Recording in progress. All right. Call to order the Wednesday, October 8th, 2025 Chaza Planning Commission meeting. Liz, we take a role. >> Commissioner Austin >> here. >> Osw >> here. >> Campbell >> here. >> Kerber >> here.
>> Perie >> here. >> Roasted >> here. >> Sailor >> here. >> Urbansky >> here. >> And chairperson brass >> here. >> With that, we'll move into adopting the agenda. I'll make a motion to adopt the agenda. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Kerber second. All those in favor? I
>> opposed. Motion carries. Uh, next on the list would be a visitor presentation. This would be anyone would like to address the commission on a topic that is not on the agenda tonight. So, if there's someone here would like to address the commission,
now would be the time. I'd assume we're clear on that. And we'll move on to approve previous meeting minutes. Everyone had a chance to review those. >> Make a motion to approve. >> Bansky. I will second. All those in favor? >> I >> opposed. Motion carries. With that, as
consent items, there are none tonight. So, we will move right down to action items. Uh, action item 7A is a recommend approval of the concept plan for Zero Creek Road Jenn. >> Pretty close. >> PC 2025-15.
>> Who's presenting? >> Liz, would you take it away? >> One second. And I got to share my screen here. >> I'm just moving too quick for you. So, >> just want to verify you can see that in front of you on the screen. Okay, perfect. >> All right.
Just got to get my visuals right here. Okay. So, we have a uh concept plan application in front of us this evening for uh the property that we're going to refer to as Zero Creek Road uh which is uh being proposed by
Jen and Scott Schlatteroff. Um this exhibit is meant to show the adjoining uses of the site. Uh the site uh in question this evening is uh highlighted in an orange yellow outline in the center of this aerial exhibit. Um
it's located located within what we consider our southwest Chaza area. Um we have uh residential uses on the east side of the property and across Creek Road. Um as well as uh agricultural use
um abuing on the north and west sides um that also encompass the property itself. um Savannah Way um and Creek Road and a roundabout that intersects those two uh uh roads um is immediately south of this
site. Um we have Highway 212 flanking the uh west side as well. And across the highway is industrial development um and the city's future MSB site. Other adjoining uses include residential as
well. So that's kind of the predominant context of this site. Uh just in terms of where we're at in the process, uh we do have a three-step process with the city uh for most land use applications that come through. So we're at the first step which is concept
plan um which is more of that highle overview of the project. We're starting to identify issues and things to work on towards their more technical secondstep analysis uh in the pre-plat. Um, so you will see this application come through
uh two more times. Uh, just a little bit of a background. Um, Jen and Scott Schlatterof uh have resided in the city of Chaza for roughly nine years. Um, they do own the property immediately east of the property in
question this evening at 480 Creek Road. Um they did purchase this property in 2024 uh with the intention to develop it into single family use uh for their family to uh reside at. Uh they did hold a neighborhood meeting back in August of
this year. Uh they did have two attendees at that meeting that did not uh propose any opposition to the project at that meeting. More so general questions or statements um uh surrounding uh the site. Um so again, no stated opposition that we've heard from
neighboring residents. Uh the site in question um so an existing conditions uh exhibit is shown as on this screen here. Uh the site itself is roughly 8 acres in size. Um it
currently does have access off of the roundabout at Savannah Way and Creek Road uh which is kind of on that northwest uh corner of the roundabout. Um this is primarily used as a field access road. Uh so to access the uh
agricultural land kind of at the high point here for uh users to farm. Um that is primarily made of gravel um but has a curb cut again at that uh roundabout on the northwest side of the roundabout.
Uh the west portion of the site as I mentioned is mainly composed of agricultural use or an open field uh on that part of the property. And then the majority of the property uh which runs kind of on the east side is primarily composed of wooded steep slope uh Chesa
Creek um and additional wooded area. Um, a permanent roadway easement also exists on the south side of the property which is shown in brown overlay on this exhibit here and that's roughly about an acre in size that comprises uh the
property. Um, and one thing of note um that I'll show in subsequent images is that there is a significant grade change between this property and creek road. So the open field area sits roughly 34 feet higher than the roundabout. So there's
quite a bit of grade change uh between the two areas uh with the uh encumbrances on the property uh with the wooded steep slopes, Chesa Creek and the permanent roadway easement. It really uh brings
the buildable acreage down to 2.4 acres on this site. So a majority of the property um is basically unbuildable due to the natural characteristics. Uh the zoning of the property is in our open zoning district uh which is a
holding zone until it uh develops or redevelops. Then it would be reszoned to a zoning district that's um consistent with our comprehensive plan. Uh just a few images uh looking into the
site and out of the site. Uh so the top two images are looking from Creek Road at the roundabout. Um the upper left image is right where that uh existing curb cut and field road access is today.
Uh the upper right image is looking more northwest kind of uh where Creek Road um or on the east side of the roundabout essentially looking northwest as you can see kind of that high grade change. And then the bottom two images are looking
from on top of the site. Uh so the bottom left image is looking from kind of that high point looking south uh across the roundabout and Savannah Way. Um and then the bottom right image is looking um more north um into the open
field area there. Um the concept plan is what is being requested this evening which uh entails the proposal for three uh single family lots. uh two of uh there's two lots proposed um and then there's a third lot
that's proposed as an outlot so for future platting or future development when they're ready uh for that. Uh the two lots in question are on the north and central portion of the site. The outlot is proposed on the southern uh
portion of the site. Uh lot one we'll refer to it as um is the largest of the lots on the north side and is comprised of uh 3.5 gross acres. Lot two is that center um lot which is comprised
of 1.8 acres gross acres and then lot three uh or the outlot is uh 1.6 acres in size. Uh the setbacks proposed um are a 30-foot front setback, a side setback of 15 feet, and a rear setback of 30
feet. Um they're also showing uh setbacks from the wooded steep slopes, which have been um previously delineated on site. Um as well as the setbacks that are um from the edge of that wooded steep slope, which is a 50-foot building
uh setback and a 30-foot nograde, no mo setback. Um, a shared driveway is proposed to uh provide access to the two proposed lots. Um, so this again will be a common
shared uh access that both of the lots will um be able to use. Um, and that is historically what we've allowed uh for shared driveways is up to two homes or lots can uh utilize a shared driveway.
