[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] all right we'll call the meeting to order and uh good evening and welcome to the June 20th 2024 meeting of the mka Planning Commission the commission generally meets on the 1 and third Thursdays of the month the schedule and tenative agendas can be obtained by calling the planning department or by checking the city website at minan mn.gov the commission holds public hearings on land use applications from a specific process standpoint that means we make recommendations to the city council on rezonings subdivisions conditional use permits and amendments to the city's comprehensive plan zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations we also make final decisions on site plans signs requests and variance requests and expansion permits unless these requests are part of an application that must be heard by the city council in that case the commission makes a recommendation and the council makes the final decision the city notifies Property Owners within at least 400 feet of the sites post signs on the properties and places notices in the Lakeshore Weekly News and the mitaka memo any Agri party May appeal a final Planning Commission decision to the city council if you wish to appeal you must submit a written request to the city within 10 days of this meeting from a broader standpoint the city's comprehensive plan zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations are the city's best efforts to Cy fire a balance between individual rights and Community responsibilities individual rights are easy to understand Community responsibilities are more subtle but the idea is that we as members of the community agree to limit our individual rights for the common good of the group The planning department the Planning Commission and the city council are charged with managing the sometimes difficult Balancing Act we ask you keep this broader perspective in mind as we review tonight's applications again welcome staff please call rooll Maxwell here minion here man here Banks here Hansen is absent Henry here chairol here there are six of us seated here tonight uh next is approval of the agenda and I believe there was a change memo chair Su yes there's a change memo associated with item 8B it's just the rearrangement of a condition um with regard to when we would like that condition to be fulfilled um but not a change to the actual condition itself okay great thank you uh recognizing the change memo would someone like to make a motion to approve the agenda motion motion minion I'll second second Maxwell all those in favor signify by saying I I I I motion carries uh next is approval of Ms from our June 6th 2024 meeting uh commissioner has any changes to those minutes doesn't look like it's all right so then I'll take a motion to approve those minutes make that motion motion Waterman I'll second second Henry all those in favor signify by saying I I I I I motion carries uh next is reports from staff uh chair and Commissioners the city council actually has not met uh for a official meeting since your last meeting so I don't have any projects to report on um my only items are to tell you that your next two upcoming meetings are the boards and commissions dinner which is Wednesday July 17th so if you have have not um rsvpd for that please do so um if you're not able to click the link on the um email that was sent by Sissa you can just let me know and I'll um provide that to her and then your next uh Planning Commission meeting isn't for a while uh July 18th we only have one meeting uh in July that's all I have great thank you Commissioners anything to report all right doesn't look like it we're cruising along uh next on the agenda is public hearings the consent agenda items uh these are items will be passed all together in one motion unless someone would like to pull an item and have a full discussion on it um reading these into the record for tonight the things on the consent agenda are item 78 conditional use permit for an accessory dwelling unit at 3936 Brown Lane uh 7B flood plane alteration permit for a swimming pool at 15719 manona Boulevard and 7c setback variants for pergola at 5765 santel Drive uh Commissioners anyone like to pull any of these items to have a full discussion on it doesn't look like it's anyone the audience like to pull any of these items to have a full discussion all right doesn't look like it all right uh would someone like to make uh a motion to approve these items I'll make the motion to approve all right motion banks I'll second second minion staff please pull the commission I'm sorry who second is thank you minion sorry um Maxwell yes minion yes Waterman yes thanks yes Henry yes Cher yes uh 7A and 7B motion carries uh 7A and 7B are to be heard by the city council on July 8th and 7 C uh is a final decision subject to appeal within 10 days in writing of this meeting so uh good luck with your applications all right and moving on to item eight uh non-consent agenda before we We Begin consideration of the non-consent agenda items I'd like to review the steps in the process and the public hearing procedure that will be followed for each proposal first item will be announced and staff will report on the subject the commission will then ask questions next the applicant will be invited to make a presentation or offer comments Commissioners may ask additional questions at this time after the applicant is finished the public hearing will be open to give anyone present the opportunity to comment on the proposal if you wish to speak please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record we ask you keep your comments brief and try not to repeat points already made once everyone has spoken we may allow speakers to return for additional comments at larger meetings neighborhood spokes people encourag and be given up to 15 minutes to present the public hearing will then be closed and no further comments will be allowed the commission will discuss the proposal and make a decision the first item on tonight's non-consent agenda is item 8A conditional use permit and final site and building plans for Les Schwab Tire at 17555 Highway 7 uh it's a recommendation that the city council adopt the resolution denying the request uh and Miss Thomas I believe this is your item yes thank you chair Su uh this first project in sight for your consideration this evening is located in the Southeast quadrant of the County Road 101 Highway way 7 uh intersection it's roughly a combined uh 12 acre commercial site there's a large M multitenant um retail uh building we still refer to it as the Kmart building though I don't think Kmart has been in that building for many many years um and there's also a standalone fast food uh restaurant on the site at last count there were just uh I shouldn't say just over there were over uh 300 uh strip parking stalls on the property the site is located just west of Purgatory Creek uh city-owned parcel Purgatory Creek Trail um some multifam housing as you can see to the East and then some uh single family housing the site was part of the Highway 7 and 101 Village Center study which was done back in 2011 that was a public engagement process kind of uh visioning projecting out development for the area uh into the future the specific proposal uh tonight uh presented as you noted Chair by Les Schwab Tire Center is to construct a tire retail and installation building directly north of that large existing uh commercial building um essentially located in this underutilized uh parking lot here the new building would be just under 10,500 Square ft in size it would contain uh sales and showroom area Staff office support spaces for the staff some inventory warehousing space and then seven uh service Bays as you saw in your report pre-cast panels of various um Shades and textures would comprise the the building exterior those facades The Proposal does require a conditional use permit as does any automobile use that has service bays in our community and it also requires final um approval of final site and building plans again any commercial building uh construction requires that in evaluating this proposal staff uh focused on two primary questions and the first was whether um The Proposal would meet the conditional use permit standards that are outlined in city code and we find that it would not um first in in the opinion of Staff we find that it would not meet the general standard that the use be consistent with the goals policies and objectives of the comprehensive plan as the commission is aware the 20 240 comp plan is uh full of various uh goals a variety of goals and one of those one of the objectives um or one of the emphasis of the plan is to manage land use transitions or the impacts between potentially conflicting uses the comprehensive plan also specifically references that Highway 7 101 Village Center study and that study does include as you noted in the report um what I've considered really pragmatic development opportunities on the site um both of those development opportunities there were two um do include Redevelopment or new development on the property um but that development occurs towards what I would say are the more intense portions of the property so towards uh the county road towards the highway um maintaining or improving connection to the the natural resources to the east um to that recreational area to the residential area secondly staff finds excuse me that the proposal doesn't meet the specific conditional use permit standard that automobile related uses um shall not be located within 100 feet of any low density residential parcel the code that does go on to state that the city can reduce that without variance um if certain conditions exist and I would say that most of those conditions or there's three um deal with buffering excuse me I'm just going to get a drink here again it's the opinion of City staff that um given the concerns that we have about this this first standard the general cup standard um that that reduction um not be made we do acknowledge that there's not a residential structure within 100t of this property line but the code talks about the guidance of the property low density residential parcel and that is in fact what exists immediately to the east so to conclude then um kind of a a short presentation here we don't support the Les Schwab proposal because we don't believe it meets those conditional use permit standards the general standard of um supporting the goals of the comprehensive plan and supporting um the goal of that highway1 um County Road excuse me County Road 101 Highway 7 um study which is specifically referenced in the comprehensive plan and we don't believe it meets the specific conditional use permit standard also I would just point out that there's other development opportunities locations on this site um that would meet those standards so as such staff recommends denial of of this request and I would turn it back to the chair great thank you Miss Thomas any questions for staff yeah commissioner Waterman uh thanks chair thanks Miss Thomas um I guess to just keep pulling the thread on the last comment you made about other locations on the site had that been discussed with the applicant and concluded that those would be acceptable to the city or and the applicant just didn't want to or is that more question for the applicant yeah chair Su and and commissioner Waterman I think that would be a good question for the applicant um two more this is the storm water management plan sufficient uh chair and and commissioner Waterman yes from an engineering perspective yes the storm water management agement plan um would meet our rules um this project does fall within the Riley Purgatory Bluff wed District so they would need a permit from that Watershed district and I can't speak to whether or not it would meet their rules okay and then just to clarify I know it said that the sight building plan um isn't recommended because the first standard for cup isn't met is is there anything else like specific that wasn't that the city is adverse to um with the site building plan I think you mentioned like materials and things like that is or is that just let's get past this first thing chair and and Commissioners I think we couldn't get past that that first um that first condition about meeting the the comprehensive plan um so we couldn't get beyond that I think that if we were to move to real specifics of the site and building plan um I think that we would be looking more towards uh and Miss winek could jump in from a facade materials we'd be looking more for things that were done perhaps at the Culver's site um those types of facade materials versus the facade materials that are um on the larger commercial building okay so then just just one followup question if if the recommendation were to disagree with the city would we also then need to provide recommendations on like site and building or we like how would we weigh in on that that chair at and and Commissioners if you are so inclined to recommend to the city council um approval of the project I think that it would be helpful for you to State for the record what you would if there are things that you would like to see uh improved with the plan or changed with the plan to Simply State those for the record so that the council is cognizant uh of that okay great thank you other questions for Steph yeah commissioner Henry thanks chair so City staff just to be clear it's not that it's the type of use that City's objecting to it could have been a restaurant or could have been any other building it's just that the location doesn't jive with the comprehensive plan is that correct yeah chair and and commissioner Henry one of the conditional use permit standards for any conditionally permitted use is that it needs to be consistent with the comprehensive plan so yes I would suggest to you that if this were a fast food restaurant that was proposed in this location