've learned as we've adopted this as this was a document or a ordinance that uh was, I would say, first in its class in terms of the depth that the city wanted to go to for preserving our tree canopy and then incentivizing those who do. With that, we've uh done a number of updates to standardize, clarify, and otherwise make sure that this was uh not done by interpretation, but very clear as we proceeded through and learned from lessons as we were working through the ordinance. In the case of Woodhill Country Club, they had begun working with staff in October of 2023. City Weisetta has two golf courses within uh our city limits that are also split into adjacent communities. So, not all of their grounds are contained within the city of Weisetta. And with that, the Woodhill Country Club came forward with a significant capital improvement project of their own to improve their grounds. And part of that would require the removal of some trees and then planting of additional trees. They began working with staff to determine how our new ordinance would affect their overall plans for their site. And for multiple years were able to work with staff on trying to understand what those project costs would be, where the trees would need to be planted, how this affected their site both within the city of Weisetta and within their outofc city jurisdiction grounds. Uh effectively they were told that uh there would be some financial pieces with this. The tree preservation ordinance uh at times prefers trees that may uh that they may deem more hazardous because it's through a very technical process but they may be proactive in that and so that uh may affect some of their planning and future uh site assessments. And then there's the ongoing cost burden of when you are planting trees that I'd noted before to ensure that they live. We keep an escrow for a set period of time, three years, and reduce over that time frame. And so it was identification of how that would impact their site, their financial impact, and their plans. On May 20th of 2025, Woodhill Country Club Country Club brought forward a proposal to the city council at a workshop meeting, essentially identifying how this issue affected their overall plans going forward right now. This project is proposed to begin uh this year, this summer, if it hasn't already begun. and they sought uh some clarification from city council or potential relief from city council through an exemption in the ordinance. At that workshop, city council generally directed staff to come forward with a best pra practice way of exempting golf courses, a rather unique land use within the community from the tree preservation ordinance. With that very high level general direction, staff brought forward a proposal that I'll go in through that is option two within this to the planning commission that was staff's attempt to find a best practice u median of full exemption uh blanket which is kind of option one and then a caveed exceptions through option two. And I'll go into each one of those individually and try to explain those differences between uh then where the planning commission landed on their item. On June 7th uh 2025, the planning commission held their public hearing. Representatives from Woodhill Country Club and Weisetta Country Club were present. uh though Woodhill Country Club was the primary uh party speaking on that behalf. I would note that uh as I did to the planning commission, they are not the applicant in this proceedings. Uh this is a city council directed ordinance amendment. So it does change the dynamic slightly. And the reason why I want to identify this uh this evening is that representatives from Woodhill Country Club are here and would like to be able to state uh some of their cases for the additional public record uh upon the conclusion of this presentation. So typically that would be afforded to an applicant. In this case it's um not as cut and dry with that. And so I wanted to make sure that that was called out. Now, so the first ordinance potential ordinance amendment for council is the uh high level very clear golf courses would be exempt from the tree preservation ordinance. This would mean that there would be no fees collected, no review of plans. Um it is the most generic of exemptions with the caveat that we would use the definition of golf course. That's the common definition. that does help clarify to make sure we aren't uh accidentally straying into someone calling their yard a golf course. So, we are uh making sure that we've thought of those other opportunities. We're relatively competent that this is a low risk. Uh there are homes in Wisetta that have a hole of a golf course on their property. There are, which is why we wanted to make sure we were still being thorough. This was our first uh potential look at this. Ultimately, what staff decided to bring forward to planning commission was option two. Option two provided for perhaps a little bit more of a catch-all. Essentially, there were two provisions put into the ordinance. The first is that uh any golf course may seek a exemption from the tree preservation ordinance. However, they needed to make a formal request to the city council. The city council then needed to approve that request and could place any reasonable conditions. That's the first part of that ordinance if you look at that language. The second part was to allow for a uh project specific exemption administratively by working with staff. And what this was really attempting to touch on for a project was the fees and being able to move quickly rather than needing to be able to get on a council agenda. So that if for some reason a golf course didn't already have an overall exemption, they could come forward on a very project specific basis, seek that exemption on that project, and it would be administratively done by staff and would not be reviewed by council. This is what was presented to the planning commission. planning commission reviewed uh that essentially both options. Upon doing so, they kind of decided to uh and I would say that option three is a hybrid approach from option two. Option three is what planning commission worked pretty diligently on during that public hearing to come forward with a uh lifetime exemption but with the requirement that a full tree management plan be created. Tree management plan when they were reviewing the ordinance had not yet been defined. It is not a term that is currently within the ordinance. The draft ordinance includes the definition of a tree management plan which you see before you. It but it is essentially a very high level planning document for a golf course where they would plan their entire site in uh great length and detail with specific detail given to their trees. do a complete inventory of the site and then have a staged uh removal and replanting plan that would then be brought forward to the city council which then could be approved or denied and or and if approved any conditions could be added. So it essentially took the condition one from option two, the council approval with conditions and then instead of going project specific, essentially went long-term like a comp plan type of document only just for the trees on a golf course. Coun or the planning commission certainly uh recognized that there were difficulties created particularly by having a golf course in multiple jurisdictions and the city of Weisetta's code only applies to the land that resides within the city of Weisetta. the attempt that and this is because their minutes have not been fully adopted. So I'm attempting to summarize this piece but I believe their attempt with this was largely to uh address that concern by creating a holistic site plan. Ultimately uh that is a more cumbersome process than what was originally identified as staff's directive to come forward with. So, we are presenting all three options because staff had relatively clear direction to come forward, not a larger process. And so, that's why you're seeing this in a three-step stage or a three option stage rather than as a single ordinance like you would typically see. With that, staff is looking for one of the three options for a first reading. We would then bring the second reading back at the uh next council meeting for final publication. I'm available for any questions. Yeah. So before we open up to questions, um we will be giving Woodhill a chance to uh comment tonight. Um but only after council's questions are addressed of staff first. So we'll start with that. Would like to begin with questions of of staff. Mr. Parkill, um what does ORNo require? Orno is still evaluating their ordinance. They were originally modeling it after hours. Their planning commission has gone in a slightly different direction with that piece. I have not checked since the last planning commission whether they've gotten any further. I called afterwards because that was a question that the planning commission had as well. They hadn't adopted a full ordinance at the time that I'd called. But their ordinance today doesn't no require any of this uh today. Correct. Right. Okay. Thank you. Other questions of staff? Council member McDonald. I do. Um, Director Sharp on option number two is uh Oh, right back where you were, please. Oh, sorry. That's all right. I was going into the detail. Oh, thanks. Uh, option two is just a as it reads an ex. So, are they exempted from the tree preservation ordinance forever or just during the work of this project specific? That's why I was going back to this one. Thank you. So, I was thinking ahead. Uh, thank you, mayor. Uh, council member, they are both. So, option one is a forever exemption. Uh, they would come forward. They are they seek that from council. Council would grant that. Uh option two was the project specific administrative if council wasn't uh comfortable with that potentially they could make that as a condition or that was principally added by staff as a project specific way for somebody who hadn't yet asked for the exemption. Okay, that was helpful. Could mayor can I more? Okay. Um could you also explain to me what their options are today as the tree preservation ordinance is in effect and live. The two options today uh that any party would have business to or commercial development essentially within the community would be to seek a variance which could be difficult because they would need to explain meet the practical difficulties measures. Um, there's a potential that that could have been an option for a golf course, but it would also need to be unique. And with two of them, it's quasi judicial, so I could see where there could be concerns with that. And secondarily would be to seek a text amendment, which is quasi what Woodhill Country Club sought by coming to council. So that's a little more open, but any any party may seek a text exemption and propose one at any time. I'm sorry. Text amendment. Understood. I appreciate that. Uh I I always I throughout this whole thing I kept wondering why aren't they asking for a variance? So it was helpful to hear a little bit more context of that. Um if I may go one more Yeah, I do have just a um narrow it down. Just give me one second. It won't be your your only chance, Molly. So No, I know. this is high level that I kind of want to get my head around it before I hear from from Woodhill. Um if that's okay with everyone. Okay. Um I just would like you to the I understood the escrow portion of it because that was stated quite clearly in the planning commission meeting and that seemed like a a pretty high number. Um, could you be more specific on like what what a fee it looks like for a project like this because there you know there's this big financial implication and I other than the escrow I'm having a hard time understanding um what exactly the the numbers are. I'm going to tag mayor if I may. I'm going to tag in a member of the team that works with us on a day-to-day basis. Um, I'm very pleased that he has made his time available. Sure, we'll have the expert. He would be able to expound on the actual fees. Yeah. Associated with this project. He's worked on it for two years, and I don't want to speak out of turn. Welcome, city forester Bennett. Thank you, mayor and councel. Not a very subtle way to ask me up here, Alex. Well, you're welcome. Um, thank you. So, uh, yes, the the escrow itself. So, that would be guaranteeing the replacement of trees on site. Um, and that we have some discretion there. Um, really what we're looking for is a number that makes us feel confident that these trees um will survive and if something goes wrong, we'll have enough money available to step in and um round out the replacement plan. the fees. Um, so fees in lie of tree replacement, those would apply if and when a certain amount of that that calculation that planting can't occur on site for whatever reason. Um, that number is not flexible at all. Um, that is set in our fee schedule. Uh, currently that's $300 per inch. Uh, that is not not replaced on site. That that would be a fee in lie of tree replacement. Um the the escrow is similar. It's uh regardless of what the fee is at any given year, it's 110% of the fee inl. So the escrow right now would be $330 per inch. Um and that um in this case we've in working with Woodhill and trying to figure out a more palatable way to secure these plantings um we decided that it would be appropriate to because these applicants have an inherent interest in the success of these trees. Uh we would instead base the escrow the expected mortality rate of a replacement plan. So, um, kind of a a generic number that we usually throw out there is like 20%, you would expect to lose those trees. So, we thought, well, let's collect 20% of the the standard rate and then that way if if we do see a 20% loss in