three or more lots uh entail uh providing a public road or a private road um meeting city standards. Uh each of the lots will have their own city sewer and water. Due to uh them being in the m municipal urban service
area, they are required to connect to city utilities um which they are planning to do uh with this proposal. Um and then the homes that they plan to build and again this is for their their family. um they have a few example images of the the homes that they wish
to build on both of those lots. Um related to the comprehensive plan, um the comp plan guides this area for uh low density residential uh for basically that open area that we've highlighted
before. Uh the majority of the site is shown as open space which um essentially uh overlays on top of the the wooded steep slope areas or wooded areas and creek areas. Um and also proposed um in
the long range or comprehensive plan is a plan for a local road that would run north up to Angler Boulevard. Um, in terms of the proposed use for detached single family, it is consistent with the
lowdensity residential um, guidance for the site. Um, and when we get into the definition of lowdensity residential and our comprehensive plan, uh, it, uh, provides a guidance of two to five dwelling units per net acre uh,
threshold within that. So based on what is being proposed for three lots, um they're at 1.25 uh dwelling units per net acre. So they are below that threshold that is defined in the comprehensive plan for low density
residential and I'll get into kind of the analysis and details on that in some subsequent slides. Um and then uh the comprehensive plan also guides this area to have a
local road extension come off the north side of that roundabout. Um and again it would connect uh north up to Ingr. Um it would be a a two-lane local road as I mentioned. Um with the development that's proposed this evening um it does
not warrant the construction of this road. It's just not a high density, hightraic development that requires the need for that road to go in at this time. Uh what we've uh advised from the beginning is that um the need of this
road, the location and the design uh would be determined at a later date when additional surrounding development um would occur and essentially necessitate the need for uh that road to go in.
Are you is that are you supposed to be on a different slide for the roads or is this still the right? >> Yeah, I'm just going over the comp plan guidance. Um I'll have some other visuals for us to take >> and then there's other pictures like the road and stuff.
>> Yes. Yep. Some >> more zoomed in visuals if you will. Um in terms of the analysis um that we've provided in the staff report and just to give kind of a high level overview of that as well um uh there are
a few challenges that exist on this property to try to meet um or get to that 2 to five um uh density threshold that's defined here. So the challenges that um come into play are the buildable
acreage of the site um being only 2.4 uh acres out of 8 acres of uh the total property size. Um as we mentioned before there is significant topography that um exists between the road and up to the
the high point of the property. So it does uh take away some buildable area because of that grade change between uh these those two components. Um the wooded steep slopes encumber a majority of the property uh which really um uh
put the buildable area kind of on that west side of the property. Um there are also limits with the access to um they are utilizing um an existing access point um that they will uh enhance or
revamp as a part of this development proposal. Um but there are limitations there in terms of where that can go with the significant great changes. Um, and then with kind of all those pieces overlaid on top of each other, it really creates an irregular shaped area for
properties to be built on. Um and some of the goals and objectives um that have been stated by the applicant but also are shared by staff is um due due to the sensitivity of the environmental features there with the wooded steep
slopes. Trying to minimize environmental impacts on that um as much as possible with the development is uh a huge goal. and then at the same time maximize density as much as possible to get as
close as possible to that um two to five uh density threshold. Um so we've had quite a few discussions with the applicant prior to a concept plan submitt um to try to advise them through this process. Um and a few of the the
points brought up um during those discussions um was for them to show or provide a ghost plan uh for how uh the development can fit um into the long range plan for the overall area both
from a density standpoint and from a a future roadway standpoint. Um and then if physically they c are not able to achieve that on their own site um is there ways where they can show that it can um uh be achieved uh from the
surrounding areas and show that holistically it's going to meet that long range vision out there. Um so in some um we advise them to show a plan that does not preclude achieving uh the
comprehensive plans density and roadway guidance for the area. Uh so the applicant did put together uh three ghost plans um in response to that advisement to show how the proposed development can fit into uh kind of
what's known at this point uh for the vision for this area. Uh, one plan which is shown on the left hand side in what we call the ghost plat sketch um basically depicts a future condition
uh for just this property um in question uh while showing um the location of a future road extension coming north off that roundabout. Uh in doing so, um they're also showing some conceptual
grading limits too to show how uh the proposed development um can still be achieved and um not preclude the extension of a roadway from the north side of the roundabout. Um so the proposed development is shown in green.
Um and the roadway improvements are conceptually shown in red. And again, this is an exercise exercise to show that what they're proposing um can still fit into the the long range vision there. Um they did put another exhibit
together that we'll refer to as Ghost Plat R1A, uh which is uh one of the city's low density residential zoning um uh zoning districts. Um, and this was depicted to show how the project site
and um how it can fit into um uh overall developments with the uh properties to the north and to the west. Um and how uh comprehensively uh everything fits together with uh it
meeting the standard zoning sta uh standard zoning uh requirements. uh they're basing this completely off of what the comprehensive plan shows in terms of the land use guidance out there. So they're uh showing where the open space uh the roadway extension and
where the low density residential um areas were shown on that plan and then applying the R1A zoning district standards on top of that and including the grading limits uh for the roadway.
um doing so uh from a density standpoint um it shows getting to a 1.3 dwelling units per net acre uh threshold here just using the city's uh standard zoning
district uh requirements. And then the other ghost plat put together is what we'll refer to as ghost plat uh two units. Uh which is essentially the same thing as the last one, but this is one where they're making the density um higher to get to that two dwelling unit
per net acre threshold and showing how the proposed development can fit into that. So unless um uh a development goes through a PRD process and um proposes smaller lots through that process they can get to that two
dwelling unit per uh net acre threshold with that one. But all of these exercises or plans again were to show how that proposed development can fit into that long range vision for the overall area.
uh to continue the conversation on zoning and density since this is primarily the the biggest uh conversation piece. Um the current zoning as we mentioned is an open zoning district. So it does need to get reszoned um in their preliminary plat
phase. Um and with the guidance being lowdensity residential uh the zoning district that would have to be pursued uh during that reasonzoning would have to be consistent uh with that. Uh so we did uh provide an analysis on two
different directions that the applicant could go from a zoning district standpoint to meet that guidance. Um and uh kind of lay out those minimum standards or maximum standards that are defined in our code. Um so that's purely
what the table on this um exhibit or on this slide shows. It's also included in the staff report to um depicting uh going a standard zoning district route with um R1B
um or going uh the route towards uh a PRD district. Um I think either option are a suitable option. Um it's up to the applicant to figure out what um makes the most sense based on what they're
proposing. Um so they will have to determine in their preliminary plat stage uh what uh district to pursue and how their plan meets the uh defined standards. Uh the R1B just to give one
highlight there does have a max density of 1.7 dwelling units per gross acre. Um so um even with a standard zoning district uh we can see some inconsistency with um our standard zoning district and our comprehensive
plan which we're working through uh as a part of our our audit right now. Um so just a few things uh to work on um as they pursue uh the next step or for preliminary plat and reszoning. Um they
will have to uh complete a tree inventory and preservation plan. Uh with that next step um to kind to understand what those potential impacts could be to the areas outside of uh what's protected by wooded steep slope and setbacks. um
if there are opportunities to preserve as much as possible um that would be um the goal there and then uh determining what zoning district uh to apply for in their reszoning application.