which requires a conditional use permit or uh any other type of use that requires a conditional use permit we would again be showing this visual that's before you because um the Highway 7 and 101 Village study which was is referenced in our comprehensive plan um did not contemplate uses in this corner it contemplated um preserving this more natural area and opening up that Natural Area does that answer the question yes so it sounds like the answer to my question is yes yes that was a lengthy answer to a short question I apologize thank you oh I I like I like elaboration on things too something else to elaborate on on the right side image of this page there's another building that's proposed in one of the proposals and that one looks like it's pretty close to the the boundary where the trail is too can City staff elaborate on that one and why that was put there and not left out to create a buffer between this development and the trail itself I think I can jump in here chair if you don't mind um please because I was part of the planning process I think if you remember the time frame when this was happening we just had that uh Clear Channel sign installed right uh to the east of there so I think there was uh some at least acknowledgement that that's a very profitable Corner if you will and the the you know the ability for people to turn right off the highway with a right in right out uh probably was attractive so I think an acknowledgement to what was happening at the time but also an acknowledgement for the property owner to say you know there is some definite um use of that property for commercial purposes that that the city recognizes so I think that's why um there was a little bit of anticipation now I think when we were talking about it uh it tended probably in our minds to be more food related coffee that sort of thing um just because of the highway traffic thank you to follow up on that then if City would look at this picture today and if it go through the same evaluation that this proposal before us today goes through would City have similar objections to a building put in that position because it is close to the trail I think it's hard to hypothesize um commissioner Henry about anything uh it depends on the size really uh of the site plan that you're proposing it also depends on the actual placement so is that exactly where it's placed or is it moved to the West at all if it's moved to the West I think there could be some decent separation from the trail and and Purgatory Creek and then the home to the east I mean that's the further west we can go the better uh with any potential use and also looks like in the picture there's a pretty distinct green buffer between it and the trail system too yeah and I think the other thing commissioner Henry if I could elaborate a little bit is that this site was developed well before storm water management was anything um anything that was thought about so I think there was a recognition definitely in the plan that this was a low spot on the site and that um it would be good for water treatment and and to turn that water treatment then into also a benefit uh for this property but also for kind of buffering to the more recreational portion of the trail so I think there um was acknowledgement that there never was storm water management for the whole site in that plant thank you yeah commissioner Banks you have a question thanks chair um just quick question about the location of the proposed um um structure how far would it be from I I notice we stay um 100 ft from low density residential how far would it be from the zoning of residential uh and then with the picture we're looking at the proposal uh can we determine how far would be from that first residential home and and commissioner Banks the building itself would be the closest residence is actually a multi- um Family Residence it' be over 300 ft the structure would be the closest single um household residential so R1 zoning is at this is this location here um the home would be you know well over probably double that that amount but this property these properties are all zoned R1 and relativ close appro how far would be from R1 I can do that measurement my guess is it's well over 600 feet I'm sorry just oh about um about well it's 65 ft from this property line so I'm going to say a little over 65 ft from the property line here this corner thank you any other questions for staff I have a few you asked the one I first one I was going to ask um second is how old is the village study a chair seol and commissioner of the village study was performed in 2011 okay so 1 years old okay um and then this is U an opinion question how overp parked is this property in parcel it's a broad question so I'm not asking for a specific number but just share from a from a um code requirement I have not done a a code study I would say just from a drive by visual I would say that there's a lot of parking available um except when the um mega pickle is active um that certainly brought a lot of new users to the site but I would suggest to you that this Northern um parking area is um open Asphalt most of the time it was a bit of a leading question because when I speak of and I do often about pockets of minona they're dramatically over parked it could point to this I suppose so um and then so if the was there a proposed or suggested alternative location like are we talking just you know 100 ft to the West 50 ft North like how how far away would it need to be to get more acceptable or is the answer just farther a chair from the specific the specific conditional use perment standard it would have to be at least 40 ft further to the West okay um and in conversation with the property owner not the applicant but the property owner I know that the proper owner has some concerns obviously about um their existing um tenants and um how new buildings would change visibility for their existing tenants which I would imagine like you'd think oh just be at the corner of 101 and 7 but then you're going to be blocking the other tenants so thus the conundrum okay great thank you um I thought I had another one but I think you answered those so uh Commissioners any other questions for staff otherwise oh you have another one commissioner Henry yeah thanks Sher this may be a little bit overreach or beyond the scope of what we're talking about here too but based on City's recommendation for this does that imply that what exists there it can't be developed in that location based on the comprehensive plan because it would be too close to the trail uh chair and and commissioner Su I'm not sure if I'm following your question staff's position our opinion is this does not meet the comprehensive plan um the goals of the comprehensive plan because the comprehensive plan um calls out the highway 101 no I say that wrong every time the Highway 7 and County Road 101 study which talks about Greening up this area and opening up this area um rather than developing this specific area so it is um that that's our opinion so I can't give you a a a measurement or a um an objective uh move it 8 ft this way and and staff's position would change I thought giving a definitive answer wouldn't would probably be on the scope of this meeting but more I'm looking for a general what you just told me where if the city's plan says Greening it up then a large building close to the TR Trail is probably not in accordance with the city's and the comprehensive plan but other applications could be taken on a case-by Case basis uh chair and commissioner Henry certainly and I think Miss winck wants to add to that yeah chair and commissioner Henry um I think it's more than the trail though so it it's talking about the standards from a low density guidance area it's not about it's not a trail that that is part of it sure but there's housing to the east as well that's very close to what the proposed use is so I don't want to understate that that was part of the staff analysis as well great so it's I should amend to say it's not close just close to the trail it's close to a low density use area low density and then including the trail yes I would say that's true okay great thanks any other questions for staff otherwise I think uh if the applicant would like to come forward uh give us your name and address for the record and if you have anything you'd like to add or make a presentation we'd love to hear from you yeah we do have a presentation great do I so just hit the space bar everything great thatone I'm watching too [Music] good evening chair and Commissioners my name is Eric Rouse real estate development manager for lesw tire centers 20900 Road Bend Oregon 97701 we disagree with staff's recommendation for Denial in fact we've been working with staff for over a year invested of over $100,000 on the project and last week is the first time we heard staff was opposed to our development I have here with me tonight Zach Graham with graham engineering and Mark rower with klj engineering members of our design team they're here to dive into the details of our proposed development and how we go beyond the goals of the comp plan but first let me let me introduce you to our wonderful company founded in 1952 Lew started his company in a shed and grew his business into what is now one of the nation's largest independent tire dealers lashwab operates four 542 stores in 12 States the company employs over 8,500 people and shares half of its profits with employees through generous programs including bonuses retirement savings and excellent Healthcare benefits L robab is committed to its employees at every level of the organization less firmly believed and it's ingrained in our culture that the company's success depends on the success of our people lashwab is headquartered in Bend Oregon our distribution is 100% out of a small Central Oregon town called primeville we are a growth from within company each year employees are promoted throughout our ranks in 2023 there were 478 Store employee promotions lwwa benefits from a proven system offering our sales and service team members a clear pathway to managing their own store each level in the program requires 2 years of service your local manager will have been with the company for a minimum of 6 years the company was founded on the idea of creating opportunities for employees to truly become Partners in the business leab is vested in the communities that we serve in 2023 leab stores invested 6.7 million to support local organizations leab has a long history of supporting organizations focusing on vulnerable children families in need Health and Social Services and education the company held 30 toy and food drives in the 2023 holiday season collecting 134,000 toys more than 3,000 items of clothing and shoes and 95,000 pounds of food to distribute to Neighbors in need our tires forp purpose program provides tires to local nonprofits to keep them rolling in support of the community worldclass customer service is a gauge we use to measure everything we do at leab wccs is what sets us apart from our comp competition from employees running to your car when you arrive at our store to America's best tire warranty including free tire maintenance a 60-day SAT 60-day satisfaction guarantee and free popcorn in our showrooms the customer is always our focus in 23 lashwab was voted most satisfying Tire retailer a national award even though we operate in 12 States we were also ranked sixth out of 300 across all Industries in Forbes 2024 best customer service list and we were number one in automotive Le swap tires has a 70-year history of earning customers trust our hours of operation are Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturday 8 to 5 and we closed on Sundays L LW is your One-Stop option to ensure your vehicles are equipped to safely transport you and your family wherever you need to go leab offers more robust range of services than those available from other tire stores that only sell tires come in for a free pre-trip safety check before your next road trip and we'll check all these components to make sure your vehicle is safe and Road ready and with that I'd like to turn it over to Zach Graham who will talk about our site plan and how we do meet the comprehensive plan thanks sir uh chair Commissioners really appreciate your time here tonight um my name is Zach Graham 4350 rali Street bo uh sweet be Boseman Montana um worked with leab a long time and I concur with Eric it is a great uh company to be involved with um just want to thank you um like to thank you all for your service it's usually a thankless one that you all I have uh so it shows your care for the community um and just also want to thank you for your thoughtful questions to staff and just appreciate your honest consideration of this project and the cup and sight development plan before you tonight I'm going to be presenting a bit more um about leab and the project specifics um I'm also going to be going through some other items within the comp plan and the zoning ordinance and and why we believe this is a conditional use permit that can be supported [Music] all right um excuse me um first of all I just want to touch on a higher level um really um how does le Schwab promote sustainability within their company as a whole we all know that in our various areas of influence in life this is something that we can participate in um some things that some tangible things that leab has done corporate wide um that may seem simple but when when you're U operating 500 stores it makes a big impact uh the the use of non-led weights for tire balancing so you don't have uh used lead weights um ending up in other places they use steel only um so they don't end up in the uh landfill they don't end up on the side of the road reduces leap possibilities with storm water and things like that um they tire recycling is incredibly important through a partner company they recycle their Tire the used tires that they take off of vehicles