the trees, we at least, you know, we feel good about that because we can we we have the funds to again fulfill that replacement requirement. Um so I I guess that would be $66 per inch um if we were to go with that 20% number. Um but again the fee in lie of tree replacement is not flexible um with our with our current ordinance. Okay. So there isn't some sort of permit fee that's also I guess fees felt like a really vague word in this context. So I just wanted to clear that. Yeah. So the there there there is a permit fee and um with that uh for for the actual tree removal, there is a a permit that's required and each situation is a little bit different, but there's a plan review cost built into the permit fee. Um and that's $50 per hour of of plan review. Okay. I appreciate it. Thanks for questions. Other questions of council, Mr. Pleish? That actually triggered a question or two. Uh on the fees, I've played enough golf to know that half the balls in my bag find those trees and the other half find whatever water is around. So there are a lot of trees and um you know whether it's $300 per inch or $33 per inch, what that sounds like a lot of money for a golf course. Uh do you have any idea what kind of numbers we're talking about here for overall for the golf course? So is is the question uh with the current proposal on on tree removal. Yeah. What the cost would be? Um I I don't know off the top of my head, but I bet they could share that number. Let's just hold that question. We we'll we'll come back to you and just make sure all the other questions are answered and then we'll we'll come back to that one, Alex, if you're okay with that, just so everyone gets a chance and then we'll let them give you their estimate. Sure. Um it also looks to me like we have three options, but we really have four with uh the second option being two options, but the options are triggered by the applicant as opposed to us with the ordinance. Is that correct? So, the golf course could seek one or the other option if we approved ordinance option two. Is that correct? Could you speak to that, Director? Sharp. Yes. Uh, mayor, uh, council member Pleish. Yes. The ordinance option two encapsulates both option one and two. So, it does give an additional option for the applicant, but for council, the way that the ordinances are presented is that ordinance option two is a package deal at this time. And in that if if the golf course were to take option two, the administrative route, if we were to approve this option, um are we then waving fees entirely? I mean, how it talks about primarily waves of fees. So are the fees that this is referring to the very fees that you just talked about. So there to clarify this would wave some of the escrow fees uh over time. This doesn't wave if they had direct removal as those are within the fee schedule. So, this is specifically attempting to address when you're doing tree replacement and the trees that would then be replanted, you have an escrow for those coming uh for those to reach reach a level of maturity where they're going to survive. That three-year mortality rate. I'm not sure I quite follow that. So in this option to the screen in front of us, the fees that would be waved would include those fees. Is it would only be those fees. So there this specifically refers to a section of the ordinance that is about their replacement, not when they're doing fee in lie of the replacement. Okay. So fee in lie of the replacement would remain the same. This has to This is referring to a section of ordinance that is to the tree replacement. Correct. Uh do you have the text that we're that we're referring to here available? I can bring that up. I'll need a moment though. What I'm trying to get to is an understanding of the financial burden that we've placed on a golf course. But depending on what we do here for policy, Just will there be other questions? I have a couple, but they're going to I'm not going to ask them right now. I'm just trying to get a sense of is there more questions? Sounds like there is. So, we'll give him a second and then we got a couple more rounds of questions. So, are we taking questions now? We'll just wait cuz he's going right. Mr. Mayor, just as a kind of a numbers that we're talking about, we're beginning of the conversation with uh Woodhill, we were talking numbers in the six digits uh and the escrow essentially would, you know, double that uh generally. So that the removal of the escro is a significant amount if it's a big project and that gives you a magnitude of how much how ownorous this ordinance is for that type of use as well and and maybe how many trees they're removing. Absolutely. Yeah. And inches. Yeah. Yeah. I I am very confident that when Woodhill gets up here, they'll be able to give us the exact numbers of the financial implications. But we're going to go back to the language which was Mr. Pleish's question and then from the language how would it apply city attorney if you'd like to weigh in on that perhaps under that tree exemption. Yeah, sure. We we've got a lot of moving parts here, but I think uh mayor and council member Plekish, um I think the question was uh under that that staff recommended option um was was uh which which part of the fees were were waved? Was it the actual replacement or was it the escrow? And I think it's the replacement that would be exempt under 936D. So, if I'm to understand that if if a golf course was going to redesign their course and they needed to take trees out to accommodate that, but it was their full intention to replace all those tree inches with whatever the reconfiguration is that essentially all of that would be exempt from fees. Is that correct, uh, mayor and council member? I think if they were replacing it, they would because they would Yeah, they would be replacing trees. But that would be true for any any project. If you can if you can replace the trees that you're taking out, you don't have to pay any fees. Um you'd still have to pay the escrow. Yes. Right. Um the the proposed change here was that if you couldn't replace all the trees and you had to pay the fee in the loo, you wouldn't have to do that if you're a golf course and you have a tree preservation plan approved by the city forester. But either way, they still have to pay the the escro escrow. Okay. Um yes. No, that's why I'm asking the questions. because it has a dramatic effect on it does financials of the club and that's a good question. I want to make sure we as a council understand the effect of whatever policy we adopt today. Of course, seems to me that is um they are able to manage their trees as they see fit because they are competent tree people and they're incented in the right way to have beautiful golf course. So they would not be charged if they cut down a big tree and they would not have to do an escrow. They would do what they need to do. I'm sure they're like Weisetta Country Club in their note said they're putting they're doing a whole renovation and they're putting hundreds of trees back in. Whether that meets the inches, I doubt it, but maybe it does. But this is kind of their way of managing their own beautiful golf course. Yes. Yes, but if I heard Mr. Pleish's question um correctly, option one is just a pure exemption. Like everything's off the table. Option two is relieve the burden of some of the fees, but require a tree plan. Yeah. Option three is like a hybrid where the planning commission came back with additional layers of checks and balances they wanted to add to staff's proposed two. So, the way that I read it, and if I got it right, you know, correct me or not, but option one is just flatout exemption. Option two is we're going to relieve the fees, but you still have to have a tree plan that is submitted. And then option three is some hybrid version that the the planning commission came up with that puts more control measures on on the process. That's my layman's version of how I read the three options. I think that was really helpful, mayor. But the part that keeps throwing me is in that option too. I believe it's worded removes some fees. So to me I was curious as as council member Pleish is which some is it escrow or is it uh fee in lie of replacement? So I'm going to make a suggestion. So let's keep the questions going but as we go through a discernment process of pros and cons of each one. If option two is preference, then let's be really explicit on the definition so that we're really clear. If that's favored, then let's be really clear about it. If option one's favored, option two is irrelevant. So, let's let's leave it as a thing that needs to be tightened up. If option two's preference, then let's tighten up. Okay, that make sense? So, I think there was some questions from Council Member Sorenson. Yeah. Oh, we got a sidebar going on here. I think they're stuck on my question. Just getting some clarity on the fees. I want to make sure that I haven't seen that. It's clear. The what? The sum. The sum of the dollars. No, that you asked. You said there was some somewhere in see it on this page anyway on our second proposed motion. What page is it in the They put it on the screen. Okay. So, it was actually on the one I can't see right now. Oh, well, that doesn't help. Was it in the packet? So, do we need more time to clarify or is that what we're asking for? Are you looking for that that page in the in the packet? Mayor, council, um the way that the city forester and I read the ordinance as presented in option two was the escrow. I would look to wrote the section. So I while I don't generally defer away from that that was the original intent when staff was coming forward was the escrow portion not the fee in loo portion of the ordinance. So let's go to what was drafted and what was your intent when you drafted it David and then let's as what we're reacting to. We always have the right to change it. We sure do mayor. Yeah. No um well my intent was to try to reflect the direction of staff. So I I I don't have an agenda here. No, no, no. I don't mean it that way. But but I think that part of the complication is option two actually has two options in it. Right. Right. And and so that was the that came out of the original direction from council at the workshop. And so that was to create an exception where council could review something and it would be totally exempt from the ordinance. So that is in option two. The council path gives a golf course operator the ability to exemption from the entire chapter, but they have to come to council and then council can put conditions on it. So, so it is true that you're right. The administrative path is a little different there. You need a tree preservation plan and the way I read it now, it only applies to the fee and loo stuff. It doesn't apply to the escrow. It doesn't mean we if we wanted to. Um and I think option three that council looked at um is just like yeah we didn't planning commission did I'm sorry planning commission did they thought ah let's do away with that administrative thing let's put it all with council but we want more tree plan is so if somebody has a tree plan they could come to council and they can be exempt from both so I know that's very complicated I think well but it but the clear the distinction that you just offered though is it's a council choice choice. We could grant an exemption or it could be something administrative. Yeah. For for option of the three ordinances, ordinance two and ordinance three give coun gives council the authority to exempt from all the fees escrow um fenlue and really all the regulations of the chapter. In the in the planning commission version though they want they want a applicant to come forward with a tree management plan. That was the new one. The first one is the blanket exemption. As you said, you would just be changing the ordinance so the golf word golf operators uh could ignore the tree preservation ordinance on that. I'm going to pause there. Mr. Fleckers, did you get clarity to your question? Uh do you feel comfortable with that response? Uh kind of. And that's really the reason for my question on these ones in option two because I wanted I think it was what I suspected but I wasn't sure and I think I'm sure now which is that if we go with that the um escrow fees would still be there and that could be very ownorous to a golf course because and uh it would get into discussion phase which we're not there yet but I would kind of be opposed to that uh which kind of directs me on where I'd like to go on these options but but thanks for clarifying in our packet which it says uh opt option two number two this allows a golf course to to pres path for a project specific removal that primarily waves fees andor escrow but still requires the pres preparation of tree reserv preservation plan. So y are we adding back escrow or fianl somewhere here? not adding back in uh mayor council not adding back in uh further clarifying I would say as there this section what moved forward relatively quickly with city attorney and council uh direct from council direction at that work session and with that uh I think you're seeing a potential piece of where speed can sometimes yeah I'm going to make a suggestance the question behind Mr. Pleish's question is what's the financial implication? We still don't have that data. So, let's just let this keep moving along. They're going to give us the impact and then that'll be a consideration for us all. Mr. Sorenson, do you have some questions? Well, just a quick one. Um, how long do we hold the escrow money? Council member, Council Member Sorenson. Uh the standard schedule is a three-year um process that begins upon installation. So once they're done with their replacement plan, I generally go on site and do the first inspection and