Uh so with that um we are asking you to make a motion this evening uh to recommend approval of the concept plan for the three lot subdivision at Zero Creek Road. Um, and then based on the conditions that are listed in the staff report, um, if this moves forward this
evening, the city council date that this would go in front of would be Monday, October 20th. So, not next Monday, but the following Monday. I'm happy to answer any questions. Um, we do have, uh, the Schlottoffs in the
audience as well if you have specific questions for them. Thank you. >> Thanks, Liz. Uh first I'll just bring it back to commission. It's uh technically not a public hearing tonight, but we certainly will open it up if someone would like to address the commission and
talk to us or answer any questions. Um but before we do that, if um I've got a couple of questions for staff, if anyone else does too, I can start it off. And it kind of just goes, it's all kind of centered around the road. Um, just
curious. I know it's only at concept, but obviously the the initial driveway is going to be that offset kind of curb cut that already exists to the side. Um, and so this is kind of minor stuff, but you know, using that for now and being it's
offset and coming around that that curve, it's creek roads can probably wind up being is a heavily traveled road. Maybe there's a private drive sign so people don't get confused. That's probably benefit of the applicant. to for the future right of way.
Are we envisioning retaining walls there or is it going to go uphill up that grade? Any idea? >> Hard to say right now. >> Okay. Because the question that kind of goes into that then is how does lot one access that future? It doesn't show I mean I
see on lot two and three the driveway kind of how it ties into the road potentially, but >> it doesn't show lot one. So, I think we'd want to see that at prelim how a potential house driveway would access that road. >> And when you say lot one, are you talking about the south lot?
>> Yeah. Okay. So, that was called lot one. >> Sure. >> Or the outlot. The out lot. >> That's the outlot. >> Is that not going to be a house there then? >> Three and two will be >> in the future. Future. They would have to put in a road. >> So, in the future, if there is going to
be >> it'd be interesting. It' be >> I think we should see how it works before we just say, "Yeah, sounds great." >> Um because there is that slope there and so maybe it kind of ties in >> I I don't know. You know, it's just a
note that I don't see a potential driveway there. >> Um let me see here. Yeah, I think that's basically it for the for the road question. Otherwise, in general for the development, the
houses, understand we've got a density, you know, solved here, but I think it seems fine to me. Does anyone have any questions for city staff? What what is Can you talk a little bit about the history of the what would I
would consider the extension of Savannah Trail up through that property there? Was it was it ghost platted at one time for that or or >> No, there haven't >> just a concept. >> Yeah, there haven't been any previous
proposals or land use requests for this area. Um the inclusion of the local road is purely coming from our long range plan um and the potential uh providing that extension up to Angler Boulevard. I
think the big question is um the need for that road. Um it it's safe to say right now just with this development proposal that um a public roadway is not um needed to support the the traffic. uh
for this density here. Um and it's at this point because we don't know how the rest of the area is going to develop. It's really hard to say um the need for that or when um it will be needed. And it's it's purely going to
be driven by what Xstrom's property, which is the property to the north, um is going to shape out to be. Um, it's also guided low density residential, but that could be a whole variety of ways to look at that just based on how our
comprehensive plan guides it for and it's not really my concern, but my concern is for the people that are potentially building on here is you have these conversations and you say, "Well, nothing's going to happen there for 5, 10, maybe 20 years, and then next month there's a bulldozer parked out there,
right?" So just wanted to make you aware of that. >> Yep. >> Going back to the road then to so um obviously on the development and recorded will be there right away for the future road if it's ever needed.
>> Until then they're going to use the smaller private drive. Um obviously both owners at this point are family and they're going to use that drive. I would assume either way though because it's not always going to be like that at some point, you know, um just to make sure
there's some sort of access agreement, cross access easement for both owners of those properties to utilize that tribe for the future. So there's not some >> right >> potential issue with, you know, if they ever sell and a new owner comes in and they're not family and they don't get along or whatever. So
>> yep, we do have a condition of approval that addresses them providing one of those. >> Perfect. >> Yep. Okay. In terms of a concept, I think it shows what we need to see. There's more information needed for prelim, but
I um I I think it's I'm in support of it. Is there any other questions for anybody? Does anyone have questions for the applicants? We let everyone get off easy tonight. >> Still early. >> That's it's a unique piece of land
that's that's hard to do anything with. utilizing it. >> The ghost plats are those that's not their land. That's extram's land. >> Yeah. The ones that are colored um that are showing extension to the north there, they're showing that on Extramm's property >> property, right? >> Yep. And it's it's purely meant as an
exercise to show how >> okay >> comprehensively they can >> eventually get there. >> You know how I love ghost plans. >> I know >> this is not a share. That's not >> Are those going to be recorded
>> post? >> The post plans? >> No. >> Thank you. >> Yep. These are purely just for kind of a demonstration purpose of >> Yep. >> showing how it can't preclude, you know, a long range plan from happening and they're they're trying to maximize as
much as possible. Um, >> so that's all it really is to to help facilitate that discussion >> for the audience. There's we run into issues where a ghost plan has recorded and then people think that's the way it has to be,
>> right? >> Problems. Um, okay. I'll make a motion to recommend approval to the city council of a concept plan for Zero Creek Road subject to the following nine provisions. >> I will second. All those in favor? >> I
>> I opposed. Motion carries. Uh you guys will be at city council on the 20th. >> Moving on to the next one would be 7B. Recommend approval of the concept plan for the PV business center. Is that
you as well, Liz, or is that you, Ashley? >> It'll be me. >> All right. Why don't you take it away? >> I'll move this over without trying to Uh, one second here. Got to switch over. Okay. Uh, the second item on tonight's
agenda is also a concept plan. Uh, this one is located up in the northeast corner of the city. Um, 82nd Street uh to the north and then Norwick Street. and essentially the city of Chesca and city of Chanhassen border um follow
those. And so the site that we're looking at this evening is really located kind of in the center of that industrial business park in that northeast corner. We're frozen. Well, that concludes my presentation
this even better. >> That's not good. >> That was omn That was like >> Yeah. I don't know. You know, I do like a little flare. So, just wanted to make sure you all were awake this evening. We're going to try that one more time.