tire retreading is something else extends the life of tires uh up to 99% of the used battery material is repurposed through another partner company um another one of the big things they do is working with their suppliers to improve brake pads uh brake pads have copper in them to improve the cooling it's needed but they do what they can to reduce that copper so it reduces the grinding down and that material that ends up on our roadways um so they are committed to that and in and committed to on incorporating ongoing Technologies into their business practices for sustainability how does this project specifically promote sustainability um three ways uh solar ready project um the the building will be constructed to be solar ready um looking at uh proposing two EV charging stations and I'll discuss a little bit more about the St storm water as well um constructed solar ready leab has a program where they're going back through their um stores the store managers apply for an upgrade to sto to solar um that right now they have over 60 stores in counting that have been retrofitted in 2024 this year they have 21 projects under contract to upgrade stores and their first targeting stores where studies indicate that 100% of electrical usage will be provided through solar um and so with the new store being constructed solar ready um this helps them it's right you know a study is done and is something that can be incorporated if it if it's one of the top qualifiers as they kind of work down that list through their company I will point out as part of the uh cap plan um and actually this image is in the comprehensive plan um about uh grow solar potential within your city this is a location down in the let me see if I can figure out the mouse Southeast corner so the light areas on this map right in that area is where we're at indicate the areas with the most solar potential um Within in the city of minetonka um and just pointing out a little bit with this even is contradictions potential contradictions within things that were presented by staff and other items that are within your comprehensive plan um that we think this is actually something in the comprehensive plan that uh uh supports development within this area um just because of the solar we'll go through some more EV charging stations again something within uh the menona cap plan um supporting the electrification of vehicle trips obviously this is a vehicle intensive business and so we're proposing two charging stations at the front of the store um at this location here that you can see um up in front of the store all right uh going on to storm water we are meeting the requirements of the Riley Purgatory Bluff Watershed District um some of the storm water quality improvements that we're going through I first just want to point out we're not increasing impervious area or total runoff from the site um so that's important also um we're they call these jellyfish contact jellyfish they got all kinds of funky names for the new technologies coming out but really just this unit in and of itself um reducing the overall total suspended solid um running off from not only Les Schwab's site but we're uh treating almost an additional acre for or not an acre half of an acre um above and beyond just because of the way that grades work going through this so um estimated 107 lbs of total removal a year um and phosphorus removal uh 56% um from this um area secondly we're also um installing a stormwater um detention kind of Swale area that provides additional total suspended solid removal as well as storm water attenuation it's not for the whole site um but this this is only 10% of the Redevelopment and we we are going above and beyond what's required for that um I want to touch base on noise um something that um uh is important and comes up with tire stores the uh mpca guide for noise mitigation or noise in Minnesota these are the um levels throughout the state that are required um just want to point out as a retail area um we would fall under noise area classification 2 and you can see the decel levels there and I'll get to that in a minute and what those decel levels mean but I want to show you that we actually with operating with the doors closed um uh meet the classification for a residential area and noise classification area one this is a map of a study that was completed recently at Le Schwab store and Bend Oregon this is one of their top five busiest stores there is a lot going on in this place in this location they actually operate with the doors open and this study was completed with the doors open which because of the rules here would not be uh the case they'd have to operate with the doors closed so the doors are on the upper kind of north side of the page um where you can see all the various let me get my mouse going in this area here so going up in that direction one thing I want to point out is within 200 fet the noise attenuation while operating with the doors open is at 64 DB what would be closer to operating with the doors Clos is what we see behind the building at 55 DB this gets us again within that residential um requirement and just to give you an idea with a decel chart that 50 to 60 DB that's a normal conversation you are able to stand outside a building while it's operating um a lewat building while it's operating and have a normal conversation with a person we actually just toured five new stores in North Dakota this week and this is the case it's um for that so um just to point out specifically with that and that attenuation we're over 300 ft away through uh to the closest building here um when we were talking with staff about uh noise in particular we know we did note that there were uh other complaints around the city in particular one to the north by residences one thing I want to point out there is that those residents that were complaining that was over a area of water we know how noise doesn't necessarily it carries over water compared through to um being attenuated through a wooded area here so um I would also point out that the Bays because they do need to open and close to get the cars in and out are faced north and south on this plan and not directly to the residences behind this um overall plan here of what we're seeing uh couple things to point out the the white area is the area of disturbance uh the green area is enhanced Landscaping that includes the total area of disturbance of 1.17 Acres um and I did want to clarify that because the staff report did indicate three acres of of the project we at 1.17 Which is less than 10% of the total um area of that 12 acres of the development um one other thing I want to clarify um in cordination with the city um it just because of there is an existing lot line going through this building um a lot combination was submitted for in April 2024 we had to have written support from the city of minetonka to be able to submit that to the county um for this project um due to the county process we recognize that this can't be recorded until second quarter of 2025 however we have chosen to proceed with a building permit or Pro to proceed with this at risk recognizing that the city won't issue a building permit or would not issue a building permit until this is finished being processed we're good with that but those are just some uh just process items and things that we've been working on with the city um through this so I want to touch now on the the general cup standards first um we went through here Item B and I want to dig a little bit into the uh comp plan with you all so Item B the use is consistent with the goals policies and objectives of the comprehensive plan as stated in the staff report this is uh generally subjective um I'd like to show you why I think that the comp plan actually supports this development um this was the The Village study let's start with that one and look at that um and the two plans that we dug into there uh I'm going to also point you out to this text here because I want to talk about that a little bit and how um it's not just these guidance site plans we all know that there's more that there's a lot that goes into a site plan uh the marketing someone uh identified sight lines for retail um a lot goes into play with this so while these are while these are admirable conceptual studies I would Al also argue that um you're putting by just focusing on these really guidance studies there's a lot more to the comp plan as well as to the Village study that I would suggest we take a look at as indicated in the village study this is one of the larger remaining commercial sites in minetonka may represent the last opportunity for larger footprint retailers to develop within the community I think that's something that to consider overall is this is referenced within the comprehensive plan and while we might not be meeting necessarily the impervious requirements indicated within that 300t buffer of those studies I would also argue you have uh conflicting comprehens of plan goals like with the solar uh the solar areas that might conflict with a study such as that in terms of enhancing those areas and really focusing on are you maximizing your commercial commercially zoned properties within the city um next buildings introducing green this is a tangible this is actually something very tangible that we are accomplishing with this partial Redevelopment of this property and so there's there's more to just these guidance site plans that I think that I would ask that that we would consider here um all right um so comp plan alignment as I read through the comp plan this this is a section from your comp plan the following review criteria are designed to provide guidance and assist in the review of development projects by the city item a determine consistency of the project with the appropriate overall policies I think there's policies um that I've represented and maybe some more that I'll represent here um that should also be taken into account versus a guidance site plan document that was done in a study prior to the overall comprehensive plan um Item B utilize resource protection measures including in the zoning and subdivision ordinances to encourage clustering of buildings and to preserve Woodland preservation areas I would argue that and we'll see some more details about the distances that were brought up um the clustering of buildings and higher density what you can fit into these commercial Pro uh Zone properties is a good use of plan of uh or a good use is good planning policy in general um high priority and significant trees other resources uh um we'll get into that a little bit but I would suggest that there's other items for consideration within the comp plan guidelines provided to the decision makers uh the last item within that just to be comprehensive in presenting to you is to continue to use the Pud zoning technique may be a great technique if this entire 12 acres were being redeveloped right now but it's not this is less than 10% of the overall 12 acres that we're proposing here all right um so I think really in conclusion general comp plant conformance um I I I would suggest that that staff's position does not take into account the full nature of the comp plan nor what is ultimately spoiled out in the zoning ordinance with reasonable allowances and I'll I'm going to dig into that as well I appreciate your time minimum consideration the sustainability improvements in conformance with both the cap and the 2020 2040 comp plan this is improving the sustainability of the site um this this area is currently paved um it's unattenuated storm water it is being used for outdoor um or different outdoor uses as well uh the development and Redevelopment of existing commercial areas deemed to be appropriate locations again this is one of those areas identified as an appropriate location are you making the best use of it we think this is a great use for it and solar access protection um as well that that we discussed I would ask that you consider that in the overall conformance to the the general comp plan or to the comp plan um I think you can check all those boxes all right let's jump into the specific cup standards so as discussed earlier we're talking about the 100 foot distance and then the three items that would allow uh within the the cup standards to Res reduce the separation requirements I want to um do give just a bit of background um in the 2018 the 2018 land use that property immediately to the east was open space um it was then converted to low density residential in in the 2040 land use plan let's jump into the specific plan here um so this red dash line around the building is 100 foot offset from the building itself we have the black line here is the property line uh um in this location this red area that that is hatched I'm just pointing out that's the area where we're less than 100t from the boundary line so we're about 66 feet from the property we're 320 ft to the nearest Residence here from the building to this nearest R1 residence is actually 97.4 ft we're asking for 2.6 ft and we're over 610 ft away from that nearest building I would also point out that all of this area in the cyan is in flood plane it's encumbered by wetlands and though this was the land use was changed from open space you have to overcome you would have to overcome flood plane issues Wetland issues relocation of a um of a pedestrian path as well as obvious access issues um for that so it's not going to be redeveloped wetlands and we are well over 100 ft from uh these this adjacent or the uh nearest property that will be residential there all right um so we are requesting a reduction of that 100 ft and I do believe that and want to agree with staff and I um with that that we are meet meeting the the buffering the Landscaping um the parking lot um in this case you can see this is a great picture of what is out there and what buffers this location from adjacent residential uses um parking lots are located in this location