then for month 36. Okay. Thank you. I just had two really quick ones. Remind me when this tree ordinance went into effect. What was the date? The one on record today, I believe it was uh October, I'm sorry, the original was October of 2023. The second dairy with changes was in 2024. So, it's safe to say that for probably year predating 2023, it was under consideration. Right. And the reason why I'm asking the question is we happen to have two golf courses. the only two golf courses that we have under major rehab at the same time in the same year. And so I'm just trying to draw up that context. Okay. Any further questions of staff at this time? Okay. So now we're going to give Woodhill Country Club a brief opportunity to state their case. You wouldn't mind approach the dis address who you're representing in a few minutes to offer your perspective. And within that, if you could address Mr. Plechish's uh question about the policy of record has x financial implications to you. If you could weave that into your response, you might want to just lift that up to your height there a little bit. Is this on now? Can you hear me? Yeah. Just just tilt it up a little bit. There you go. Perfect. Thank you. Well, good evening everyone and uh the complexities and challenge of this ordinance I think was evident with with the questions and confusion. That's what we've been dealing with a little bit on our side, a lot of bit trying to solve this ordinance issue. So, quick introduction. My name is Brian Edmston. I'm here representing Woodhill Country Club uh to respectfully request exemption from the existing tree ordinance. For over a century, Woodhill successfully maintained our 195 acre property, 73 acres of which reside in Weisetta. Our members join us in part because we maintain beautiful, safe grounds with healthy, mature trees. Our success truly depends on environmental stewardship and we cannot survive without it. We've demonstrated this commitment through 110 years of environmental stewardship certification as an Ottoman cooperative sanctuary since 1994 and a significant investment this year specifically for tree replanting. We consistently plant more trees than we remove. Dupert staff managing our property daily with access to USGA aronomists and university experts for specialized guidance. Yet this tree this current tree ordinance designed for residential development now treats us like a subdivision project. This creates an impossible situation where we must choose between member safety and bureaucratic compliance. We've experienced a member fatality from a falling tree, multiple near miss incidents, and just recently had a very large limb fall dangerously close to members. Our professional arborists have identified unsafe trees overhanging our practice screen, stating emphatically they would not allow their children to practice or play under that area. While under the current ordinance, we must wait for trees to become dead enough to meet removal standards rather than addressing safety proactively. As stewards of this property, we cannot accept this ongoing risk to our community. Weisetta has only two golf courses and expects to add no more. We represent irreplaceable green space in this community. Other municipalities recognize this. Edina, for example, exempts golf courses entirely, understanding that institutional land owners with proven stewardship records require different approaches than residential developers. We're not asking to avoid environmental responsibility. We're asking for the same exemption other communities provide to established institutional land owners who maintain property primarily as green space. The current ordinance would require us to hire a full-time arborist at approximately $70,000 annually to track our 5,000 trees residing in Weisetta and spending hundreds more on hours of compliance. All while our expert staff already managed these these responsibilities more effectively than any part-time municipal oversight could. For 110 years, we've partnered successfully with Weisetta, maintaining these grounds as a community asset. We have the expertise, the commitment, and the financial investment to continue this stewardship. What we need is the authority to make safety decisions quickly and effectively without bureaucratic impediments. We're here seeking a collaborative solution that maintains the ordinance's environmental objectives while recognizing that a golf course isn't a de developmental project. I respectfully encourage you to approve the first amended proposal exempting property upon which a golf course operates. This allows us to continue managing our property as we have successfully done for over a century for the safety of our community and the benefit of WISE as a whole. Thank you for your consideration. And if you could um thank you for that statement. Uh could you comment on you know the the policy of record has what kind of financial implications on you today? So and if I uh our superintendent Eric Tolman is with me today. So if there's questions help it was in your memo. So if you just restate, so yeah, just uh to state our our total inches to be removed is 314 in of trees are stated to be removed. Now with our 2:1 ratio due to the land disturbance we're we're doing for our project, that doubles to 628 in I believe Bennett $160 an inch. So uh all in that's $100,000 $100,480 20% of which is the escrow amount of $20,100. What's not included in that is the administrative burden of tracking our 5,000 trees in Yisetta. To successfully do that as the ordinance is written, we would need to take on a staff member to handle that. That's tracking. That's specy measuring. That's charting. That is the administrative burden that we'd have to take on to handle property of our size. We can't do without our existing staff. We need to hire support to handle that. Does that does that answer your question, Mr. Pleish? In terms Okay, thank you for that. The 314 is that heritage trees or is that include significant trees too? Go ahead and come up to the dies because we just have to hear your voice. I apologize sir. Okay. Otherwise our vast viewing audience doesn't get to hear you. Eric Tolsman the building and ground superintendent at Woodil. So it's 314 in of heritage trees. Um and that is 10 total trees. Um and uh so and one of those trees uh you know currently we was in a uh email that I had sent to to staff and and to the mayor um which we are now asking to be exempt from that because it dropped a big limb almost uh on our putting green. So when in reference to waiting for trees to become dead enough uh to be removed um you know that is a that's a safety burden on me from a property manager standpoint. I I can't I can't be proactive in uh these safety measures. I have to get Bennett on site and a track assessment and u yeah and before before we move on from that I just want to read a statement from beet Bennett about imminent failure that just needs to be there for context because you wrote this about imminent failure that there is a imminent failure clause which says that the city's acknowledgement of imminent failure it will never penalize a tree manager for mitigating an imminent failure. So, if you had a change that moved it to imminent failure to a limb, then you made the call because of safety. We're not going to uh penalize you for that. Um, so just wanted to state that for the record because that Bennett, you wrote that. I just wanted to put that into the record. Um, okay. Thank you. Go ahead. Uh, yeah, go ahead. So, you said that there's 314 inches of heritage trees, which is eight trees. How many inches and significant trees? Uh I believe how many total inches do we have or that? Yeah, I I believe if you remove significant trees under this Paul acquired to replace them one to one if I'm not mistaken. Yeah. So on the Weisetta property, we have over like 21,000 inches of significant trees um as documented by one of my staff members over a 3-week period. And you're you're removing 21,000? bill. That's how many we have. Okay. How many we are removing is uh less than 10% of that. So, under 2,000. And as stated in our current um well, it's not in here, but it's about 2,000 in of significant trees that were being removed. 2000. Yeah. Appreciate it. Hey, Mr. Parkill, question. Is this an ongoing thing? Is this directly related to your work that you're doing on the golf course or is this there's some amount of trees that are needing to be replaced every year? Am I correct? Correct. And the numbers you just gave are for this year because of the work being done. Correct. Okay. Um, bring it back to council for discussion now. Thank you for that. We may have other questions, but thank you for your presentation. Thank you for being here for tonight and thank you for your work to to try to work this out over the last two and a half years. Um, bring it back to council for discussion. I think we have three options. I guess I'd like to hear some pros and cons or if you have a preference for one or the other and try to draw that out to see if we have some consensus towards moving towards one. Who would like to begin that process? Well, you're looking at me. I'm looking everywhere. Right, left. Who would like to start? I'll go if no one because I've got some Go ahead, Council Member McDonald, please. Thanks, Mayor. Uh, given this a lot of thought and I've been thinking about how our tree preservation ordinance impacts our residents here and how a financial burden affects them, too. maybe on a different scale than a big large business like yours, but it still affects them. So, I'm really struggling with the idea of just waving all financial implications of this simply because it's too much and too big. With that said, Wood Hills points make perfect sense. So, I think that there can be a balance found here. And what I have wondered as I have been considering this and reading on it is is there a way that we could offer an exemption simply to the operator, not necessarily tie it to a a golf course. We trust Woodhill. They deserve an exception. But maybe consider a park dedication fee one time to cover staff time that we've put into this or offer the public a good um that I think would maybe make up for the fact that we don't exempt any of our residents. So, a twist that maybe staff could talk about, but uh I I'm having a hard time with just blanket exemption and it doesn't quite seem fair. So, that's a proposal I wanted to throw out. Thank you, Council Member McDonald. Who Who would like to weigh in next with commentary, pros and cons of what what we're looking at? Uh, sure. Me. So, first of all, I um compliment the planning commission. and they they spent a long time chatting about this and um it got a little complicated for them at times and took some time to kind of you know settle into where they um made the recommendation they did. The other thing is I'm really glad that we have the tree preservation ordinance we do in our city. I think it's effective. I think it's appropriate. um you know it deals primarily with preserving our canopy and how we deal with with new subdivisions and new development and it's aggressive you know it deals with all the things that we talked about including the escrows and fees and evaluation of safety and categorizing trees and and all that so I think I think um I think we're in a good spot with that um you know the it kind of brings me back though to where we were on May 20th when we had when we had the workshop and we talked about it and I really I think the essence of the question that we could think about and maybe declutter the conversation a bit is is it should we impose the purpose and intent of our tree preservation ordinance on a golf course. We have two golf courses in our community and country club and Woodill. They are both very highly regarded. Um so as we heard a bit from them and I think if you've um you know paid attention to that environment at all um golf courses and especially these are extremely are our two are extremely good stewards of their properties. Um they renovations become necessary. These trees were I mean your golf course is quite old. So was Weisetta. They change um they're responsible in in what they do and how they go about these modifications. They're carefully planned. They hire national experts. They um need to be approved by your board often time by the members themselves. So, um, do and why they do it is, I think, a different purpose and the intent of our tree preservation ordinance. Um, and it was mentioned, you know, some communities acknowledge that and exempt golf courses. And if you look at even the West Metro here, um, I'd say the majority probably of of the upper scale golf courses have done what Woodhill wants to do. What was that? A country club is doing now. Uh, Edina, Interlockan, Golden Valley, Minneapolis Golf Club, Olympic Hills, Minatoa, Min I mean they this is not a new thing and um and and they're doing it for good reasons. Um and so to me it seemed like um the the the conversation we had on the 20th was kind of acknowledged that a bit and we asked staff to go back and put something together that we could react to later in the the plan and that's what got us here. Um but it feels like both options two and three or maybe option two, subset two especially and three uh attempt to impose our tree policies on a golf course. And to me it's a little bit apples and oranges. It's a bit square peg and and round hole. Um, and I think that's um, evidenced by the fact that it taken a year and a half of conversation with our community and staff and the golf course and we still kind of don't agree on things and um, and even evidence but I think there's a lack of clarity there's on my part anyway of what exactly will happen with two and three when we