Oh, and now we've added effects. Oh, nice. Oh, it's going. There we go. Uh so Liz went over our three-step process here in Chesca, so I won't repeat that. Um but again, we're in that first uh phase. So
our plans this evening are at a high level and our review is also that. Uh just quickly giving a project overview. Uh the concept plan is for a 18,000 square foot building, industrial building with some outdoor storage. Uh
the applicant is Shaw Construction. Uh two tenants have already been identified uh that are hoping to occupy that new building. They are here this evening. Uh Southwest Rental and Sales and Crimson and Copper Plumbing. The site itself um prior to 2018, so
back in 1986, uh the site was included in the PID2 zoning district. uh that district really established the standards uh and the setbacks for the buildings within that kind of northeast industrial project. Uh
included in that zoning district was also a prohibition for outdoor storage on properties along uh highway 41. In 2018, all of those properties were reszoned to PID8 uh the industrial
district. uh none of the standards really changed. However, it clarified and updated some industrial setback and then also introduced setbacks for industrial from residential because there was a new residential development uh that went in in the city of
Chanhassen over to the east. And so that new district was really recognizing uh kind of changing conditions. Uh in 2005 uh the city approved Chesca business lots for this site. It really
was for three business or excuse me three buildings uh each roughly 6 to 8,000 square feet uh for a total of 15 tenants. So each of those buildings was going to have uh five individual tenants. uh the their approval uh
included a number of things including site and building plan approval and platt which really that's how we got to the configuration uh that the lot is in today. Uh some of the conditions of approval coming out of those 2005 approvals included some enhanced
screening requirements along Highway 41 and then a cross access agreement that we'll talk about a little bit more this evening. Uh and then again uh those approvals reiterated that there was no outdoor storage approved uh as part of the project.
Uh the site today uh is 2.74 acres. Uh it's currently vacant. The highest point of the property is really along uh the center part of that northern property line and then the site uh slopes downwards in all directions. Uh the site
from Highway 41 uh kind of roughly to about the the first twothirds of that site are pretty flat. Uh there is about a 20ft gray change uh as you drop down from that flatter center part down to PV road to the east.
There's also a type one wetland uh that was identified within um kind of the the rightway ditch if you will of 41. Uh and some of that wetland does extend onto the site. And then that cross access agreement is
shown uh that cross access agreement area, if you will, uh is shown here in red. And that agreement again was a condition of approval coming out of the Chesa business lofts approval and it was really benefiting both uh this
property as well as to the property to the south. But that will be looking for that to be dissolved, right? >> Uh I'll talk a little bit more about it uh as we get a little closer. I think there's a couple different options uh for how to move forward, but staff is
still really evaluating what the implications of those cross access agreements and what obligations the city has to um ensure that those conditions or standards, if you will, are are met. Um, so we have to evaluate what our role
is in that and then also what implications uh those site improvements would have if they're not constructing uh what was covered in that agreement. So that's still part of our analysis. Uh the concept plan itself uh really has
two phases. So the first phase that's here this evening again the building has 12,000 square footprint. Uh there is a 6,000 square foot mezzanine uh so a second level uh over roughly half of it totaling 18,000 square ft. Uh the
building itself would be 28 ft tall uh with then some twoft parapits to add some visual interest and then also provide some screening opportunities. Uh building materials are brick and pre-cast aggregate panels uh with glass
and u metal accents. And then again uh there is outdoor storage uh that's being contemplated with this concept plan. And that outdoor storage area is roughly 11,700 square ft. And the applicant is showing that
they would screen that outdoor storage uh with an 8ft wood fence. uh and they've incorporated some brick accents at the corners uh to tie in some of the building materials out into that uh screening area. The
uh request the architect has also included uh six signage areas for the six tenants within the building. Uh they've matched that sizing to be what was allowed by the P8 district. Uh but again, those signs would be evaluated at
the time that a signed permit after the building's constructed and uh with signed permits. Uh the plan also includes uh 31 parking stalls uh generally located in the east side of that new building. Uh in order
to meet what our code requirements are for the current uses, uh they're showing an additional 15 parking stalls uh within that outdoor storage area to meet those requirements. uh the phase two uh that's shown on the plan, that phase would uh require
additional review outside of our current three-step review. Uh and they're showing a 9,000 square foot building uh with some additional parking stalls on the eastern side of the site. Oops, going the wrong way. Uh so going
through our analysis uh of the project uh the proposal would meet the 2040 comp plan uh land use for industrial uh and generally the uses that they're proposing within the buildings would meet uh the uses outlined in the PID8
zoning district. Uh but as you'll note here uh and as noted in your report uh the outdoor storage is not currently allowed within the PID8 district for properties along uh 41. Uh so that would require a zoning amendment uh in the
next phase. Uh while we're not currently reviewing that, uh staff did take a look at that request uh from a reasonability standpoint at a really really high level. Uh generally we would find that that request to amend it would be
reasonable uh if they're able to show that they're uh screening reasonably screening uh what they're storing inside of that outdoor storage area uh from the adjacent properties as well as uh from the adjacent rideaways.
Uh but we'd really want to take more time to evaluate, you know, how can we mitigate uh impacts to those adjacent properties if outdoor storage was allowed. and then what other implications uh would that be if we allowed art storage here uh to other
properties uh within the PID8 district. So we continue to evaluate that. Um we did staff did have some preliminary conversations with the applicant uh you know looking at potential conditions of approval if we were to allow uh outdoor
storage. And one of the things that we had preliminarily talked about was restricting the height of whatever is stored within that outdoor area to whatever the height of the fence is. So in this case, 8 ft. Uh so nothing stored within there uh could exceed that
height. Uh the applicant did then um submit those photos that were included in your packet this evening uh to show that you know what they intend to store out there uh would meet that threshold. Uh and as noted in your report this
evening, it would be helpful uh for the planning commissioners, knowing that you're not locked into a final decision. Uh but if you would provide some feedback about whether the outdoor storage would be reasonable, that would be helpful uh for staff moving into that next phase, but then also for the
applicant as they continue to refine their plans. Uh looking at the building, uh the facade materials are generally appropriate. uh they're meeting the thresholds outlined in code for class one and two materials. Uh generally the
building meets that uh class 3 materials are only introduced uh for that wood fence around the outdoor storage. Uh and setbacks would meet what would be allowed uh for uh buildings within the PIS
8 district. Uh looking at access uh access to the site is coming from PB. So there's no access uh coming from highway 41 as is where required uh and generally the
proposed amount of setbacks or excuse me parking uh would meet what is required for uh current land uses. Uh however, as noted in your report, the parking ordinance does have a provision uh that requires
additional proof of parking uh for warehouse area, and that's really to ensure that there's adequate parking provided if there's a conversion of that space uh into a more intensive land use such as office or retail space. And so
that's where there's that additional deficit uh that we would want to work with the applicant uh to ensure that we're finding space for those 18 additional stalls uh on the property as we move into preliminary uh the parking lot itself. So kind of
looking at uh access moving through the site and then also that parking lot to the east. Uh it is meeting the setbacks from adjacent rightaways to the east and west. Uh but the setbacks are currently shown at five feet uh from the north and
south property lines. Uh that would be compliant if this property was just being regulated by our industrial base district. However, the PID8 district did increase those sideyard setbacks uh from
5t to 10 ft for parking lots. And so we would work with the applicant uh to ensure that we're complying uh with those additional uh feat. And then we would continue to work with the applicant to then understand if we're increasing those
setbacks, what implications do we have to the site circulation plan uh to ensure that our fire trucks are able to navigate the site. It's currently showing that it can meet that. We just want to make sure that we're continuing uh to ensure that that can happen.