uh or away from the residences by by virtue of what we're doing we're locating the parking lot away from the residential uses and um also again I just want to point out so this wall face on the right here that is the back of the building that would face the residences the uh Bays face North and South away from them there this rollup door here that's what you is used about once a week for loading and unloading uh New and Used Tires there during business hours excuse me um and by virtue of the nature of the direction that this is facing the traffic is coming from the front uh bu employees is brought into the service phas brought back around the front and parked in the parking lot for uh customers uh to to go on from there um the last one lighting plans which are unobtrusive to surrounding residential uses our ligh plan is only to light the site and specifically around uh as required around the building just for security reasons with 14t uh lighting that have cut off Shields that won't spill um outside of the boundary and what we're improving is an existing non-conforming tall light pole um and there's actually a second one um that I learned that's just to the left of this outside of the picture that would be removed as a part of this project so we' would be improving the lighting um in that situation so I think this is something that can be uh supported in terms of the reduction of those separation requirements just to be complete there's other cup standards I just want to go through those really quick no vehicles which are unlicensed and inoperable shall be stored on premises excepted except inappropriately designed and screened storage areas lashwab only provides same day service to operable Vehicles which must be licensed in order uh be driven to the site all repair assembly disassembly and maintenance of vehicles shall occur within the closed buildings except minor maintenance including tire inflation adding oil and wiper replacement at their retail locations leab only provides service in indoors number three no public address system shall be audible from any residential parcel at their retail locations which this is Les Schwab does not use a uh public address uh address system stacking for gas gas pumps I won't read all of number four um that's there's no gas pumps that's not applicable number five no sales storage or display of used automobiles except when a conditional use permit is approved allowing automobile truck trailer or boat sales or rentals that's not their business that's not what they do not applicable all canopy lighting shall be recessed lighting flush mounted with canopy ceiling and having a flat Glass Lens again not applicable no canopies all the work's done indoors um I obviously ski number six that's the first one that I went through um that was the specific one um addressed by staff and then number eight canopies shall be set back at least 20 ft from all property lines but in no case shall the setbacks be less than 30 feet again no canopies this is not applicable wwab is a great company I Really they they commit to their Community I think you guys have an opportunity here um before you tonight um to bring them in I think we've shown why why um subjectively there's a lot of arguments why this project does comply with the general requirements of the comprehensive plan what we're asking for um in terms of the specific requirements uh to that R1 property that has an existing residence on it is a 2.6t reduction and that residence is over 600 feet away um on the other adjacent property that again I explained uh the land use and the change that happened to that that it can't be really red developed without some major major changes that would come before you we're asking for 66 ft but again we're over 300 ft away um from those adjacent uses so that's what we're requesting here tonight um final thought um this conditionally used permit application is a reasonable request that is in alignment with Cindy's comp plan um as well as specific review requirements for the use within the zoning District we really appreciate your serious consideration of this and um are available for any uh questions that you might have for us thank you great thank you Commissioners any questions for the applicant yeah commissioner Waterman uh thanks chair thanks uh thanks Zach and Eric uh for the detailed presentation uh two questions uh I asked this one of Staff um could you put it elsewhere on the property sounds like sight lines might be an issue but can you comment what else you uh evaluated on yeah site sight lines sight lines is the immediate thought um honestly it wasn't even suggested to us uh by staff this was the area that the owner of the property has marketed that marketed to Le Schwab it wasn't suggested until a week and a half ago when we found out that this wouldn't be supported by staff so we haven't even had time to evaluate anywhere else on the property again we've put $100,000 into this location uh because one that's where the owner wants it that's where the owner's marketing yeah thank you thanks the second question actually leading from the first so sounds like this past week was the first you heard about their rejection when they come out with the public um uh response like so I mean at any point did was there discussion like hey I mean by the way there's this comprehensive plan there's a there's a very specific um plan for this site and this might not fit in it I'm just surprised that that's kind of news that the city isn't in favor of it I I'm surprised too yeah um and we had a preapplication in February of 2023 um I might even ask Mark he's had a lot more of the direct correspondence with staff but no we this this came as a surprise to us when we received the St when we under came to understand this that like the comprehensive plan is like this this might just not fit with that there's like guidance for this area and this just might not fit in yeah we no we did not receive that guidance I mean that's that's honestly if in February 2023 when we're asking those questions we really try to vet this stuff out ahead of time before we jump into those things absolutely thanks other questions yeah commissioner Henry thank you have you had any Communications or meetings with neighbors around to get their feedback no we have not okay and this could be putting the cart before the horse but mentioned about the sound study and a lot of people in the industry are going tour going away from air powered tools because I think the noisiest thing in a tire change center would be air powerered impact driver to put the log nuts back on the wheels too so uh are you thinking about using electric powered tools to minimize the noise with the doors open I am not an operations guy so I don't know if they're thinking about it I know that right now they are they can for new stores they continue to all the air powerered ones so I don't know if they're I don't know if they've even talked about it to be honest Eric I don't no no okay another thing tactically here and we have to get the Strategic before the Tactical but since you here I'd like to ask the question anyway you mentioned in your proposal that the solar panels could account for 100% of all the electricity that's used on site uh maybe to clarify Les Schwab's goal so the managers apply for the solar upgrade program on their existing stores and then as they apply uh as they apply for it and those studies are done the ones that get done first um in their stores are the ones that can provide up to 100% like they want to get the most bang for their buck and then kind of work their way down in terms of uh going solar uh uh companywide so they're so when I say this is constructed solar ready and we're not just going to put solar panels in it's because Le Schwab corporate as a whole looking at all of their stores in the 12 different states they operate they're going to go so a store manager applies and they may get 100 applications in a year and like this year they have 21 under contract they're going to take the 21 that have the the best bang for the buck they're going to do get the most um the closest to 100% of their total electrical usage out of the solar installation on those roofs does that make sense so it's it's an application program from that comes from the store managers um and so we can't we're not necessarily just committing we can't just commit to solar because they're looking at this as a comprehensive uh like sustainability program with the overall company so you're saying that lashwab they look at the proposal only after the manager of the store requests it that's correct yes y yeah and you may not be able to answer this either but how long would it be between store being built to when manager requests to when a on average these get approved or denied that's a that's a great question cuz they're part of the program is going back to stores that might be 50 years old and because they have over 500 stores in the company and so right now they they have 60 so they're just over 10% they're getting another 21 this year and so they're it it could happen I mean they could the manager could start requesting right away and it could be it could be a year because hey this is like a premium site for solar or it could be five years because it's a little bit further down so that's probably the best answer that I could give you at this point yeah let me ask you another question about that too you said that you've been in talks with the city since February of 2023 that's what yeah yeah and lashwab have gave a very detailed proposal so I'm assuming that in all the research that you do I would assume that you've done a Sun study to see the solar potential of this specific site we have not no that happens that and again that that uh just because the Le the way Les wab operates um as a whole there those those studies happen as as those proposals come in from the store manager to determine which ones to do solar with the the work that we did is just what I showed was that exhibit from the comp the city's comp plan and I that which identifies this area as a high potential area for solar which which makes sense right CU it's in a commercial area that's going to have more rooftop more fewer trees and that's why it's a high potential area for solar yeah the reason I asked that question is because several times in your presentation you touted that solar is a big benefit to if we do approve the site that it would improve the site yeah and I think one of the points I want to clarify there is is in any comp plan there's potentially conflicting uh goals right and so uh part of that conflict is hey there's only there's very there's very few locations left within minona that are identified in the comp plan for ongoing commercial and and in particular uh larger Box commercial development that conflicts with the idea of hey we we want this to be a bigger transition we want to reduce the area of this property of this 12 acres and make it a better transition a better transition and reduce reduce that total developable area so that conflicts I'm also pointing out that also conflicts with the solar potential of this area you increase that buffer zone you add the trees you reduce the rooftops you're reducing the solar potential I think the thing that I'm trying to point out is this is a very subject that first is this in conformance within the comp plan it is a very subjective thing and to point out one guidance I would suggest pointing out a guidance site plan and saying that's it it's not in conformance there's other things within the comp plan that I would say you okay consider these things and also consider hey these things might be in Conflict the city has to balance those things out and that's that agree that's the hard part I I get it that's I've got my opinions you guys have the hard job here but um I would I would ask you to consider those those things in addition um and and and weighing those versus what is a conceptual site plan and ultimately the markets like drives this right this is a this is a um and and I would I would argue the comp plan that a study happened a comp plan happened that references that study sure but I took you I even took you through some of that text in that study showing hey we're we're meeting that we may not be beeting those site plan specifics but then we look at the zoning ordinance what allow what's the allowance for a cup approval we're we're meeting those allowances to reduce that that 100 ft and that's that's what we're requesting ultimately so trying to say hey let's I think there's a bigger umbrella to look at here thank you one more tactical question about the the lights of the the cars themselves so you mentioned the lighting on the building that's keeping down to a minimum when cars are coming into the you said they probably come into the north they they exit via the South and then technicians they drive it back up to the north again too it is far away a little bit further than 100 ft but are you making any thoughts about when the cars do turn turn into that onto the East to Shield some of the car headlights from the residential area to the east no that's smart I hadn't thought of that um but we'd be certainly willing to do something to address a condition if you were interested in that so okay yep thank you m other questions yeah commissioner Banks yeah hey Eric thanks for the presentation it's really good um very informational but one of the things you mentioned there was a application and I think I missed it application that went into the county correct um oh sorry I went way too far I'll back oh sorry yeah thanks yeah can you um just elaborate on what was the purpose of that application yeah so let me go back to the site plan real quick here so this line right here that goes east west the black line right there that's a that's an existing property line so the same owner know owns the parcel to the north and owns the parcel to the South you can