start to go down a path of um thinking about how we impose our policies on go. Option two, this is what caught my attention a bit, is that the applicant may present a tree preservation plan to be approved by the city forester that is consistent with the goals and intentions of the city's tree preservation ordinance. And to me, that kind of draws right back to why we're here chatting a bomb. So, I think you know what a golf course does is not a new subdivision. It's not a new um you know type of space that it was intended for our for our our policies. Um so I think I think you know to me um with option one and giving this golf course which and and would apply to Wisetta also those two golf courses a exemption because I think anything we do to kind of try to influence that with our tree preservation ordinance um lack we're getting place that we were before and And I don't know where that's going to go because even in this conversation we kind of don't clearly understand it. So that's I guess that's how I'm thinking about it. Uh thank you Mr. Sa and Mr. Pleisher. Mr. Parkill I have a question though. Maybe it'll help. I just have a question without my opinion. Um, if we granted what um, Councilman Sorenson said, a full exemption, is there any way to retract that if things change, if do we lose power forever, or how does that work? What do you think, Council Member Park? Mayor Mullen, we could always come back and amend the code. Thank you, Mr. Puckage. Yeah. So, Council member Sorenson, that was very eloquent and I probably can't improve on that a whole lot, but I'll start with this. Um, I also am very proud of our tree preservation ordinance. I was a big part of that, probably even a proponent of it initially. And um back when we were debating that, we were thinking I think entirely about residences, properties where there was free public access and sites and uh I was recalling and I'm sure I stood this on record at one point that uh there was a time when I was going to the University of Chicago and while I was living there, one of the big things was that Mr. T bought this very expensive property and clear-cut the every single tree was And of course that caused controversy and they actually had a tree preservation ordinance that he just blew off. Uh so um we don't want that in Weisetta. But then I think about golf clubs particularly the two that we have here both of which are very prestigious uh have long histories and in their competency to take care of their trees. So to me they have been doing for many many years well before we took up a tree preservation ordinance the very thing that we wanted to get to and they're very good at it. So I'm a little little what I'm thinking is that why do we want to embroil them in a bureaucracy that they don't need to be involved in co because frankly they are probably as good if not even better than we are as a community in in maintaining the trees and they do have access to staff and professionals that residencies don't. you know, we we go on with our lives and we're not thinking about tree preservation on our property. We'll take down a tree if we don't have a a tree preservation ordinance just because we don't like it or it provides too much shade or whatever. And we do want to control that in the community, but I think golf courses are kind of a different thing. Um, so I think you know where I'm going with this. I kind of like option number one. However, having said that, I do kind of like council member McDonald's idea of maybe a one-time park preservation fee to kind of balance things a little bit. Not a burden's kind of a a at least a a nod to what we're trying to do here. Um, and you know, I think the way that we've got option two, as it was clarified earlier in my questions, and I think we got to where I wanted, it seems to me that the financial burden, a bureaucratic proposal is is just too ownorous for a golf club because it is their business and it's a private property. So, right at this point, I guess I would be in favor of option one. Thank you, Mr. Pleish. Mr. Park Hill. Yeah, thank you. Sorry I interrupted. I thought that might be helpful to you to get that question clarified. Uh, so my thought on this is first of all, thank you to planning commission for their time that they spent on this. uh city forester uh myin, thank you for your time, staff and um those that created the tree preservation or ordinance kind of all of us cuz on that and there were workshops on it. There were lots of discussions um all of that. But the the tree preservation ordinance kind of came out of a need here in Weisetta. We um saw developers come in and one of our prior council members um saw a lot of lots in her neighborhood. Clear-cut, completely clear-cut. And so she was kind of the impetus bes bes behind all of this. And the risk is that you know this were this was going to go on and on and we were going to lose our canopy here in Weisetta. So, it came out of a need to kind of stop that and um and as Councilman Plec has said, you know, we kind of go on with our lives. We're not tree people. So, residents kind of need a little more supervision. Um so the um I guess we plenty to man my thought is we have plenty to manage here in Weisetta and uh uh city forester uh Myron is um quite busy and I feel like that you guys are the golf courses in general are are qualified to manage their own properties. they're incented in the right way. Um, I asked the question earlier because I felt like if something goes wrong, can we change that and you know, if you guys start not managing your property, right? We need to have some sort of repercussion. So, that helped me get to the point where I'm at is to manage your golf courses how you see fit safetywise. Um and um and and in my view on that fee thing, maybe we should pay you to help you out with your fees to to cover your costs because it's like, you know, it's always nice for a city to be able to tax, but um I think you guys have plenty plenty of expenses yourself. So I would say option one. Um thank you. I have a page and a half of notes, but I most of it's already been said, so I won't read most of it, but a couple unique circumstances. I mean, uh, you guys have 195 acres, you know, 73 in Weisetta. Um, you know, Weisetta is 360 acres. Not all of that is in their golf course and 16 and a half of it is in Weisetta. The balance of each of those clubs is in Orno. By definition, you have multiple jurisdiction problems because you have one city that is silent on it. Maybe they're contemplating something, but they don't have anything in place today. And then for the minority of each of you guys, you have a very restrictive ordinance and that's got to be hard to manage. Um, other cities have more flexible ordinances. Ken already talked about this. Um, it's Edina, Eden Prairie, and Minnotonka either have an exemption, some very specific reference to golf courses being held to a different standard. their commitment, your commitment to tree preservation is strong. Sustainability is a core objective of Woodhill. Um the ordinance burden is unfair both from a time and cost perspective. Uh you not only talk about it, but you have proven environmental stewardship with your certified Ottabban cooperative example. Um you have inherent motivation to to have a healthy forest because that's part of a golf course. You need to have a hole to play, but you also want to have a beautiful preserve around it. And I think you guys do a good deal. The thing that tipped me back in November when this first crossed my desk was safety and the unintended consequences from safety. We had a near tree death on public property in here with a severe uh impalement to an individual. You had a death and by no fault. The friction involved in safety in a semi-private environment where you have guests and people walking. It's not like a preserve. Nobody walks through. you have people walking under these trees. And by that definition alone, I'm for the exemption. Forget about the rest of it. Um, you're managing something that has people walking through it and around it. And, you know, I couldn't sleep at night thinking if some little kid got struck with a limb because we couldn't figure this out. So, for all those reasons, I'm I'm in favor of option one, a straightup exemption. So, I think we've heard from everybody. I would now accept a motion on what folks think is going to move forward here. Um, so I guess I would accept a motion for option one. Um, Mr. uh, city attorney. Yes, mayor. Thank you. I, you know, if if you're going to go with option one, I would just want to clarify for the record that that is the the draft ordinance that starts on page 57 of your packet so that there's no ambiguity about that. And I' I'd like to offer a friendly amendment just because the discussion has been so good in terms of what you've articulated that your findings would be based on the report and recommendation of the planning commission and as articulated by council at this meeting because I think that will help support uh the adoption of option one as well. Okay. So with that additional preamble to me asking for a motion for option one, would anyone be prepared to make a motion for option one as presented on the screen? I can make that motion. Okay. Do I have a second for that motion? I'll second it. Do we have any th further discussion on on uh first and second? Hearing none, then I would uh just do let's just do a roll call vote real quick. Uh, council member Parkhill, I. Council member Pleish, I. Council member McDonald, I. Council member Sorenson, I. Mayor Mullen, I. That passes five to zero. Um, thank you for your time. We'll move on to the next agenda item. Next on our agenda this evening is consider adoption resolution 212025 approving a PUD concept plan at 1022 and 1042 WTA Boulevard East known as the Lamborghini dealership. Uh who will be taking this city man? Mr. Mayor, it's the Alex show tonight. So Director Sharp is going to walk us through this one again. Not me. The other Alex. Yeah, that's right. It's the other Alex-2 and it's not a as an entertaining show as I would probably wish for you on a Tuesday evening. Uh, as stated, thank you, mayor. This is a planned unit development concept plan at 10221042 Weisetta Boulevard East. The applicant is Walzer Real Estate LLC. Before I get going, uh, I'm again, this is a slightly different process than what council and the planning commission have seen as often. It is one that the council and planning commission have seen. So it is built into our code. It is not a three ordinance option. But I do want to make sure that I identify what a PUB concept plan is and why specifically the planning commission had expressed some uh concerns about information and things of that nature and why they are not included in the concept plan. So a concept plan comes forward as a essentially a sketch plan where less or an applicant can submit for this to submit slightly less information to essentially tease out what some of their initial issues on a proposal may be and if there's just a general lack of support or significant concern for their proposed application. In doing save some of their initial costs in a development process and then hopefully the goal for the city is that they bring forward a PUB general plan in the future that is more thought out, more developed and contains that additional uh information that the planning commission and city council would being for a full proposal. With that, there are significant number of additional items that would be required for this application to proceed even if council were to approve the PUD concept plan tonight. I'm going to go through these in detail now and then I've got a summary on them towards the end that moves moves through them a little bit faster, but there would be a PUD uh general plan. There would be four variances sought, five design deviations. In the variances are parking setbacks, parking stall depth, access separation to uh roadways and required parking stalls. And then rather than read through all five design, if you identify them on future slides, uh there are those. In addition, there would be a conditional use permit for a fence exceeding six feet in height. And then uh a preliminary plat that would traditionally be one single package coming forward to planning commission and city council. If that were approved, in addition to that, the final plat and final PU9 agreement would come forward generally simultaneously to the city council only. So with that introduction, I'm going to go into the specifics of this application. 