And again, uh, as I mentioned earlier, we want to continue to evaluate, uh, what the city's obligation and role is. And in evaluating, uh, that cross access agreement, knowing that the items that
are addressed in that agreement aren't being constructed as part of this plan. and if those site improvements that they are proposing uh what implications would happen if uh they would essentially inhibit future construction of them. So
we're still evaluating that from a a legal perspective. Uh this diagram is just really showing that utilities are available uh to the site from PB. So they would be extended into the site and then storm water would
be collected and directed uh to one of two basins, one on the eastern side and then one on the southeastern side or yes southeastern side of the the site. Um, the applicant has been
working with staff uh to well, the applicant has met with staff, I guess, uh, several times over the course of the summer uh, to work through some of our concerns. Um, and the plan that's before you this evening is really the culmination of a lot of those conversations. They they really worked
in good faith to try to address a lot of those concerns. Uh, they also held a neighborhood meeting on August 21st. uh they invited the 16 properties which is our standard notification area uh and no one appeared.
So looking forward um if this project were to move forward there's a couple things that would need to happen. Uh the first would be preliminary and final plat. The applicant could opt to uh just combine the lots through the county. Uh
that wouldn't come before this board. um but they could essentially do that ahead of uh the next phase and that's really to reconfigure those lot lines that were pre previously established as part of the Chesca business lofts project. Uh the second would be site and building
plan review uh for that new building and the associated site improvements and then the third would be that zoning ordinance amendment to allow uh the outdoor storage. So things that uh again kind of summarizing what we would look for uh
ahead of preliminary um ensuring that those parking lots are setbacks are compliant uh and then adding those additional stalls for the warehouse conversion. Uh we would look for a submitted tree inventory uh and landscaping details as well as an
illumination plan. Uh we would look to have updated uh plans uh reflecting those changes and then we would continue to evaluate um tree preservation the cross access easement implications and
then uh outdoor storage. So again, um while we're acknowledging uh that a discussion doesn't again uh guarantee any final or future decision by you as the planning commission, uh we would find that your feedback would be
really useful and beneficial to both us as staff and the applicant on whether you feel the proposed outdoor storage and what they're proposing to use as screening uh would be reasonable enough for you to consider. support of a future
zoning ordinance amendment and then I would look for a motion to approve the council plan. So I'll turn it back to you if you have for any questions. >> Thanks Ashley. Um so just for clarity for everyone um the motion tonight for the concept plan does not include the
approval of outside storage but it is recommended for us to discuss it to see what we feel so the applicant understands where we stand on it. >> Correct. Yep. So, included as a condition of approval, uh, it does state that no outdoor storage would be allowed until, uh, that zoning ordinance
amendment occurs. >> Say that again. >> Uh, included in as one of your conditions of approval, uh, no outdoor storage would be permitted until that zoning ordinance amendment is approved. >> Right. Yep. Okay. Um,
okay. Uh, again, this is the same kind of format. It's not a public hearing tonight. however you're here. And if you have questions for us, we certainly I would encourage you you can come to the podium and and ask them. Um before I would do that though, I'm going to bring it back to the commission so we can
discuss and ask staff questions and then we can get feedback if needed or we can ask you questions um as as needed. Um, so first in general, I
I think the development looks good. I think the building looks fine. It's a piece of land that's available to develop. I don't have any strong issues with it other than what staff has outlined on the setbacks and
the trees and got to figure out the outside storage at a later date, but get our talk on it. Um, so yeah, in general, I guess I I'm I'm pretty open to it. Parking, you know, kind of proof of parking, figure that out. Um, we can touch on the outside
storage in a minute. Um, anyone else have questions for staff or anything specific? >> I like it. I'm just have some concerns with the outside storage, >> but it looks like it's going to be pretty much covered. I mean, that that's a nice concept that they're throwing out
there with a gate and two areas of brick pillars. I mean, I think it's going to look very professional >> right now. Is that restoration systems in there right now? That are Who's Who's got the Is there >> It's vacant, I think. >> Is it completely vacant? There's nothing's out there. >> Yeah. >> Okay.
>> Yeah, it's just land now. Oh, but there'll be two tenants in the building, I think. Right. >> I was just looking at whatever those pictures that were submitted. >> Yeah. Oh, that's their existing That's their existing location. >> Just showing the >> They're relocating. Yep.
with all the stuff like in the back. >> Yeah. All the shipping containers. >> Yeah, that's their existing area or existing existing spot. >> So, they're relocating. >> Okay. >> Um >> I'd be happy to answer clear some of those up. >> Yeah, thank you. >> Sure. >> Sure.
>> Um that's fine. >> State your name and address, please. >> Yeah. Earl Gabbower, Shaw Construction, uh Jan Hass, Minnesota. Thanks for hearing us. Um, Shaw, I'm I'm Shaw Construction. I'm making application actually on behalf of
the owners that are here. >> Yep. >> Uh, Craig with Southwest Equipment Rentals and Mike with Crimson Copper Plumbing. So, to answer your question on the pictures, uh, Craig uh, owns uh, Southwest Equipment Rentals in a
building that is uh, owned and operated by uh, Restoration Systems. >> Okay. >> So, we were trying to illustrate that what is not coming Got it. >> Versus what is coming. >> Yeah. So, the restoration stuff is not coming.