see it goes through the southeast corner of the building there so in order we can't have a parcel line going through the building um the owner agreed hey this is all my property I lease it out to various tenants we need to combine these to a single parcel so that we can lease and and you know it's also taking care of an existing condition with nor Northern tul there so that that's what that application to the county was for is to combine that lot line okay and so I know you you said you guys have been at this since 2023 how long have you known about this particular issue that needed to be resolved oh that H that came to everybody's attention early on yeah uh I would say so we did the preapplication early they worked through all the deals we really started digging in last fall and it was it was almost a right away thing and then how do we deal with this as we go through it so Y and so you just applied to have this in April in April yeah and so the way the county works is they process all of their lot combinations once a year and the deadline was was it August the deadline was August and then basically all of that's going to set until next year and so we missed last August and so we knew we had until August this year and then we knew it wasn't going to be recorded until like Q 2ish of 2025 okay and so when when you did that were you fairly comfortable or confident that the city or that our staff would be in favor of your project we we were yeah yeah because it required that the city of minetonka actually sign off on that in in terms of our submitt to the county for this so yeah yeah okay all right thank you m any other questions commissioner man you have a question yes sir you use the term solar ready will you talk a little bit about that so it sounds like you're preparing the building to be ready for solar and that could be added later what does that entail and then the other thing will you talk a little bit about your jellyfish the maintenance involved where the solids or the waste from that how do that treated yep so yeah so starting out with solar ready a couple things in this climate with the snow and the solar panels the solar panels don't weigh that much but they all they do tend to increase the drifting on the roof so you have increase structure uh it's just got to hold more snow load more weight on the roof uh for that also there's additional roof penetrations um for all the wiring and everything to go through the roof and then there's the electrical equipment associated with tying that into the building electrical system back to the grid I I'm not an electrical engineer I'm a civil engineer so I don't know all the details of that but that all has to be set up so that it's ready to go so it's a it's essentially a plug-and-play system you install the pels and plug them in um is is the goal for a solar ready system yep and oh sorry I forgot about the other one um jellyfish yeah so this is a um let me get back there okay um so a couple things are going on with this um one side of the it's it's it's a really fancy concrete box that gets buried in the ground and we we collect the storm water and we run it through the through it it runs through this and the first thing so as it's coming in first thing it really does is go through um really a separator where the solids the total suspended solids can settle out um within that and then it goes through this media over on the other side and that's for the phosphorus um removal so the media needs to be and the total suspended solids um there's a pumping and an and an exchange of the media about every 6 months and the media because of the nature of it is usually it depends on the local area um and so in this case Les wab would contract with a pump truck and with an entity that maintains these because there's more and more going on in the area and so there's companies that maintain these um for disposal of the total suspended solids as well as the uh media for the phosphorus removal on the other side and so there's a lot of different flowing you want to get the total suspended solids out before it goes through um the media that removes and consumes the phosphorus going through that and then it as it works its way through the box then it discharges out into in this case into the Riley uh or the Purgatory Creek so where I'm going with this is as you pull the tsss out of this you're gaining a large concentration of phosphorus and you're saying that the vacuum company's actually going to the VAC truck is going to take and dispose of that uh of the TS the media like Conta itself the media for the phosphorus and Mark can you correct me on that if that do they recycle those or are they disposed and they replace the media I don't know what they do with the cartridges they're cartridges like you have in a water system clean your water it does the same thing it takes out the phosphorus but yeah those are either disposed of or recycled completely separate from what gets pumped out with the suspended solids yeah thank you great presentation thank you any other final questions for the epkins all right I don't think so but we may have more for it thank you for thank CH before you open the hearing um I just need to correct something for the record please do um I believe the applicant indicated the noise levels that are acceptable um just so that you know and you might not deal with noise complaints as much as we do um the noise area classification is based on the land use of the person who hears it not of the use so in this case if someone on the trail or in a home um that would be considered na ac1 which is a maximum of 60 DB um in a l50 which is for 30 minutes or 65 which is an L10 which is 6 minutes of the hour so I don't think that was clear in the presentation so I wanted to make sure you understood okay thank you and just for the CL one more clarification is that are the noise levels is that with the doors closed fully it's whatever noise level is monitored at the time of the complaint got it okay y all right sounds good thank you all right we will open the public hearing if anyone would like to come forward and offer any comments please do all right doesn't look like we have anybody so we'll close the public hearing uh Commissioners any final questions otherwise are we ready to have a discussion I'd love to hear some thoughts yeah yeah I have a question for staff about when in the process the comp plan is assessed right this is the second proposal in the last couple months where the Mills Church applicant said oh they found out about this comp plan when the the final packet came out and this is the second one so i' like to hear when in the application process staff reviews compliance to the comp plan that works yeah chair Sul and commissioner Maxwell I I'll just speak to this this project I think that the Mills Church um comprehensive plan thing is a kind of a separate separate Beast um that I don't want to reopen at this public hearing um so I want to start by saying and as I said to the applicant two weeks ago um in this zoning District an auto use with service base is a conditionally permitted use and so if the question is asked is this a use appropriate the answer is as a conditionally permitted use yes you can apply for a conditionally permitted use um the city's review of this um I can't speak to what the applicant is is suggesting that they've been working with City staff since 2 for a year and a half on this um I know that we take questions about projects and properties all the time I know that I had many phone conversations with questions about um permitting and really specific questions about what do we allow for certain types of storm water management systems and things like that um that's not a conversation about a project from from my perspective um we have a development review meeting on a project as you know our development review team gets together and we talk about a project once we get that application in hand and that it's not uncommon for something to come up when we get a large group of people together that someone in that meeting says hey what about this nobody has thought about this and so um it was at that point that I um we had that conversation about the comprehensive plan the the general and subjective as I pointed out in in the report this is a subjective standard this is staff's uh opinion that this project doesn't meet that subjective standard the applicant and staff simply have a a disagreement on that um so I don't know if Miss winck if you have have more to add but I I would say that um the suggestion that working with or having a conversation with an individual staff member um leads to a staff recommendation um a year in advance of an application that that um that that's inaccurate um that a staff recommendation comes when we get an application in and that we have a conversation involving a full body of our staff which is economic development housing legal fire police engineering Public Works natural resources planning we all collaboratively come together and and work on something so um I I certainly I guess that's that's the best that I can do on that the only thing I would add chair and commissioner I think that um I think points of disagreement um people will pick up on things that you know maybe was said in isolation and I think some sometimes that happens especially a long period of time uh that the applicant is describing um it's not staff's intention to mislead people I think uh sometimes the problem is you get bits and pieces of information from an applicant and then you don't see the totality of what's being proposed until the very kind of application point and until you see that you can't really make a formal recommendation to the applicant and I think that's absolutely what happened here um I don't think I would qualify that as happened in Menat tanka Mills um and in fact I believe that um description is very inaccurate so um so I'll offer that as an explanation so to summarize tell me if I'm correct in my understanding that the any assessment or a formal assessment of the 2040 comp plan on how a proposal would fit that come after that formal application has been made is that correct yeah I it true and I I think that if if something clearly didn't fit the comprehensive guide plan guidance of a property that would be very clear you know if someone was trying to propose a um a commercial use on a property that was guided residential I mean obviously that would be very clear and come very early in a conversation but when the question is an evaluation of consistency with something um chair and Commissioners that comes through conversation amongst staff in our evaluation and and again um this is our recommendation to the Planning Commission um really it's it's for you to to decide thank you any other questions for staff otherwise we are on comment section we still have another item to go over tonight so um who'd like to offer comments commissioner Waterman thanks for going for sure I'm happy to go um so really appreciate the detail like I said in the uh uh especially around the comp plan in the presentation um I've definitely been on the fence about this one uh kind of wish it's probably everyone wishes maybe this had been hammered out prior to getting here um so a couple points in no particular order uh the city's point about kind of this having a new and impactful uh impact closer in close proximity to existing natural recreational resour uh and residential uses um when other locations do exist on the larger site does carry a lot of weight for me um and it's overall It's tricky because I in in being here I do support the comprehensive plan view on on what to do with particular zones and locations especially as we see here uh you know there was a public engagement process several years ago um that kind of came up with like hey here's the best use of this site but we also have to of course balance that against property rights I agree it's not useful as an empty lot uh it's great that really no change in impervious surface and we get some storm water treatment um the the the the um objective part about the comprehensive plan or the um uh why it's not recommended about um distance is doesn't carry quite as much weight but that is noted it's just very close to the trails not really sure what to make of the communication um so but I mean overall the the city wants to Green it up and we we need to balance that against property ownership rights and I I really the point in the comprehensive plan about really finding finding those opportunities to Green up spaces and have those natural transitions with areas next door um really kind of carries the the day for me and I I definitely understand the frustration with the the process on this but overall I mean this facility this it needs a cup and if the subjective cup isn't met then the city really isn't obligated to approve um it could be um it could be a good site but just but for that trail in the creek and the guidance that's just what I'm stuck on and and the other thing is I mean you know the staff is not just these two here it's all the Departments that Miss Thomas listed that kind of looked at this and they said hey we really are not in a position to recommend it so I'm I'm in agreement with the staff on this one great thank you other Commissioners I'm in agreement with the staff as well um they've laid out a good reasoning so I won't go through and berate that but something that you may may not know but we do is we are blessed to have an excellent excellent staff and I'd really encourage you to get back in front with some other ideas um I'm sorry things worked out the way for you the way they did um but we have some wonderful creative people and I think if you come back to them with some other ideas they'd be able to work with you and then they would they would be excited to work with you um I'd also encourage you to um also think about where when you pull tsss or tdss out of stuff