22 and 1042 Yetta Boulevard east. Uh it's adjacent to Central Avenue on the east, Weisetta Boulevard to the north. and then the Adina reality and uh public rightaway that is utilized for parking for that adina reality to the west and then to the west of that superior boulevard. The site is use commercial and residential and guided for C3 service district. The proposed use of a dry cleaner and Lamborghini dealership are permitted uses within that zone. There are two parcels that they would be seeking to preliminary plat together. Currently, the vacant parcel, which you'll see a photo of shortly, was a former uh car garage. And then the secondary parcel to the east is the current uh location of a Malber's dry cleaning store and combined are 888 acres. Uh Huntington Avenue west to the site of this that I referred to as being utilized for a diner reality parking. One of the commi questions at planning commission was would that parking be available for this site to be able to utilize. Staff has clarified in the research. Yes. Uh that is still public right away. So any of the parking available as part of that uh area to the west would be uh able to be counted or not counted. I'm sorry. You site for parking but would not be counting towards their overall parking counts for the site. to give you a little bit of perspective and to show you where things look like. This these photos are taken of the sites from Weisetta Boulevard looking south. On the left hand side is the you can see that there's very limited pedestrian connection. Just off frame of this photo is a crosswalk, but that is the limited pedestrian connection available for this site uh for the Malberry site. And then to the east there's uh a limited portion of that site that contains pedestrian connection to the overall down say why boulevard pedestrian connections throughout the uh dealers or I'm sorry car repair location on the eastern site western site I'm sorry right hand side of the screen has been demolished fully and is prepared for development. It is also the site uh where you've seen prior development application caribou drive-thru um and several others through time. The staff report goes into more detail on these. What is being proposed on the site right now is a uh demolition of the a portion of the existing dry cleaner, approximately 2/3 of it, retention of 1,385 ft of that, and a new 7,845 foot dealership with six service repair bays for a Lamborghini dealership. It would be a multi-level uh development in that the dealership would primary primarily be at the elevation of Weisetta Boulevard. Elevation changes from the north to the south of this site, which is one of the reasons why Hungington Avenue South to the west was closed at a prior date uh or closed to vehicular traffic at a prior date. And so there will be a second understory area that contains the access to the service bays on both uh for access from the east uh from a portion of the area where the existing Malber's connection comes in uh just south of their existing building that is proposed to be demolished. Rather than go through the full aspect of this table, I've got it provided largely in the event there were specific questions to the plans so that I'd be able to specifically address them. But the staff does an extensive analysis when reviewing a application for conformance with our code. And the primary piece here that to note is that the southside would require a parking setback and that there are existing nonconformities of its setbacks. So those are the two primary items to note on this slide. Uh the existing Malberry store because it is existing would not require variances for this application to proceed. uh the new setback requirements uh such as those on the south side for the parking would require a variance to proceed. The applicant has put together an overall uh calculation for their parking demand and their uh required parking by city ordinance. By city ordinance, they would need a variance of two parking stalls. One thing of note that did come up at planning commission during the public hearing was that Weisetta hat or that I'm sorry uh Lamborghini Walzer has proposed one stall that you'll see um towards the bottom of your screen in front of the trash enclosure that would not be compliant with code. We cannot have a uh parking stall in front of a trash enclosure for its loading and unloading zone. So that is where one of the two stalls comes from. Additionally, uh, when adjacent to sidewalks, which are I'll see if I can identify in this plan towards the north of the site around the building, code requires that you have a full depth. This is for overhang or to prevent overhang onto those sidewalks. What is being proposed by the applicant at this time is 18 feet install depth. That would require their second parking variance. The third variance uh is the setback along the southern and what they've done to mitigate that is they are proposing the six or over six foot wall along this location. So code requires a 10-ft setback. They're proposing a five- foot setback but in lie of that they are proposing a around 7 foot wall which would require a condition and is another action for this application in terms of access of and loading for the site. It's quite complicated because it is an existing site and uh of an older nature. What is it uh being proposed by the applicant is to remove one access onto Huntington. This access is actually a compliant access uh by spacing from the intersection. So no action is needed for that. During the construction process, the second access off of Huntington, which is uh very close to the intersection of Huntington Weisetta Boulevard and does not meet that access spacing that I referred to, would be completely removed and in so doing in order to be replaced would require a variance. There are two existing accesses which are non-compliant that are not being proposed to be removed. These are in yellow because they as part of this proposal are not proposed to be completely removed would not require future variances as part of the proposal and then the existing access for malberries would be removed and replaced but is a compliant access spacing. The design review for this process uh staff has worked extensively with the applicant and at this time there are uh for exterior building materials no design requirements that need deviations. The deviations come into primarily site design. uh additional details would need to come forward at the PUD general plan, but staff based upon the additions that have been added uh principally to the Malber's existing location as they are demolishing portions of the building, they are leaving exposed facades that would otherwise uh be relatively essentially for interior. They'll they're adding a Wayne's coating to the bottom and adding additional windows to be compliant with our ordinance. In addition, they did tweak the their original design for the Wals or dealership to be compliant with our design requirements for this district. At this time, staff uh has reviewed and would find all materials and uh articulations of the building, glass facade, etc. to meet ordinance provisions for the arch architectural design. there are design review de deviations uh principally regarding their site design and they're one of the reasons why I wanted to highlight the sidewalks and those two photos from earlier in the presentation because they really help illustrate a lot of this. So the first is some of the existing sidewalk along Weisetta Boulevard is se is less than seven feet in width and they are proposing to uh maintain that at less than seven feet 7 feet in width. Additionally, some of the area east of uh the existing sidewalk in the area that was in the lefth hand photo does has a landscape buffer but does not currently have any sidewalk. And so that would be uh you need a sixoot landscape buffer over the entire stretch which is a design deviation if they do not propose which they are not currently proposing and they would need street trees in those areas. And the applicant has made the case at planning commission and this will ultimately be part of their overall application when they come forward for the PUB general plan of they are getting tight on site design to be able to fit pedestrian connection street trees and a landscape buffer. So these have been identified as potential design deviations. Additionally, our design requirements also require in between a sidewalk and a building that you have a landscape buffer as well. These are highlighted in the blue areas on the slide and that area is already constrained in part due to uh the applicants note that they are only doing 18t depth stalls versus 20. Therefore causing some potential overhang onto the uh interior sidewalks of the site. And then the final item is the area identified in purple on this slide which is along a boulevard. Our design requirements parking in what is considered the front yard. These three stalls would be considered front yard. While they are slightly behind the malberries, they are not behind the overall planes of the building and by code definition are considered front. As I told you, I was going to be going through kind of at the high level and then kind trying to sum that up. So this is the quick summary of the future processes that are needed and the current uh application as it's being proposed today. If they come forward with a PUD general plan, there would be the preliminary plat, the four variances that I've detailed, the five design deviations, that conditional use permit for fence height, and then additional city council approvals would be required uh for the PUD final plan, the final plan, and a PUD development agreement. Those are generally not brought forward in a public hearing process through the planning commission meeting. The city engineer did have several comments. They often mimic where staff's review came in. Uh but wanted to highlight some of these as they are concerns principally with uh our current standards and where we've enforced them other sites. Uh these are the parking stalls not being 20 ft deep when adjacent to the sidewalks. uh they're looking for a detailed survey including grading plans, storm water plans, etc. to come forward. Those would generally come forward as part of that PUD general plan at a later date. They are looking for tree replacement uh and where landscaping would go on the site as there are no landscape plans currently proposed uh because they are not required as part of this concept plan. Storm water management will be a integral part of this project. It is something the applicant has certainly spoken about and noted during the public hearing but has not been reviewed by staff at this time. The city engineer noted that there will be updated water service required as part of the site and then due to the proximity to Yazetta Boulevard, there will be review by Henipin County and the impacts onto a county roadway. Part of the city's process of a PUD concept and general plan is that they hold a neighborhood meeting. One was held on July 2nd here at the city hall and 12 residents I'm sorry June 2nd June 2nd June 2nd I got ahead of myself I'm seeing tomorrow already uh on June 2nd 12 residents attended uh there were a number of issues addressed the public hearing many of these issues were expressed as well at the public hearing uh I I tend to try to stay away from trying to summarize staff there is summarized public comments, but to be able to provide a very high level for the council, there were uh greater neighborhood residents that expressed concerns with the project and there were some of the immediate neighbors that expressed some support for the project. And if you're looking for that additional context, would invite the city council to review that at a later date. Since uh you since the packet was released, we have received an additional public comment that is included on the dis this evening. Uh there were also additional comments that came in after the planning commission that were on their dis that evening as well. When reviewing a PUD concept plan, there are a number of items identified by city ordinance to evaluate what or how the city will evaluate the the benefits of that PUB to the community. These are utilized by both planning commission and city council and I can go through them but essentially does it encourage innovations? Does it encourage higher standards? Does it encourage creative use of unique property? Does it create a development pattern that is in harmony and consistent with the comprehensive plan? And does it create a more desirable outcome that perhaps the traditional ordinance may be able to create? The planning commission held the public hearing on June 9th and ultimately recommended on a 4-2 vote to direct staff to prepare a report and recommendation which is included within your report. They then affirmed that decision unanimously at the next planning commission on June 17th. For this evening, staff is recommending staff and planning commission recommend that the council adopt resolution 212025 approving approving a PUB concept plan at 1022 and 1042 Weisetta Boulevard East. With that, I stand for questions. Thank you, Mr. Sharp. Uh questions of staff from council. Mr. Senson. Um, yeah. I had one question. You mentioned the parking on Huntington would be available to to anyone. No. Is that on both sides of Huntington? Mayor, council member. Yes, that's available to any member of the public regardless of whether it's in association with this project or the Adina Reality as it still remains within public right away. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Uh, any other question? Mr. Park Hill. So, one of my concerns is the access that they're they're taking out and putting back in. It seems I know we normally have an access point that is on the road. Seems like you could have a very large car turning in there and could, you know, be rearended by somebody on Weisetta Boulevard if they took it kind of slow. And I'm wondering if that would allow a full turn in and then to the right if you're coming eastbound on Weisetta Boulevard and then a nice left into the property. Um or would it be more like you kind of angle off of Weisetta and go in? I It's kind of hard to see from the map. Is do you have any perspective on that? I can offer a high level. I'm not uh mayor and council member. I'm not an engineer by trade, but planners generally have a high level of understanding this. So, I'll I'll do the best that I'm able. Um, this is an existing condition in many ways, and with the level of traffic to the site and it being public rightway, I I do not believe that there's going to be a significant impact from to from today's condition to this proposal. That being said, I would uh feel more comfortable trying to answer that more detailed question at a PUB general plan when we're getting traffic numbers and full review rather than this highle concept plan. I just don't want to create a problem and it is an existing I guess it's going to be going back into the exact same spot. So it is probably existing condition. Um, and maybe this question that we can uncover, but have there been before or is that a problem area of any kind? Council me or mayor, council member, I I believe that that would be an item of additional study at a PUB general plan rather than the high level concept for that. But excellent qu question. Thank you. Other questions of staff? I've got one here, but um this is a little bit oddball one, but I know that that one property to the west used to be a gas station um and now it's leveled. Is there has there been any oil gas leakage underground tank mitigation issues lingering or in the past? Do you know? I think I got it. Mayor, council member, I'm gonna attempt to answer it and if uh city manager Dah has some supplemental uh he can weigh in on it. I believe the the leaking underground storage tank all of those items have been fulfilled at this time and that it is uh I for lack I don't want to say clean site yet, but the proper processes have been gone through to mitigate from a gas station today. All right. Thank you, Council Member McDonald. Yeah. Uh, Director Sharp, I I also am a little bewildered about the access points. Um, particularly one you circled in red when you were showing us. Could you just offer a little bit more clarity on maybe take these specifically this one in red? Is this is this one that's going away or will still be used? Yes. So, uh, mayor, council member, the one that's circled in red, uh, red was not to necessarily denote good, bad. It was coloration just to start with that basis. Secondarily, it was to identify that a variance would be needed because it is being completely removed during the construction process. So, it is an existing access to at this date. During the construction process, they are 100% removing it. Therefore, it loses its existing rights to be there. Okay? Therefore, to be reinstalled at that location, which is non-compliant with the 40ft separation from an access or that 40 foot access separation distance required by code, the reinstallation requires a variance during the process. Okay? So, in order to get into this parking lot as it's written in this concept, there's only one access point that's actually conforms to what we want to see from our as proposed. Correct. That's what I mean. In this concept, as is currently on the site, there are two. One is being removed largely due to grade change. That's the purple X south of the red and the green one would comply, but it's down the hill. Correct. Okay. And due to grade change would present some level of difficulty uh essentially having access to the northern part of the site. Thank you. Anything else from council? Okay. Now I invite the applicant if they wish to uh comment on their application. You don't have to, but you're invited to if you wish to make any commentary. Just uh state your name and address and who you're representing, please. Yeah. Good evening, council. Uh Brandon, Greece, Greece Architectural, 500 North Commercial Street, uh Nenina. uh just here today uh I think Alex did a fantastic job uh representing our project and to talk a little bit about the the red access point and and the purple as we develop further back in the site currently that the the old gas station uh kind of there's a hill behind it that goes down and with our building getting deeper is forcing us to bring that grade up. So you can actually see where that purple X is. We have a retaining wall now. Uh so that's why we can't use that access drive anymore. The red circle we will be matching in. So we're not going to remove that access drive, but we do need to alter the grade of that access drive in order to uh accommodate our our new building elevation. Uh so I just wanted to respond to that and then if there's any other design questions about the site or the building, I'm happy to speak to those. Sure. Uh questions of the applicant from council. Yeah. Yes. Yes. Mr. Park, go ahead. What are your plans for the dry cleaning? I know it's going to be there. It's got 10 years on there or something. Is your plans to keep that? And I guess why did you keep it? I may ask um Paul to join for the for that. But uh yeah, the land the the dry cleaning as far as the building goes is the renovation, but I think Paul could speak to Mr. Wzer if you could just state your name and address for the record. I'm Paul Wzer. I actually live at Grove Lane here in Weisetta. Thank you, Mr. Werzer. So, good to meet all you guys. Um the the conversations with the dry cleaner are ongoing. Uh we have acquired the site uh but we're getting um a little bit of push back from Lamborghini in terms of their willingness to share a site with the dry cleaner. Um so we're kind of trying to come at this um in a way that sort of satisfies all the parties. And so it's possible that uh the dry cleaner um may be able to go forward as we're laying this out right now. But it's also possible that the dry cleaning uh thing is removed entirely. Uh and and and perhaps maybe even a third possibility, frankly, is that uh the dry cleaner stays and we just retreat back to the former gas station site. So, we're we're in conversation on that. And when I came in here today, I was kind of wondering because uh um you know, we we don't have that piece finalized yet, you know. So, is is you know, are we doing this in the right sequence to make sure that you know, you guys are fully up to speed with what the project looks like? because that's that kind of came to our attention here recently that Lamborghini was having some issues with with with the shared site. Um Mr. Puckish. Um good evening, Mr. Walter. Glad to meet a neighbor, so to speak. Yeah. Um the glaring question I had when I was studying the packet is I understand that these two lots were purchased and they're to be combined into one lot. Is that correct? Well, I don't know. Did we Is that Yes, I guess it is. Okay. So, that which begs the next question. If one entity owns both lots, why not just use both lots combined to make one business, which is a Lamborghini, which I think when we start our discussions may address many of the concerns we have with all the variances and design standards that could be solved if you had just one business in one combined lot and without the dry cleaner. Certainly would be our preference as well. the condition under which the the dry cleaner were willing to go forward with the sale of that property was based on their continuing to be there in a in a much more reduced uh capacity. So initially when that building was built that all the dry cleaning was done on site. uh now it's part of a chain operation and so it's strictly the the dry cleaning is done elsewhere and dropped off and at at that location the customers come in and pick and pick up and drop off the dry cleaning there. So it only would require a much much smaller uh building than what they currently have. Uh but we weren't able to move forward with that site uh without their involvement initially. There's another tenant that no longer does business there. There there used to be another tenant in that correct. There was a years and years and years I think a photo a photography a development that has been vacant for some time now. Yeah. So for so who owns that property now? We do. So you are the landlord. We're but we're we do it but we're subjected to the lease. That's that we have the dry cleaner has a lease for you guys have those terms. Uh uh Don any you have them. Yeah. So, what what what's the it's they have five years and then another fiveyear renewal option. 10 years and a five. So, if you're combining the lots, I'm curious why you're doing that. Uh I'm not trying to press too hard here, but No, that's fine. You know, you got the dry cleaners, which is a tenant with a long-term lease arrangement, and you've got Lamborghini trying to fit a dealership in here. Why? Why combine the two lots in the first place? What What's the advantage there? Yeah, let's let someone smarter answer that question. No, that's all right. So So the advantage was the the lock configuration. So I think when when Paul referenced our initial plan, we were all slammed on the one site. U so there was there was an option to look at that. the the preference for the building layout and the size of the layout uh was was this configuration which required us to to get onto this other piece of property. So basically taking advantage of more land is the advantage of combining the land for for our building. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Any last questions for the applicant Mr. Sornson then we'll go to you. No go ahead please. Um, so watching and listening to the planning commission, there was quite a bit of conversation which I thought was really relevant to how we think about this in terms of uh your how you operate this facility because you when you think of a car dealership, you think of farther farther east down the road, right? But it was interesting um the way it was described or attempted to be described. I think maybe even wasn't fully understood by those who were here. um that's more of a concier type approach. So issues like I think it'd be really good to understand because traffic is going to be a big issue here. It's a big challenge with this site period. And so I think it'd be good to hear, you know, how many full-time team members you have that are going to base here, what kind of traffic you think you're going to have, delivery of cars, how and where. Um because it felt like it was much different than your typical dealership. You know, I don't think we're going to have those kind of windy characters that are out there blowing around and the, you know, big blowup things on the roof and stuff. Uh, yeah, this is um this is a completely different kind of a dealership than anything that you could ever typically think of. As an example, you know, most of our stores write somewhere between 40 to 100 repair orders a day on vehicles that need to be repaired. This dealership might write one, you know, and so the the we get a total of 50 Lamborghinis a year and those are all pre-sold. Uh so this is a franchise where um the product is sold well in advance of it actually arriving. viously you're never sitting there with a lot of inventory as you kind of typically think of a dealership in terms of new or used cars because the cars are pre-sold. We have to carry four cars in stock uh one of each of their four models and that's basically all that will be there. um the size of the team, you know, um I don't we don't have exact numbers for you yet, but seven, eight, nine people. This is very very small. Uh and that's that's the way they kind of want this thing that they meaning Lamborghini. This is a boutique operation. It's not a volume deal. It's not a typical car dealership. So, it's a it's it's quiet uh by comparison car dealership. So, like say 50 new cars a year, that's all we get. Um so, it doesn't matter what we do in terms of like how fast we sell them or anything. You just 50 is what you get. So, it's, you know, this is we're talking about, you know, a little over four cars a month. uh compared to like the dealerships you referenced out here on 394, those dealerships are selling 200 cars a month, you know. So, it's it's a it's a very different kind of a store. Uh and remember too that, you know, a good amount of the 50 cars that'll be sold out of this store won't even stay in Minnesota. this is, you know, so you're going to be selling cars to somebody in New York or California or Florida or whatever that can't, you know, they want to get one of these cars as quick as they can and the local dealer that might be in their area might have a four-year waiting list and so they find somebody that they can get a car faster and they pick up the car and they're gone and we don't ever see them again. So that this is a little different than most dealerships in the fact that most customers typically are local uh that are buying from our other stores. This is you're this is a national deal in terms of where the cars could end up. We might end up with the 50 cars that we get a year. Maybe only half of them end up in Minnesota, maybe less. Um and these and the people that are going to buy them locally, those cars will be parked in the wintertime. you know, there are going to be this is a summertime product only other than the one product they have, which is a a small SUV. So, that one maybe you'll be driving around. So, just different. I M Mr. Surn had a follow-up question. Yeah. Um, will you do maintenance on these cars here? Well, will we do maintenance? Yeah. Yes. Where's the next closest Lamborghini dealership to here? Chicago. Chicago. All right. Thank you. Yeah. Council member McDonald, I have uh just two questions for you, Mr. Wer. Uh the I thought there were four, but the three parking spots I see in the front yard, are those dedicated to the laundry or they for the car dealership? They are dedicated to the laundry. Okay. So, in theory, that would go away if there wasn't a laundry there. In theory, if there was not a laundry, yes. And um what do what does Lamborghini require you for signage? So we would have a monument sign and a a building sign. Okay. And a monument sign is on a big pole with a right like um that's you mean by a monument sign. Monument sign like a typical you know sign that would typical sign that would be your your ordinances. So it's just a eight foot tall or what? I don't I don't know what the ordinance reads offhand, but not a pylon sign on a big pole. Does Does Lamborghini have any requirements for their signage? They do have they have requirements, but they offer different sizes because depending on the m municipality