>> Got it. Got it. >> Perfect. >> Relative to outdoor storage, my dad has been the general manager of a Toz Rental since before I was born. So, I understand the value of having that area for equipment, trailers, things of that
nature. Is there other value to having it and making it pretty other than you need a place to put the equipment when it's not in use? >> Um, are you referring to like the storage area? The >> Well, we're >> you're talking about the outside storage, right? >> Yeah.
>> Um, I mean, our preference would not to be screened, but or um it needs to be secured. Okay. >> At the end of the night >> um for s or security reasons. Um but when it comes to you you're talking uh Commissioner Pertie about the screening.
Um it's intentionally in the back. The building really screens all of the storage area. The side uh businesses to the north and the south screen most of the side of the storage area too along with uh strategically placed
landscaping. So it's and then the fence. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And then the fence. So yeah. So it's so what um just to delineate the pictures what is the primary product let's just call it product or
vehicles what that will be stored in the outside storage >> I want to let Craig will >> then please state your name and address >> Craig Johnius Southwest Rental and Sales uh I live in Mcconia Minnesota
>> um Southwest Rental and Sales primarily uh does party rental uh for graduation parties, weddings, outdoor events uh including for the city of Chaza. We have in the past. Um we do uh small equipment
and tool rental. So everything from floor sanders to drywall sanders and nailers and uh carpet cleaners and anything you can think of. uh pressure washers, uh all of the lawn care equipment, sod cutters, dechers, um air
raators, whatever you can think of. If if you think you can rent it, we rent it. Uh and then we do small uh uh what I would call small industrial use equipment, uh some dirt moving equipment, uh mini
excavators, skid loaders. Um but most of our stuff is really on the smaller side. So, uh, anything you rent from us does not require a CDL license. So, everything is under 12,500 lb. >> Um,
we have some larger trailers and some reasonably decent size equipment, but when I say that, it would be uh just full-size skid loaders. Uh, and when we say mini excavators, I think that's the tallest thing on our lot is right at 8t
basically. Um, towable air compressors are busy this time of year. So, we have a handful of towable air compressors that do irrigation, uh, blowouts and that type of thing this time of year. Uh, and then we are a Husq Varna dealer, we're a Honda dealer, and
we are a small engine service center. So, uh, I have a full-time mechanic, part-time mechanic, uh, that wrench on customer equipment as well as our equipment. Um and as far as the storage goes, uh the fencing would be required
for our security. Um when we started this process the first time, let's say, uh a little more than a year ago, correct? Um it was very much recommended that uh what what's the type of fencing?
>> Uh chain. >> Yeah, chain length fence with slats was not recommended. don't come to us with that and ask for outdoor storage. So, uh that's how we came up with the 8 foot wooden fence roller gates that are in
the exact same uh color as the building so it all matches and then the screening that we're working on now. >> So, >> and what what what primary product do you think would be outside in the outside storage area? >> So, what we would keep outside is going to be our larger industrial equipment
primarily there's going to be a lot of trailers. So, we have uh I think I counted 22 trailers. A lot of that stuff is small, right? So, 6' 8t, 10 foot long trailers, utility trailers for different usage, um small enclosed trailers for
moving your college kid or, you know, uh whatever. Um so, a lot of those small trailers can get in a pretty small area. Some of the larger trailers, uh for equipment rental, um would be a little bit more sizable. Uh but a lot of
trailers outside. And then uh a few of those pictures I took was what we call our cage. What's in our cage is going to be our larger equipment. Uh like the skid loaders, the excavators, the towable air compressors. I I miss toable
chippers. Uh we do have lift equipment that you can see in that cage, but none of it is the stuff that restoration has. So what those are those are called stick booms or or large lifts. Those large drivable lifts we don't have any of. We don't have any plans for them because
you would need a class A or class B driver's license to tow them. Uh and we don't have requests for them. In general rental, what we do, General Rental primarily focuses on homeowners uh that need lawn care
equipment, that need remodeling equipment for working on their homes, that type of thing. Uh and small contractors. So, we work with a lot of uh lawn care and landscape companies. We work with a lot of remodelers. Uh we
work with a lot of uh small kind of handymen type outfits that don't own all of that equipment themselves. >> Sure. >> Okay. Thank you. My my concern is if we allow outside storage for them, are we going to have
other businesses in that district come back to us and say, "Hey, we want outside storage now." >> Yeah. So, um, that is a fair concern and just to kind of let in on the rest of the commission staff and I talked this morning and kind of talked through that
and so I'll continue on with that thought process and let you know where I sit as well. Um I I for all of you who probably already know I'm an industrial guy. It's the properties that I have where my tenants are in the back. Uh we already see a lot
of trailers and trucks and generally we don't even it depends on which municipality is that considered outside storage or not. You know a lot of people have trucks that go with their work and and and trailers and and whatnot. Um I am in general in okay with the outside
storage as long as it's behind the building limited to fence height and um enclosed by the screening by the by the by the fence itself and it also I would think it would need to be recorded that
it's a secondary use or accessory use to the primary use of the building itself. Um therefore in the future if the building ever changes hands it's not the primary use of a new person coming in to buy the building and all of a sudden you find out that it's a I don't know you
know that rental car place or or some other thing where the building becomes secondary and the outside storage becomes primary. Now you're kind of get into a scenario where um that changes to what it is today. And so
again, we're not approving multi storage tonight, but um if we were to approve this at the prelim, I think fence height within the boundaries of the fence and behind the building. Touch back on concern. It's my was my concern, too.