where it goes next step so it's not poisoning in a greater concentration other spot and something also we brought up is a way to make communicate with the neighbors if you open up the communication with them would be really good but I'll be uh following the staff's recommendation and uh I do think this is a a great asset for our community you guys did an excellent job of presenting you uh should be applauded and I can see um having this in our community would be a great thing I'm very much encouraged and would really like to see you flourish here but uh for tonight I'm I'm following the staff's recommendations thank you great thank you any other comments yes commissioner Maxwell I I uh both agree with the city and disagree with the city on this one so um for the specific standard that they cite that the use shall not be within 100 feet of the low density parcel or adjacent to medium high density in this case I feel that this proposal would meet the requirements to reduce the separation requirements so having Landscaping birming there's a lot of vegetation in between the uh residential use um the parking lots are already there so there's no change and the lighting is is unobtrusive to residential so I think that specific standard um is met by The Proposal so I disagree with staff on that one but I do agree with staff on the more subjective general standard that this is adding a use to a greater impact use to the site um in that neighboring area in between the the residential um that being said I I struggle to see what other use we could put there right I think putting my the owner of the parcel who could you Market it to that would be possible for that use I realized this Auto use would have a lot of traffic maybe there's less traffic but we're not going to get a farmers market there as a cup every summer I don't think long term so um that's where I struggle from the homeowners perspective but I um agree with the city on that general standard so I will not be supporting this project today great thank you any other comments yeah commissioner Henry the role of the Planning Commission is to take in all the information and submit some kind of a filtered response and there's a lot of information to take in here from some very thoughtful parties and everybody has done their homework work to the best of their ability to it and I really applaud the applicant to what they did because they they show that there's a lot of thought in the planning of the site as well as how they can blend in with the community and I've been working with City staff for quite some time and I know that the work that they do is always thoughtful and looking back to the betterment of the community and like chair always says in the beginning of the meetings we have to codify a balance between individ ual rights and Community responsibilities and a lot of times those the codification is not black and white that you have to do some finessing of of the codes or of the comprehensive plan different people interpret it differently so like City staff said today there's a it's it's up on to us to give a recommendation they've recommended and what I'm saying here is it's a really difficult decision because there's a lot of things to think about I do think that it's a parking lot now should it be something else besides a parking lot there's probably a better use for than just a parking lot and if I were the owner of the property would I like to have something else in there I probably would is it too close to the the creek is it too close to the trail I believe it is and that area I think it's I think the city had a correct interpretation of it but like commissioner Maxwell said what do we what do put in there in lie of something else and maybe there's a there's a third option maybe we we push it out a little bit maybe we have not uh a complete un unimpeded parking lot into that road going on to Highway 7 maybe we have to change the the shape of the building in some way the good news is this is a it's a process and I think the city staff has spoken and and we're speaking here as a commission but I think what it needs is a little bit more digesting and a little bit more analysis to be put into it and some compromise and I'm looking forward to that so in general I can't vote for the approval of this because it uh it doesn't meet some of the standards that I helped create with the 2040 comp plan but I do think that it is good use of the property there is a lot of space on the property I look forward to Le Schwab working with the city and working with the property owner to come up with the spot I believe there is a solution in hand and it could be on this same parcel so please don't lose heart and Trust the process and I look forward to what comes out of it great thanks yeah commissioner Banks comments thanks chair yeah um well thanks um Eric and and Zach for the presentation and the information um you guys really did your homework and it was great to see um you know how in- depth you went into our comprehensive plan um having an understanding about the different different areas of that um there's a lot of great things about what you guys do as a company and and the product that that you provide the service that you provide um and would certainly love to see um you know a partnership with you guys doing you know having a business here in the city um this one was tough for me because you know it you know you have the specific standard which um you know I felt we could get get around that uh just because of the um the landscaping and the burns and and the parking lot um I didn't think that the the lightning solution that you have I don't think that that would be intrusive to the residents um especially where they were located um the general standard you know it's I and and I know it's been said by by all the Commissioners so far you know we we do look for staff to you know examine uh what works uh throughout the area um you know we want to make sure that we're consistent with you know what we're putting in areas and and uh projects that we agree with and projects that we disagree with and as great of a project as this is and and um you know again the U the great partnership that I believe you guys would be for our city uh it it falls just outside the line of you know what we would consider kind of our standards and that conferen plan so um to the commissioner's point you know would love to see you come back with some tweaks or somehow um you know get around that that general standard um and and you know eventually be you know a good uh business here in the city for um our residents and and and even for us here um but I would have to agree with staff and again I think you know they've done they look at these all the time they do their homework they they understand what our goals are um and so I would have to agree with staff that um on the general standard uh this is probably one that's difficult to meet so great thank you any other final comments from Commissioners otherwise uh I will go one thing that I've kind of come to realize with the comp plans is just how impossibly detailed we have to get and how everything out of context is really really difficult to plan for so I unless you get an O property owner that has incredible Goodwill I can't see a green option going in here right unless they choose to just here you can have my land and we'll turn into Green Space or open space I I don't see how that's a a practical solution so I think that's actually where the comp plan while you know we look at every parcel it taken out of context it's until you're in it you don't really understand kind of exactly what what could happen there so and this is frustrating because it's kind of I'm stuck with the matter of the 40 fet right if we can slide to the West 40 ft which is four car lengths you know maybe three and a half car lengths these days but um we're close so I think there's another solution one that can be worked out especially because the property owner has to realize now that whatever they're marketing the the value of that land it's a lot less than they probably think if you can't build build or do much with the with the land so I I think there's probably some room to find another solution here but um I I also don't have I have 0.0 faith in the solar ready I hope uh I hope the rest of the commission felt that too it's a great idea in Phoenix um but I will definitely take bets on if this if it did get approved in Minnesota um I would be very skeptical I would love to see it I got excited too but the more I I heard I was like me my antenna was going up like that sounds like a pretty thin thin uh hope there I didn't hear a lot of promise I didn't hear any guarantees that type of thing so um but that being said I this is a commercial use and I think um well we want to Green up the space as much as we can this is an appropriate use of it so um while I uh respect staff and somehow agree with their assessment I that doesn't mean I'm going to vote for it so I might be the loan desender here but that's okay so I think we're probably ready for a motion uh it sounds like we're close to unanimous here but um uh looking for a motion for adopt the resolution uh that the city council uh deny the request for conditional use permit and final site and building plans for L Schwab Tire at 17555 Highway 7 would someone like to make that motion motion motion minion I'll second second Waterman staff please pull the commission Maxwell yes minion yes Waterman yes Banks yes Henry yes chair s no uh motion carries and this is to be a recommendation to be heard by the city council on July 8th so uh good luck with your project moving on to item 8B preliminary plat with flood plane alteration permit for 1 acre Oaks at 2511 and 2561 Plymouth Road uh this is a recommendation the city council uh approve the request uh Miss Thomas this is yours again uh chair uh Commissioners yes me again um most Commission ERS are familiar with the subject properties but by way of a background or a little refresher um these two lots are located on the east side of Plymouth Road and in combination they're about 10 acres in size um the combined site does include many natural resources including a a flood plane area on the North side some significant topography a portion of which is defined as a steep slope by city code definition and then an oak Woodland brushland Woodland preservation area and um in that preservation area and outside that preservation area about a thousand trees on the two sites what's before you this evening is the third of three uh formal applications we also had a couple of concept plans uh for these sites over the last I would say year and a half or so the first proposal that you saw back back in December of 2023 included these two sites and then two adjacent sites immediately to the north that proposal was for a 13 lot um subdivision it did include um many variances and staff and the Planning Commission recommended denial of that plat really due to all of those variances the applicant decided to pause um that proposal and make some changes and so that December project was not heard by the council then in February of 2024 um a revised plat application came back to the Planning Commission um that plat included 14 lots that plan was consistent with an adopted roadway plan but it did require uh a tree removal variance and so staff and the Planning Commission uh recommended denial of that application really we thought that the primary purpose of that variance was to um achieve or maximize the number of lots that could be developed the council did agree with that recommendation and and denied that particular plan and so now we're on to the third proposal which is on the far right hand side it includes now just two lots those um Lots immediately adjacent to the north are now uh excluded um from the plan as proposed um those two properties would be divided into a total of eight Lots um accessed off of a new culdesac from uh Plymouth Road each of the Lots would be uh one acre in size at least some um significantly larger than that to accommodate uh the installation of public infrastructure so that includes the roadway uh Public Water and Sewer uh um storm water management facilities new driveways obviously not public the new driveways the new hom pads there would be significant um earth work that excavation would range from very minimal in certain areas up to uh 10 ft in other areas and then conversely fill the same amount very minimal in some areas up to 10 ft in other areas the grading it's important to note would generally not impact the steepest uh area of the slope kind of that doughnut hole in the middle um shown on the right hand side um however it would result in removal of about 70% of the Woodland preservation area uh 60% of the high priority trees located outside of that area and 68% of the significant trees when we were reviewing this proposal we really considered as staff just two primary questions and the first was whether or not development of the site is generally reasonable and hav we have throughout all of um the concept plans and the proposed subdivisions um we find that it is yet the answer is yes um these properties are significantly larger than the properties uh surrounding them um we have long anticipated um their develop M so then the second question is whether or not the specific subdivision would meet the standards of our ordinance and in terms of lots we find that it it would as I previously noted all of the Lots would um be one acre or more in size and then in terms of their Dimensions they would meet or exceed all of our um dimensional standards in terms of uh width depth and buildable area in terms of flood plane alteration this does require I should have said a flood plane alteration permit in addition to the preliminary plat um the extent of the flood plane alteration that's being proposed should go back to this um plan um that is allowed by ordinance essentially the