we go into, um there's different sign ordinances. So, um it's just the Lamborghini logo is essentially what what's on their sign. I'm trying to get an idea of the scale. I was really concerned about their gateway and I want it to feel like Weisetta and not like you've entered Lamborghini. So I'm trying to get Can you be more specific on what their minimum requirements are for size? It really it I mean the best way I can answer at this point is our any signage we put on would meet a zoning ordinance. So Lamborghini dictates the look of it, but we're we're required to meet your size restrictions. So if you had a I think this may be a better question for staff. So I apologize. All right. Um did you have any further questions? No. Okay. Any other questions of of the applicant? Okay. Thank you, uh Mr. Wallser and team. bring it back to councel to uh discuss reactions, pros and cons to staff recommendation of approval. So, who would like to begin the Oh, actually, do we have any cards? Actually, I apologize. I should have asked that. Do you have any cards? Mr. Mayor, we do not. Okay. I apologize for missing that step. Now, we'll bring it back. Um, who would like to weigh in first? Mayor, could I ask staff to give me a little clarity on our signage requirements? Go ahead. Address your uh question to staff, please. Any signage requirements for car dealerships? Uh, Council Member McDonald, uh, Mayor Mullen, uh, Director Sharp's looking at that right now. Um, I will say there's very limited space and there's sign setback. So, um, I don't know what the height or square footage is, but they're going to be really freestanding signs, let alone what they have on their building. Well, even a monument sign sounds like that one's in the running for the applicants. So, uh, uh, minimums or restrictions on monument signs. And then if we have any sort of language in our code about lighting of car dealerships is another thing. I don't I don't think we have any specific uh requirements for the car dealership use. It's more just lighting on site in general. Okay. Uh so mayor council member um the lighting I can answer because I was prepared for that uh very question. We do not have specific standards to uh for a car dealership. However, we do, as uh uh city manager Dah noted, we do have general lighting standards uh within the commercial district. Uh in terms of signage, getting you the area right now, uh that does semi- depend upon a couple of factors, which is why I want to do a little bit of additional research. Please think your take your time. Thanks. Okay. Um, while he's researching that, are there any last questions of staff? We just did get two public uh, comment cards. So, while he's doing that, I'll invite um, Mr. Straa to the dis for commentary. Um, Mr. Straa Gordy Straa, 130 Huntington Avenue, which abuts the back of the station and has for years. Um, we just wanted to um we've we've met with Walers and they've been very good with working with the neighborhood. We've had a couple meetings with them and um we talked about lighting and we've talked about noise and they have always worked with us and had ideas and put things up. So, we're pretty confident that they would be good neighbors. Uh they said no no used cars, no highlights, and um so far they've been super to us. So we would really um the neighborhood is in favor of dealership because it's well it was a service station for since 1938 as I worked there when I was in high school and uh I wasn't in high school in 38. um that Horus Falconstein was there for 30 since 38 on and um it's it was a hole whoop excuse me it was a hole there between me and the station but that got filled over the years so now it's up and they built a retaining wall and said they're going to add add to it to bring it up to grade the retaining wall and also we're Um we're hoping for um variance in fence height for the 8ft fence both towards me and also over by the apartments because that would certainly help things. But um pretty much the neighborhoods in favor. Thank you Mr. Straka. Thank you. Uh next I'd like to invite Mr. Welcome. just state your name and address and you're welcome to address us. Yeah. Good evening. My name is uh Greg Hog at 120 Chvy Chase Drive. Um Gordy or I'm the owner along with my wife of the multifamily property adjacent uh to the south of the property there. And um I think one thing that I want to reference here is the significant water that has come down that hill and I should have been there last week or this week. Okay. That water that comes off that property comes down through our our property and goes all the way down to four, five, six home sites. And we've been dealing with that for I don't know since the 30s, right? Um and it's significant. Okay. And one of the advantages of of of making the improvement to this property is water in my opinion. Okay. And I just want to reinforce that if it's if this is not a fit, then we're going to sit and wait. And is that going to be a medical building or a dentist office or what have you? And I think no matter what you put there, you the traffic counts, whether it's retail or medical building or what have you, that traffic counts are going to be higher than a Lamborghini dealership that sells 50 cars a year. Okay. So, there's a little bit. One is the water challenge. Two is if not now, what is going to go in there in the future? Because we've had the caribou conflicts and the drive-thru, going to be a dentist office. Uh what what is going to be there? I think it's the perfect fit. Um because there's going to be lot less traffic. It's a boutique uh exclusivity um dealership. And again, I just what would go there? Okay, we've all had to drive by it for years. Um and there's a side of me and saying, "Okay, I get it. In 2025, they sell cars in shopping malls and what have you. The dealership experience is totally different. we're not having um gorillas on the roof and and all else selling hot dogs and stuff like that. So, um I think it's a really perfect fit and I've been around in a lot of city council meetings and usually the people adjacent to the property are the ones usually that has the most complaints that we we don't want it. And there's traffic and the and the tactics are the traffic, um the noise, the lighting, um the usual things. Gordy and I along with these neighborhood meetings, we've met the Walzers. My tenants are going to be less than 7 feet from this dealership. Okay? But we're we're for it. Okay? So, I just want you to think about the water issues uh when you're deciding this. Thank you. Yeah, thank you for your comments. I I lived at 138 Huntington for 11 years and I can personally attest to the water issue that you're uh that you're referring to. So, um now we've had public commentary. Did that give you some time to address the question of Council Member McDonald? Mayor, yes, it did. Thank you very much for your flexibility with that. So, there are a couple different answers that I want to be able to provide to this. The first is that the C3 district does have some very specific provisions for height when adjacent uh to arterial roadways. So no more than 30 foot above grade or 40 foot maximum height specifically within the C3. Additionally C3 for a monument signed or ground maximum of 8t in height would allow 60 square ft of area. for a freestanding sign which would be that 30 foot or 40 foot it's 35 square foot in area and then all of that is subject to the fact that this is a PUD which with the PUD it does allow the city to some additional provisions that could come forward limiting sign limiting to that more boutique limiting lighting and other community and sight specific aspects that are some of the beauty of the PUD ordinance or a PUD ordinance I should state that could come forward because that becomes a future negotiation with the city as part of that application. So specific provisions could be placed that further limit beyond what code would already be. So does that address your question? That's great. Okay. So now I'll bring it back to council for deliberation and pros and cons of staff's recommendation of approval. So who would like to weigh in? I'm happy to. Council member Park Hill. Um, thank you, Director Sharp, um, and the planning commission for all their work that they did. Uh, thank you, Mr. Greece and Straa and Wner and Hogland. I appreciate your commentary. Um, I think this is a great use of the property. Um, I would very much like to see this here. Um, my concerns are the quantity of variances and the design deviations. I'm hoping that the general plan can come back with once you figure out what's going on with the dry cleaner, what you, you know, what you can figure out with what um, Lamborghini wants as far as signage and other requirements that the dealerships require. Um I think that um hopefully there can be less deviations, less varian lot to um to find some creative solutions is the right answer. Um I am okay with the um the fence on the back side of the property. I think that's appropriate. Um, this the parking spots in front, I I don't love those. Um, I don't care whether they're 18 or 20 ft, but I don't love them in front. So, maybe those can go away if we get rid of the dry cleaner. um land my one of my there's just zero land landscaping and I realize there's not a landscaping plan yet and that wasn't one of the requirements but I I am hoping that when um you all come back that there's um a lot more attention to those kind of details. Um, you we did the design standard and I worked on that project and we moved all commercial buildings up towards the front of the lot. Um, that is my preference. Um, I think that u might be good for your showroom also, but I understand that uh it may not work in this situation. So hopefully there can be consider some consideration to that. I think being closer to the street for you guys would be great. Um I think PUD is the the right direction. Uh gives us some flexibility given this unique and small site and it also gives you the ability to be very creative and innovative. So, um I guess an issue that I would love to have addressed is if there is a way that we can mitigate the water problem for the neighbors. That would be something that I know you guys would think about doing and it would be great to see that come back in the general plan. So, I hope to see this project come through and I and I like the concept. Uh thank you, Council Member Parkell. Who would like to go next? Anyone? I guess I'll weigh in then. Thank you, Council. Um, I share many of the thoughts that, uh, Council Member Parkhill shared. Uh, I do have some concerns about this. I' I'd like to see the dealership there. I'd certainly like to see that property developed. It's been sitting idle for far too long. And um so I'd like to see something there, but uh I too was part of the design standards board and the design standards uh that they're asking for the deviations don't fit with the vision that we had for the future of Weisetta Boulevard or even just our our city in general. And that property certainly didn't comply with the design standards uh for all the things that were there before, but we now have an opportunity to make it comply with our vision for Weisetta and Weisetta Boulevard in the future. Uh I think a lot of my concern about some of the variances that were being requested and some of the design standards that are being request deviations that are being uh requested would be solved if that was just one combined parcel with one business on it that had a lot more flexibility to design into that um that property the kind of of things that we want in our design standards and and would mitigate some of the variances. Uh I I would like to see this go forward, but I can't see it going forward with its current design plan. Uh there would have to be some pretty major uh compliance with the with the standards we've got. So again, I'd like to see this thing go forward, but not in its current design format. Uh thank you. Who would like to go next? Okay, mayor. Thank you. Um I um I share some of the concerns with uh those who have spoken before me and and also some goals of seeing that property developed. Um, one thing that hasn't been mentioned yet that has been weighing quite heavily on me is the feedback I get from the community, the most the one of the most pressing issues is luxury cars, loud mufflers, this destination to drive your fancy car, have people come here and watch you. uh the the aftermarket mufflers that disrupt u and appreciate that only a fraction of the sales from this dealership will be driven on Lake Street in Weisetta, but I think it really um sets the tone, kind of creates a vibe that place for luxury y cars, noisy ones at that and which is, you know, fun for the visitors, but very bothersome to the community and and so I'm I'm really grappling with this at a concept level for that reason. Um, I could be convinced of it. However, the plan that's in front of me, I just see so many things that go against the community values, like the walkability, the the landscaping, um the access points. I mean, the list is really quite long. So, as presented tonight, I can't um support this concept plan for for all those reasons stated. I, you know, I think the applicant made a a very good point that perhaps they're a little out of sequence. And so I would encourage um the applicant to look more closely at that sequence and come back to us if um things could fit into that space a little a little more neatly and aligned with the community. those comments and perspective. Uh, Council Member Sornson. Yeah. Well, I think it's important to keep in mind this is a concept plan. There's multiple steps ahead. Um, there are more than the typical amount of variances, design deviations, um, cups