Um, city staff has suggested that they would craft the amendment that it's specific to this property. Um, and not the whole district, which is great for the applicant. Um, but it would, again, we've kind of
talked through this, precedent isn't a legal thing, but it is difficult to deny a future business owner when they're standing in front of you, you know, complaining and saying, "Well, this guy has it right on the road, you know." So, that's a difficult thing to to say no to
in the future. So, might not be a legal issue by giving it to one person and the other, but you could expect there would be a potential that someone in the future is like, well, hey, I'm in this district and I want outside storage. So, we so there is that consideration that
it that that could take place. Um, you know, you look at I'm looking at the properties, there's not a lot of properties that could potentially do that. Um, they'd have to follow the minutiae of the city and see that this guy has it. And if you're tucked in here and it's properly screened, it's not
breaking the fence. I mean, it's not obtrusive. It's you're probably not going to draw a lot of attention, but yes, you >> PV road is not that heavily traveled. >> Totally. Right. So, I mean, as long as it's not like it's going to be an >> You're not seeing it from 41 and it's
>> right, >> you know, it's tucked behind the building. I think it's you do open yourself up to that and it we could we could deny it later to someone else or hear their case and know that you know there may be a case or two in the future that comes
before us when buildings train trade hands or whatever the scenario is. Would it be possible to tie like a conditional use permit to the outside storage so that if the building were to sell in five years, they need to expand and go
bigger space that there's some you there's some say from the city's perspective of what the next tenant can do with it that way. >> Chair and commissioner, that's certainly something we can look into. Um whenever you have a conditional use permit, you
have to assign certain conditions that you know, assuming they're able to meet them, they would be able to continue using um the use in that manner. Uh so a conditional use could be one option. Uh the other option would be to essentially
set the standards within the district specific to that property. Um, so then anytime um they want to uh they being the the owners or the tenants within that building want to make changes, we're constantly going
back to that zoning district to look at that specific standard. So, um, so, oh, sorry. >> That's, >> um, conditional use permits are filed on title and and they're there for so the
next owner can actually use it, too. So, that winds up act, you know, it could wind up being with the property and so you'd have to be specific on conditions and then get tricky. What about um an interim? Do we What about an interim use
permit? An IUP? I'm seeing I'm seeing a Noah there. Uh >> chair, I I just asked the community development director if the city has done an interimmuse permit in the past. It doesn't sound like we've done that. >> Okay.
>> That is another that is another tool. Um interim use permits though typically have an a sunset of some type. So whether you have to come up with some metric for where that permit would no longer be valid. >> Yeah. So that's just kind of throwing a
thought out there. I know other m municipalities actually had clients have done that. Um but again whether it's a CUP IUP or we just amend it for this specific property nonetheless no matter what we call it
there is the risk that someone in the future says I want it to. >> So talking out loud I would rather not amend language for the whole district. I would keep it to this property specifically.
And you know, the benefit here is this is a vacant piece of land and >> it's an infill project. >> It's an infill project and it's something that we make a judgment call on versus something that's already been developed and that judgment call was made years ago on the rest of the property. So, in seeing what they're
proposing in the buildings on both side and the nice fencing, it's a small area. It's not like the primary use where you're having like a junkyard or something. I I personally think in theory if it were to come back in preliminary plat and they meet all conditions and everything else, I think
it's workable for me. >> I agree. It's essential to business operations for the businesses who are seeking to develop the land. I don't think you could operate without it to be honest. I do wonder if we could also add
to next steps like making sure that security is commensurate to the value of the equipment that is going to be in that area. I know it's probably something that's weighing on the minds of the potential developers as well. But
um once people realize what it is and that it's there, it it could be a targeted area for crime. I'll just be clear. I I I like what you're doing here. It's it's it's a cool looking uh infill project. You're you're
taking a piece of land that the second one tonight that's kind of unique and challenging to do anything with and you guys have kind of filled it up nicely. Um kind of coloring outside the lines a little bit, but that's kind of cool too. So, >> but you are currently landlocked where
you are, right? the building. You guys are out growing the building and the storage >> current >> where where we currently lease uh from Restoration Systems. They told us we can no longer release. So our lease is up in the end of 2026.
That's after he gave me a one-year extension. So at the end of 2026, we will have to find >> Well, at least you got a good warning. We would we'd be moving a quarter of a block or about 150 yards
located to where we want. >> Is this more storage for you? Is this more storage space for you? >> This is more space for us specifically. >> Specifically for you >> and we have outgrown our faces. So, uh, Southwest Rental Sales has been there
since 2000. Jim Way, the original owner of that building, uh, started it as his second location. We are the third owners. Uh we bought in 2013. So we've owned Southwest Round Sales since December of 2013.
>> Maybe this is a Well, >> who's going to who's the owner of the site? And I I get it. Shaw, you're develop. Who's going to own it? >> Mike and I are so future building. How like how long? What are we thinking?
>> Three to five. >> Three to five. >> As soon as we can. Okay. >> Ultimately, that would be Mike's primary building as a plumbing company. >> Yep. >> So, once you have the capital and can figure it out, >> that's the deal. >> Exactly. We plan for
that kind of growing building down there. That's the way we'reing it right now. >> Got it. >> It's good to work with local companies, too. >> Yep. >> Keep them local. >> Yeah. >> Right. Exactly. >> I have I have few points. So, so uh
during the like neighborhood meeting, do you see any concerns from the adjacent neighbors regarding that uh outside storage like I know we can't see from 41 and we can't see from the other side of the road because your building will be there. So the adjacent immediate
neighbors are there any concerns from them regarding the outside story? >> They didn't >> they didn't show up right >> we didn't have anybody show up from for the meeting. Um the the building adjacent to the south uh is for sale
right now. >> Okay. >> Uh the building adjacent to the north uh is a is a uh small machine shop uh slash they work on circuit boards I guess. I don't know what the terminology is but they do circuit boards and that type of thing. Uh I know a few people in
management over there. They don't seem to get they seem to be happy that something might happen there. because otherwise it has kind of been a dumping site for years and that type of thing until we bought it and cleaned it up a little bit. Um, we took down all
the ash trees. So, Emerald Ash really taken that lot. So, we took down all the ash trees. We're working on getting all that removed off site. Uh, but yeah, I I haven't had any complaints or for the most part everything in the neighborhood
has been supported. >> Okay. Uh another one is like uh how are you storing the current uh I mean equipment right now in your uh current uh place like how are you storing in the back outdoor storage or everything put in inside?