amount of flood plane fill um would be recreated on site there's no loss of flood plane storage um quick sidebar because I did receive a question about um flood plane flood plane is an area of a property that is kind of a low area it is subject to periodic flooding sometimes it's located adjacent to another water body in this case it's just a low area there's not a wetland there um it's just a low area the boundary of a flood plane is not arbitrary it's based on an engineered model and it is set at a an specific elevation it's modeled uh so we know where water is anticipated to go during uh a flooding event and the volume of flood plane storage is regulated by the city we don't allow flood plane volume to change on a site we do allow um the flood plane the shape and the location of the flood plane to change it's really an engineering function um so the engineers look at how much volume is um retained on site and as is proposed here some flood plane area would be filled but other areas of the flood plane would actually be made deeper and so the flood plane um volume would be maintained and then lastly in terms of um tree loss the planning Comm mission is is very aware of our tree protection ordinance our ordinance establishes thresholds for removal during subdivision typically 25% of a woodland preservation area 35% of high priority trees and 50% of significant trays but the ordinance goes on to State um that if subdivision removes trees in excess of these numbers the subdivision can't or must occur at a density of no more than one unit per acre putting that another way or flipping that on its head it's as if a subdivision has a density of one unit per acre or less the tree removal thresholds basically don't apply and that's the case here so Lake West has chosen to present to the city a development of 1 acre lots uh thereby removing the tree removal thresholds so the tree removal proposed here is allowed under the ordinance so to conclude then um as I did in the report staff is we're disappointed in the proposed subdivision it will result in a significant visual change um to this area uh the tree loss percentages I noted I should say don't account for ash trees um if we actually include ash trees and the the percent of tree loss um will be even higher on this site we haven't seen this type of development since the adoption of the tree ordinance 16 years ago but that said staff acknowledges that this project does meet our ordinance standards it meets the rules that the city has established for itself and so we do recommend approval with the conditions that we've outlined in the resolution and so I would return this back to the chair great thanks Miss Thomas questions for staff commissioner Henry you have a question thank you in reading the the presentation City staff outlined exactly why or there was a reason to put in that stipulation in the the tree protection ordinance where uh if there's something if there's a development that has a density of less than one house per acre like this development proposal does that there was a reason why the city excluded that from the tree ordinance and just for the people following at home and in the audience if you could elaborate on that so people are fully aware of the reasons why we have that yeah chair I'll I'll start and Miss wishnack can and jump in and and perhaps I'll take you back back 16 years when we when we wrote the tree ordinance it was very controversial um when the city adopted the first tree ordinance um uh particularly large lot property owners who had um preserved their trees and had not developed and they were very frustrated they felt that they were being penalized um because they had preserved their trees um and so first and foremost I think that this was a way to allow for large lot subdivision to continue to occur without the penalty as it were of of tree preservation so that was one reason the other reason was that I think there was an assumption that um developers would choose to maximize the number of lots that they could achieve in development and so therefore would choose to meet the tree or um and that's not the case here um but that's what we've seen um since adoption of the tree ordinance so it's um so those are the the two points I would make yeah I think the only thing I would add Miss Thomas I think you're right I think the Assumption when writing the ordinance 16 years ago is that indeed more Lots would come of subdivision that was the pressure pressure at the time it still is the pressure how many Lots can I get out of this parcel of land and so um to to do the opposite of that is just highly unusual so um it's not something we see very often in the city can you confirm that in the three proposals that came before us that if I'm correct the first proposal did not meet the tree protection ordinance that needed a variance and the second one did meet the tree protection ordinance is that correct right uh chair and and Commissioners know the first um proposal we never had um we never had tree numbers such that we could evaluate um whether or not it met the tree ordinance the second in February did not meet the tree ordinance no thank you and I think I know the answer to this one but in the the current way the the three protection ordinance is written with in respect to Woodland protection areas that does not apply either if the density is less than one per acre is that correct correct okay thank you is it time to revisit that portion of the ordinance not starting from scratch but that particular portion of the tree ordinance uh chair and is an opinion question yeah chair and and Commissioners um I I would say that this hasn't happened in the last 16 years so and we've only had I would say all so we've only had one other one acre um subdivision that's come forward um in that time and um that 1 acre subdivision um was just an estate subdivision that the developer chose to subdivide in one Acres they they met the tree ordinance um so I don't see this as um as an issue obviously it's not an issue that um can be resolved um to to deal with this particular um I think that as you know the city um moves forward to look at the zoning ordinance it's entirety um you know perhaps it's something that can be evaluated at that time we always have list don't we Susan we we always have an ongoing list of things that we're contemplating and I don't know the answer maybe it's keep it as is but it's I think at least something to discuss as part of it again we're we're kind of running out of these scenarios but I think that the other thing I would say is chair there's not many properties of this magnitude left in the city so agree also that's probably less harm that can be done to then if there's Fe anyways something I would add that on the on the list but uh other questions by Commissioners yeah commissioner minion will you speak a little bit about the history of the previous plans excuse me and the route traffic routes and how this uh looks like we eliminated one of those situations going to the north and by reducing the number of loss I think we will reduce traffic but will you kind of give us a memory or a history uh refresher on some of the issues that we saw in the past and if this is an improvement or um a reduction or where we're at as far as the current plan yeah chair and and commissioner minion um the the first proposal um utilize there's an existing but undeveloped right of way um between um the property to the north and um these Lots existing and so this proposal utilized that existing undeveloped right of way um and it lined up essentially with an existing roadway um immediately to the West so from a from an access point um in this location it was a a fine access point from from that perspective the city had a lot of concerns about the amount of flood plane alteration that was occurring here in order to create buildable Lots um and and so in terms of access it was it was fine the I would say the configuration on the property was not great um February 20124 um From staff's perspective this was actually the best access uh situation because it um accessed an existing culdesac and this followed a plan that the city had for all of the properties on the east side of Plymouth Road um it envisioned this type of of access so that we did not have small little CU a sacks we like to have connected neighborhoods from a just a a public safety and a community type perspective um so we thought that this was the best access proposal um from the County's perspective again it it eliminated access ACC points onto um Plymouth Road the county is always looking to eliminate um access points on to Plymouth Road I would suggest to you from a neighborhood perspective this was the least um a likable perspective because it was though it was a plan that um all of the neighbors here were on notice that this culdesac could be extended in the future it was not um it was not something that they were looking forward to or would have appreciated um so this this plan is something that the county has said they've submitted a letter to the city that has said that they are accepting of this um this access point um it it's fine if it if it works our our Engineers have not said otherwise um so I would say from an access perspective it six of one half a dozen of the other and from a safety perspective the same and then if I recall correctly there were also some um concerns by joining properties about um runoff and water things like that with the changing of the topography are we looking at any improvements on that I think there were some C concerns voiced before and it looks like there's some significant changes in the current layout was anything you thought into that or is were we able to see any improvements in that area uh chair Su and commissioner minion um this proposal does meet all of our storm water um management rules um the flood plane that's being altered not only I should have said not only are they um maintaining flood plane storage they actually increasing flood plane storage here um this plan shows possible home sites I wouldn't suggest you that the homes will be exactly in these locations I would further suggest that probably not going to be exactal rectangles um but just from a general perspective the homes appear to be further away from the low Point generally the concern about drainage that we heard was from from homes that are are now off of the development itself they were from homes that were located north of this undeveloped rideway so they were just off the plat previously and now they are even further off the plat if that makes sense yeah commissioner Banks you have a question yeah quick question yes um just curious when a plan or proposal changes uh this seems to be pretty significant um from what we reviewed in February um are the neighbors um notified again when there's a change like this yeah chair Su and commissioner Banks um they certainly are particularly because the the city council acted on the February 2024 application so that application came to an end there was an action and now the the new proposal constitutes an entirely new application so um new notices new website page new everything for this new application okay and was there any um feedback from the the neighbors uh chair and commissioner Banks we received just one letter um I believe that was in your packet okay great thank you any other questions for staff yeah commissioner Henry you have another question thank you just a point of clarification on the pictures here I looked at the key and on the current proposal we have those rectangular pieces behind From perspective of the road the house and it shows that is I think it's concrete or pav something like that is that we're assuming that they could put a potential patio or pool in is that what they're for yeah chair Su and commissioner Henry and the applicant can answer this question too I think the the intent here is to show usable space um so yes that there could be a pool um built on each of these Lots um there also is a concept to show that each of these properties could have an accessory dwelling unit a detached accessory dwelling unit now obviously um if if a individual homeowner wanted to do that they would have to come before this body for those for the accessory dwelling unit conditional use permits um but this was intended to show usable space thank you any other questions commissioner Maxwell yeah in in one of the previous proposals you talked about the uh design of the street the character of the Street and the utility infrastructure maintenance there and that was particularly if I recall in relation to the number and intensity of the retaining walls that were required because of the grading and I see quite a well several retaining walls along this public Street could you comment on uh on that please yeah chair uh Su and commissioner Maxwell yeah you're recalling uh correctly back in the December 2023 um one of the reasons that staff recommended denial of that project was there were some significant retaining walls around the curvature of and I guess some of the straightaways here to essentially hold up um the the wall or excuse me to hold up the um the roadway and those walls were very tall um and they were therefore also holding up the utilities and there was a concern on the behalf of our public works department and our Engineers that if the road had to be redone if the utilities had to be redone if there was a failure in that wall what happens um there are two two walls um well primarily just this wall is associated with the road it's a much shorter wall and um staff was not concerned about this wall in this location these other walls I don't know if you can see my cursor are associated with individual driveways that would be an issue for individual property owners and so if a property owner wanted to um take on the risk of that wall that would be their their concern but um no our public works department was not not concerned