that um, are surfacing in this in this application. I would say the pre-existing conditions um dictate a lot of these practical hardships inherent that um this is a difficult and tricky site for parking. Um it uh you have the existing cleaners on site. Um the the topography of the site, I mean, I think we're trying to do a lot with a very um small footprint. if you could um agree with the previous comments. I think if you had this entire site, it would look and feel a lot different and everyone would feel um a little better about it. So, I mean, these aren't significant issues that would need to be dealt with moving ahead with parking, the sidewalk issues, the lack of landscaping, and I think somehow we need some confirmation, assurance that somehow that think this thing's going to operate the way that it's been presented. And I think Council McDonald's comment about signage is very good also. So, um, and but I would agree with some of the other comments about traffic. I mean, if not this, what this has sat for a long, long time. I think it's significant that the immediate neighbors are supporting this. Um, that really hasn't been the case in the past at all. Um I would generally agree with the planning commission on this that if you look at the criteria um that it's met the criteria to at least move this ahead at at at the planning concept and knowing that's going to be there'll be uh significant scrutiny moving ahead. The one com other comment I would make a bit on the side but you know in the in the in the quarter study we did foretta boulevard um to me a building with any burnish block finish on any side of the building doesn't doesn't doesn't isn't the quality type of material that that that I think would fit. So something to maybe be dealt with down the road if this moves ahead. But all in all, I'm in favor of giving this proposal life and moving it ahead. Um, thank you. So, I'll try to just be additive, not duplicative. I would support this concept plan moving forward. Um, you know, I lived on that street for 11 years, and I think Mr. Shraka stated it very well. In the first 6 years that I lived there, it was a gas station, service station, whatever. This is a less intensive use than what was there previously, for that period of six years that I lived behind it. And for the decades previous to that, on the opposite end of the spectrum, people talk about a caribou coffee. It wasn't just a caribou coffee. It was a new concept of caribou driveth through caribou coffee. Can you imagine what the turning in in entry and exit of a drive-thru coffee shop would be in that location? It would be an utter nightmare. Um, so I think we've landed at an appropriate use. I echo council member Plekish's uh encouragement if there is a way to resolve you know getting that current tenant the dry cleaner out and I think it gives you more flexibility I understand that's a business and a contractual thing but you've stated your intent and I encourage you to try to resolve it I think that's the best long-term answer and I think there's an additive benefit to it the curb cut that's on Central Avenue to access that dry cleaner is danger dangerous. I mean, it is like you you're not going to find uh anyone in code that would allow you to have a curb cut 5 feet after a stoplight to turn into a dry cleaner. So, I mean, you know, for all those reasons, I think uh cleaning that up would be great. Last comment would be finish. I I I support Council Member Sorenson's recommendations on the finish of the exterior and try to bring some landscaping. I mean, it's it's concrete from curb cut to curb cut to the Adiner Reality building. If you can bring some landscaping in to green it up a little bit, I think that would be a welcome benefit for so for all those reasons, I'm supportive of this concept plan moving forward at this time. So, uh, with that, I think we would, I guess, hearing people's comments, I would accept a motion to to move the concept plan forward with any additional commentary. I think that's the motion I would accept at this time. Um I can I make just a little bit more commentary if you don't mind as you invited us to do. Um I just really want to reiterate the the importance and the walkabil of of walkability in Weisetta. It's one of our most loved assets as a community. And so buffers, if you're not a walker, a buffer between a sidewalk and a and a busy road is um a must. And same with a 7 foot wide sidewalk. Those things and and trees. Um just I just want to really stress because I feel like this is going to be moved forward. And so it's just uh although I might not agree with the whole the vibe and the concept um but in the in the nitty-gritty I really would hope to see more compliance to our design standards and of course our code. So thank you. Oh very very helpful. Yeah if I may I'd like to add to rather than just an I or no vote uh to add a little bit to that too. Sure. Um, I will reiterate that I'd like to see this project move forward, but I can't agree with the concept plan that's laid before us because there are too many serious design deviations that are included in it. Things like the sidewalk and the width of the sidewalk and the uh uh buffer zone with the with the plant with the plants and the trees. Uh, that hadn't been talked about. Um, I would like to see all of that in the concept plan. Um, then I'd be totally in favor of it. But the concept plan as it's before us today doesn't does not include any of those things and they're just too many. It was hard to keep track of all the variances and design standards that we had to consider for a pretty small lot. Uh, I would love to be it, but I cannot in its current design. I'd like to see it come back with these things addressed. So, thank you for allowing me to No, absolutely. And you know, whoever makes the motion can make a staff recommended, they can adjust it. So, I mean, I guess it's really up to us to decide, you know, are we going to have a motion for what staff's recommending? Is it going to be modified? Is there an alternative motion? So, that's still an option to us here. So, would anyone like to make a motion supporting staff recommendation to move the concept plan forward? here. I I would make that motion uh to adopt resolution 21-2025 approving a PUD concept plan at 10:22 and 1042 Weta Boulevard East. Do I have a second? I'll second that. Okay, it's moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none, then I guess let's just do a roll call vote on on that motion. Council member Sorenson, I. Council member McDonald, nay. Council member Pleish, no. Council member Park Hill, I. Mayor Mullen, I. So, that motion passes 3 to two. I hope that the applicant and I know um take to heart some of the comments that you heard here tonight and do your best uh effort to bring forward the concerns of uh both Council Member Pleish and Council Member McDonald as to the site plan, the you know the the sidewalk, the look and feel of the building, the the landscaping that those details are brought forward in in the best way that you possibly can. Um and and thank you for your uh being here tonight. So, with that, um, we'll move on to the next item on the agenda. Are there any other, uh, folks out there on teams for public comment? Mr. Mayor, there is not. Okay, we'll move on to um, city manager report. Uh, over to you, Mr. Dah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. A few few events coming up for the holiday weekend. Just want to mention uh of course we have our our famous flying pancake breakfast on Friday uh 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. the National Society of the Children of the American Revolution Lake Mitanka Societ that as they always do there'll be a short ceremony flag raising rifle salute uh at 10:00 a.m. as well. Wonderful uh event. Uh come early. The line moves quickly. It's well attended. Uh vets eat free. uh and you get to catch your pancakes and they're really good. So, I encourage uh everybody to come out and uh support a great organization and eat well. Well, spoiler alert, there's a member of our community that's getting an award. Uh I'm not going to say who, but but there's a member of our community getting award at that event. All right. All the more reason to go. Uh and then uh our awesome fire department uh hosts is hosting once again the Kitty Parade and the mini Olympics on the 4th of July. The kitty parade will start at 10:00 am on the corner of Park and Broadway. Uh parents, please accompany your kid to the uh parade in order to participate. And please do not bring any battery operated or motorized vehicles to the event. Maybe there's been some issues with that in the past. Um and then in addition after that at 12:30 the fire department will be hosting the mini Olympics. Uh all sorts of cool events. Uh I am told that council members cannot participate cannot participate. Uh so great events going on for all ages on the 4th of July uh to celebrate our nation's uh birthday. One last thing, uh let's see. There we go. Do you mind zooming that in a little bit? Uh, I want to acknowledge and encourage the entire community to, uh, wish our beloved Curt Clapri well. Uh, he has indicated his intent to retire after, believe it or not, this is not a typo or anything, 40 plus years of serving our community, not only at public works, but in many other facets as well, including uh, our fire department. And if you've seen Curt, every everyone's seen Curt around town. He's always there for the fire department. That's true. That's a good point. Thank you. He's still going to be serving on the fire department, but his quote unquote, you know, full-time job with public works as the parks lead, which he's really uh supervised all of our our wonderful park amenities in town for decades. Anyway, we'll gush more about him uh for that event, but it will be on July 16th from 2:30 to 5:00 p.m. at the public works facility. For whatever reason you can't make it, when you see him, uh congratulate him, send him a note, do whatever. He certainly deserves it. He is the epitome of Weisetta and our values. He's he's always there. He's completely reliable. He's the friendliest person I think I've ever met in my life. and he's just a just a incredible servant, a civil servant. We're happy for him, but he'll be incredibly missed as well. So, stop by uh June July 16th. Okay, that's all I have. Okay. Uh not to take anything away from uh Mr. Kurt Clap, but we're also hosting uh sort of a open house for you, Jeff Dah, for your departure on Tuesday, July 15th at 4:30 p.m. Just didn't want to. So, if you haven't caught on to the news, Jeff is moving on to the city of Woodbury and we're going to honor him with an open house on Tuesday the 15th at 4:30. Um, does anyone have any questions of city manager for the city manager report? Just one. Are you going to be here for the next council meeting or is this your last one? I'll be here for the next one. Okay, council members, I challenge you to prepare for that. That's a challenge. Good roast. Bring a fix. I'm ready. Bring it. I I did have three questions that I wanted to ask you in the city manager report. They're pretty simple. There was a great article in the U Lake Mitaka magazine talking about the history of our uh uh train u display, outdoor train display. And I know there's been some vandalism down there um recently vandalizing the trains and the outdoor set. Yeah. Where are we at with, you know, trying to mitigate that with some additional security and and ideas to mitigate that? Yeah, we're working with the volunteers to put a a motion detector, motion detected light or whatever you call those to make sure that um you know if someone's back there light goes on and a that will scare them off and b people can see. And do we do we feel like we're going to be able to get that in place relatively soon? I I don't have an update on it, but I know uh public works is working with the volunteers uh to make it all happen. Okay, great. And then um there was a sign that was down on right at the BP for the entry and exit to 394. Is that construction with that? That was taken out by this weekend storm. I don't know how it was taken out if it was lightning or but uh I don't know where the status of that is if it's already up or it's in process but I know the county uh is working on that. Okay, great. So it's a storm related issue but it's being addressed. Yep. Okay. The last one was we were working with the Carish and Gardener property to try to put a pedestrian access way to replace the the cutoff. Where are we at with that? It took a little bit to kind of get to uh uh pull the trigger point on it with just the nuances of of the design and who's funding what. We got there and I saw him working on it today. Um so it should be up within the next day or it's underway. the change that we'd hoped for has been accepted by everyone. Now it's just a matter of getting it in place. Exactly. And I saw them working on it today. So yeah, it' be great to have it before the fourth holiday if at all. It will be Oh, great. Okay, that's all I have. Any other comments from I have a question. When are the um speed limit signs going to be changed? Uh not for probably around late this year, early next year. It's going to take a while. We have to communicate. We have to get all the signs and we have really have to develop a plan. So, it's going to be a process. Okay. All right. Uh, hearing no other questions, I would accept a motion to adjourn tonight's meeting. So, moved. Do I have a second? Second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. The meeting is adjourned. All right. So, we have to vote, don't we? Is the motion second. Any further discussion? Do we vote yay or nay? Yay. Okay. Thank you. Like, whoa. Yeah. No, I know.