How are you operating right now in the current uh building >> in our current space? How are we operating? >> Mhm. I mean do you have any outside storage? >> Yeah. So, uh, we do have outdoor storage, uh, currently, but it's it's a fairly small volume of what the building
we're currently in. >> Uh, our outdoor storage is is basically just to the south of the building. Everything that is east of the building we're currently in, which is what I was trying to take pictures of, is restoration systems with all of the
containers and the stick booms and then that stuff. That is that's not our equipment. >> Yeah. So, what are your hours of operations? Like, I mean, do you operate at the later time? >> We're 7 days a week, 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, 8 until 4 on
Saturday, and 10 until 2 on Sunday. >> So, you won't be using like that equally in the later part of the days like in the nights and all. So you are not planning to have any lighting set up around that outside storage which might uh
>> we would have building lighting uh for sure that would would reflect into that outdoor storage area more so for security >> security yeah >> so so cameras could pick up any movement that type >> okay >> and I don't know maybe it's maybe it's
already approved but if you look at their current facility and all the outside storage that's being used. >> Yeah. But like I'm trying to >> outside storage. >> So >> you know like not that we're trying to police anything but at least this
>> at least this applicant is going to do it properly. >> Yeah. I mean >> approval maybe restoration system has approvals. I don't know >> but I mean you can Google >> if it is there for one of the property then definitely it might be for the current district. Right. That's what I'm
coming from. Like another thing is like if we are as we are talking about the amendment right I mean if we are doing specific to this particular property I would lean towards having a I mean know uh some kind of amendment across that uh
district with some conditions like saying okay the the outside storage should have some kind of fencing uh like a few mater like how we are deter um defining the materials for the buildings like Okay, this is the height of the
maximum height of the storage like 10 ft or whatever that might be. Maybe they are requesting for 8 ft. Someone else might request for 10 ft, 12 ft, something like that. So we might come up with some kind of standards and some kind of materials like how we come up on
the building outside these are the materials we needed and the size of the storage as well probably like I mean we can't have like a small building and a big storage rather than like a >> some some might just need a office and more storage right
>> so those kind of conditions probably can help us because we don't know like what will be the next future things right definitely we might be in kind of dilemma like whether we need to approve that one or we need to like still think about that I mean we don't want it to be
biased on anything like probably that way it can help us going forward to just uh continue approving all these things that that probably what >> exactly commissioner boswell and that will be next time at the preliminary
plat what we discussed it'll be fence height of 8 ft heat. There'll be no larger than the out the print of the building behind it as they show. >> Yeah. >> And um and it'll be specific to this property. Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. Is there any further questions for staff? >> So, as of right now, again, we're what we're talking about as a concept plan for what we saw outside storage was discussed. I think people kind of get an idea where we sit. That would need
approval next time. So, as of now, what we need is, and I will do it, I'll make a motion to recommend approval to city council approval of the concept plan for 4200 PV with the following 11 conditions. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second.
>> Beat everyone there. So, second. All those in favor? >> I opposed. >> Motion carries. Uh, October 20th, gentlemen. [Laughter] Yep. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> All right. Back to the agenda. >> Uh other business. Uh so before we shut down, I do have some does anyone else have any questions for staff? Talk about
anything. City other business. Okay. Well, I do for just a m moment. I've been talking with staff. I've talked with Todd already. I just want to let you guys know I've been doing this for seven years and so at the end of this year I'm going to be stepping down and so we'll no longer be chairing the
meetings. Um I've spoken with Todd already and as vice chair and he's ready and willing to step into chair role and and continue on with you guys. Um he's been here as long as I have >> that.
So, he's he uh he'll do a great job. Um it kind of works well too with how far I am in the process and him. We're both at the same time. Um so there, you know, functionalitywise I I feel like it works
instead of losing us both at the same time and having a brand new chair and vice chair. Um it's just a personal thing I've been thinking about for over a year now. Um, and so I decided to continue on this year and I just think it gives the city enough time to put it out there know
that we need a there's going to be a vacancy. Um, and so officially we would as we've done last year and I don't know brand new members but we we would vote on who is chair and and and vice chair. Typically I think that might be done in January um after the appointments are
done. However, um and this is still need to be discussed with city and how we take care of this, but that might happen in December. Um so there's no uh vacancy of who's the chair and who's the vice going into the new year. Um and so don't
have an open recommendation of vice chair right now. There's multiple people here that could do it and maybe some of you don't want to do it, maybe some of you do. You can email me and let me know. Again, I don't make the decision. We vote on it, but obviously my recommendation is for Todd to take over
as chair. I think it's fitting as he's vice chair and then we would just need to vote on vote on that and then who would be vice chair going forward. So, it's been a pleasure. It's been great. I enjoy it. I have enjoyed it. Um, but I just think it's time now for for me to
step down at the end of the year. So, that's kind of just giving you guys a heads up. >> Well, thank you for everything you do. >> Absolutely. Thank you for leading us for so many years. Appreciate it. >> You're welcome. >> So the other question then comes up whose terms
end at the end of this year. >> Mine expires at the end of this year. >> Yeah. Kerber Campbell. >> Mine is ending too, I guess. Right. >> Ya. >> So it's like a three years term. >> It's a three-year term. >> Might be it's a three-year term.
>> I did reapply last year. So that's Yeah. I started in 2020. >> You came on at the same time, right? >> Yeah. You guys had reappointed last year, right? >> Okay. >> Yeah. You're good. It's I think this year it's just the three of us. >> Cuz the three of you were at the same time.
>> Yeah. Because we joined the same time. >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> So, you are already you've got two more years, I think. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Commissioner Boso, since I Yeah. I sent out emails I think it was I don't know if it was earlier this week or late last week um to the folks who who are up
for reappoint um and Commissioner Boswell I did send one to you. So since there's a question there I'll take another look at that. >> Yeah. Yeah. And we'll we'll figure that out however that needs to be. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. So just let you know. Um other than that I don't have any other business. I don't want to hold everyone up. Is there anything else anyone wants to discuss with staff or any questions? >> I definitely agree with you like Todd would be definitely
right fit for the next >> Yeah, I he's we've talked about it and he's >> okay. He has all the experience and Yeah. >> Great. Uh so that'll we'll figure that out officially probably in December or make whatever meeting make sure we have
a meeting um just in case schedule's light. So if it has to be >> Yeah. I think you know some of it is up I think to the discretion of the planning commission as to how you would want prefer to move forward. >> Yeah. Um, like Commissioner Brass was
saying, I think common practice has has been that we would wait for uh the city council to go through reappointments or appointments or, you know, whatever the the case may be in the situation. Um, but, you know, we're this is a little bit of a unique situation where, you
know, we have the current chair um providing advanced notice, which I'm thankful for, and I think that gives the planning commission an opportunity to think through what's going to be the best process, right? um to to kind of solidify that leadership team heading into the new year. Um I'm certainly not opposed to bringing something forward in
December that would, you know, have you all uh you know, make your recommendation. Ultimately, the council considers the planning commission's recommendation for chair and vice chair um and makes a vote on it as well. But I, you know, city council is usually pretty differential to the to the group
um that's making that recommendation. Yeah, I think that'd be >> so if we think, you know, December kind of puts the commission in the best point of stability heading in the new year, knowing that we're going to have a new chair, um I think that's absolutely appropriate. We can we can make sure that we have that ready for the December meeting.
>> Yeah. And I I agree because chair and vice chair are going to come from here now. So, if I'm gone and someone new comes on, they're not going to step in as chair, obviously. So, I think we can vote on it ahead of time and then it gives direction to council so they know and that there isn't a vacancy going into the new year.
So with that, I'll make a motion to adjurnn. >> Second. All those in favor? I. We're adjourned. >> Motion carries. >> Recording stopped.