about um the height of this wall or the Integrity of the road here but maybe the walls before were just trying to maximize saving trees right whereas now that not a concern right so that could be a reason why correct retain walls fell off any other questions all right yeah commissioner Henry have another question yeah thanks uh two more on page 27 of the packet there's a there's an agreement from the owner of 2503 Plymouth Road where they agree for the what that requires an easement cross property and then also for storm water discharge can City comment about the how common is that to have an agreement and what would happen let's say if the owner of that property left I'm assuming that agreement is there in perpetuity after the current owner agrees to it uh chair and commissioner Su uh yes um there is a public utility within an existing public easement again I'm not sure if you can see my cursor that um runs in this existing undeveloped right of way and The applicant's Proposal um includes a storm water pipe from this storm water area and um outling or attaching itself that's not the correct engineering term I apologize to the engineers and the the audience but um attaching to this existing storm water pipe and so we're requiring that um there be an actual easement document and an easement agreement recorded against this property so then that's recorded against the property that's there in perpetuity um and so even if the ownership changes that's on the title of that property so a future property owner can't suddenly say well I don't agree to this anymore that that's part of their when they purchase the property that's part of what they're purchasing and then from the perspective of the current and future owners will there be any limitations to what the owner can do on top of that is it deep enough where let's say they can plant trees or are there limitations yeah typically uh chair Su and commissioner Henry um we don't allow trees to be planted on easements where there's a pipe in the discharge area um yes plantings would be allowed and and other small Shrubbery things like that can be planted the area can be used as yard space you could put up lawn furniture but you couldn't build a structure over that area and you couldn't plant a tree okay thank you and the second question is I think I know the answer to this one too but on page eight of the proposal the applicant is requesting early home construction right along the Plymouth Road area I'm assuming that well can you address that request please chair Sula and commissioner Henry we actually had a conversation with the applicant about that today um it gets to be a little bit legally tricky because the applicant does have right now now two legal lots of record and so from a legal perspective we probably do need to allow them to construct one for sure one home on the southerly lot um and potentially a second home but what we would have to have in place is a plan for how that home would connect to Plymouth Road with a driveway and would connect to Plymouth Road with Public Utilities in the off chain that the roadway the new roadway and the new public utilities were never put in so it's like they have to give us two plans for that new home and so that would be something that we would work out um at the time that that building permit came in um it's not something that needs to be written into your to your agreement there or into the resolution there um so that would only happen in that theoretical instance correct after we recommended approval the city council approved it and then a building permit were issued not before that correct okay thank you all right any other questions otherwise I think we're probably ready for the applicant if they' like to come forward and offer a presentation or any other comments you can feel free but you don't have to if you give us your name and address for the record and welcome thank you Kurt Fram Lake West development 14525 Highway 7 minetonka we really didn't have a presentation planned um I could comment on some of the the drivers behind and I thought I think it's interesting um one of the points kind of the two points that were brought up that were drivers behind kind of how this has evolved um usually as staff had pointed out that density is a driver and people try to do as many lots of that can um in this case we were in this eight lot plan versus the previous plans we had Incorporated the property to the north which was a part of that density calculation but it was an expensive parcel and so economics also come into play which which had a factor of uh do we really want to buy those Parcels to the north to maybe get one more lot and the numbers just didn't add up to make that work and that's kind of uh and then also out of the city council meeting the the this Council had made a good point to the property owner often times that that it's the property owner that's driving the densy needing or feeling like they need to get a certain price and so we had to have a heart to heart with the property owner and talk about we're not going to get the density that you'd like to see and so we need you to help us out so we can get a project that you all can feel good good about approving so those are factors that that really played into uh the density that you're seeing we feel good about what you see and we think it's going to be a great development that we can all be proud of someday otherwise we're here for questions great thank you any questions for the applicant all right doesn't look like it but we may have more great thank you all right we'll open the public hearing if anyone would like to come forward and offer any comments feel fre Now's the Time I don't think anyone was on the phone tonight were they M Thomas I don't believe so okay all right then we will close the public hearing uh Commissioners uh we've seen this we've talked about this any uh questions otherwise let's uh probably just go to comments what uh what do we think who'd like to go first who will go first let me rephrase I'll go first you're going to go first first off I'd like to applaud the city and the applicant for getting together and coming with a plan that fits within the rules great job um as we looked over this again it brought up all kinds of comments from the neighborhood and and people in the past I think you've done a really good job of making this all fit um I think the city has laid out a plan that supports this and I'm happy to uh support it as well great thank you other comments commission Henry didn't mean to jump over you so okay well just by hearing the the last few words of the of the applicant and I should preface thank you for coming in a third time for the applicant and thank you for City staff for putting together the detailed analysis and the last few words stuck inside my gut about that or you said that's something that you should feel good about approving I do not feel good about approving this one I I cannot feel good about approving this one this is U this is a a violation of of the the Woodland protection uh agreement and then the tree ordinance I know that it it follows the letter of the law but in my opinion it does not follow the spirit of the law so is it something and the city said as much and they're write up where the city feels obligated to approve it because it does fit all the criteria for what can be can be approve approved in here but will it uh will it match the the character of the the city there's a caveat in here the the applicant said you should feel good about approving this and then he mentioned slightly shorter uh quieter terms someday and maybe for me too as well maybe someday I'll feel good about this because it has a lower density than what was previously proposed and someday after aund and some years maybe the trees will come back to close to what they are now but right now I think uh people get uh my opinion here that this is not something that I I'm vehemently opposed to but I feel obligated to approve it because there's no legal basis or basis with which I can deny it so that's my opinion I uh if I could abstain I'm not sure if I can do that legally I would but uh if I have to vote for it then I suppose I will vote for it great thank you commissioner Maxwell did you want to go or do you want let go sure I'll go next I feel very similar to you commissioner Henry this in my mind is not the best use for this site I think of our body as sort of the the stewards of the land in minetonka and finding what's the best use for um for the public as well as for homeowners um both present and future um and this taking out 70% of the trees on the site just bulldozing a road right through the middle of the Woodland protection area doing so much sight grading and large retaining walls to fit something in that doesn't fit um with the first proposal I did walk the property with the developer and the homeowner and it's a gorgeous site with a lot of large oak trees and yes there's a lot of steep slopes and it's a challenging property because of the um the because of the water and the trees at the slopes um but that's also what makes it unique and what would make it a fun place to live in a good development if it's done properly and in my in mind this is not um not done properly there's just too much um fill and excavation and moving the flood planes around taking down all the trees um it's it's in my mind not a good use of the site but again since it fits with the zoning ordinances and all of our other ordinances I don't feel that I have a legal recourse to uh deny it but I am not in favor of this plan great thank you for sharing commissioner's comments yeah commissioner Waterman uh thanks I'm also not entirely in favor of it from the environmental perspective uh agreeing with the fellow Commissioners I mean the the all that tree loss is really frustrating and I I just don't think it's a great use of the site all that grading that's going to happen um and I think it'll have more of a visual impact on the neighbors than many of them realize um of course development of the site is reasonable and we have to allow Property Owners their rights and then also just sort of one uh I guess one added benefit I mean it is we have struggled with this property a lot the city and the applicant and the owners have you know because of access because of density because of the trees and all the natural features it is good to get to something such that this could be developed which we know it would um I had spoken with some of the Neighbors in the area and if we also recall from the most recent proposal when there was a lot of feedback about from the neighbor versus the north you know maybe one benefit is this is probably something that a lot of the neighbors could get behind or at least won't blink at there's a lot more setback for um than than the other proposals um so perhaps that is a win uh for for everyone we can kind of move on um but like I said I really wish we could have gotten there with that second Proposal with if I recall it just needed a slight modification removal of uh I think one of the houses I'm sure that changed the e e omic substantially um but overall I I will support this one great thank you yeah commissioner Banks I'll make a final Point yeah um yeah I mean of the three proposals we've seen um with this lot I think this is by far the most um the simplest one it's probably the easiest one to get behind um in terms of you know the the single road that goes in the number of homes um decreased but um but the impact to get there is really significant and unfortunate um yeah I wish we could have found a way to make one of the other two proposals work um in your favor and as well the city is City's favor and the neighbors um yeah I saw the one comment in the in the plan and I thought that was unusual um so I wanted to just make sure it was just one comment and so yeah I guess because there hasn't been a an outcry from the neighbors um you know to commissioner warman's point maybe it's just time to to get on and move on from this um but yeah I think the the tree loss is significant um the huge homes you know is you know we're in a time where we need more housing and not bigger housing and so that's unfortunate um but you know to your to your credit I mean you found a way to get it done and um you know I do have to say at least at least a very simple plan and uh we I do wish you much success with it so great thank you any other final comments otherwise I'll offer mine um first of all thank you for pointing out what I what I see as a loophole or a big Miss in our tree ordinance uh it is the exact opposite of what the tree ordinance is trying to do so um thank you uh thank you commissioner Henry for being an advocate and you literally stole the words right out of my mouth like yes it uh it upholds the letter of the law but kind of spits in the face of the spirit of the law so uh I will say yes when I vote for it but that doesn't mean I support it and I just think it's very shortsighted and I felt like we were going down a rout like we could find a solution make something work where there would be compromise all around we would need to go with the nuclear option but you can Shear a sheep many times but skin it only once so there we are who'd like to make a motion uh to recommend the city council uh approve the request for preliminary plat with flood plane alteration permit for 1 acre Oaks at 2511 and 2561 Plymouth Road who' make that Mo I'll make that motion motion minion I'll second uh second Waterman staff please pull the commission Maxwell yes minion yes mman yes BS yes Henry yes chero yes this is a recommendation to the city council to be heard on July 8th uh good luck with your project uh next is item number nine adjournment who would like to make the motion to adjourn I'll make that motion motion Waterman I'll second second Henry all those in favor signify by saying I I I motion carries we are adjourned good night [Music] [Music]