Uh I see we have a number of um neighbors in the audience. So thank you for braving this blustery weather to join us for this meeting. Our first order of business is to adopt the agenda for tonight's meeting. Commissioners, is there a motion to adopt the final agenda? Make a motion to adopt the final agenda. We have a motion. Is there a second? A second. All those in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. Motion carries. Our next order of business is to adopt the minutes from our April 15th, 2025 planning commission meeting, our last meeting. Commissioners, is there a motion to approve the minutes? I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. Motion. Is there a second? Make a second. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Thank you. Motion carries. So, we'll now move to our discussion items. Uh the first discussion item, item 3.1, is to consider two variances for St. Victoria Catholic Church. This item does include a public hearing. Comments will be limited to three minutes per person, and we kindly ask that any speakers refrain from uh repeating comments to allow sufficient time for all those who wish to speak. I will note that we receive three emails from staff. So, we have some input on this uh on this request as well. So, let me now turn the meeting over to uh city planner Brian McCann for a staff presentation on this topic and then I'll open the public hearing for those in the chambers uh who wish to speak. Brian? Yes. Thank you, chair and commissioners. Tonight, we have a request for two variances from St. Victoria Catholic Church. Uh the two variances are requested for a reduction in the front setback from 30 ft to 5t for some additional burial plots for the church as well as allowing an additional access for a proposed calarium from Victoria Circle, not Victoria Drive as the presentation shows. My apologies. So the location and area it the church properties consist of seven parcels about 26 1/2 acres in size. They do have three existing accesses from Victoria Drive, County Road 11. Uh there is existing residential properties to the north and south as well as Church Lake to the west and Lions Park to the east. Uh all of these properties are zoned and guided R1 residential in our zoning district, which does allow places of worship, including cemeteries and memorial gardens as a principal use. existing conditions for the site. There are a lot of steep slopes present as you can see with the white elevation lines. Uh each of those bold lines shows 10 ft. Each one in between that shows 2 feet. So everything behind the property slopes downwards uh up to 50 60 ft. The in those areas are also some heavily wooded areas. Um there are some wetlands present as well as you can see with the colored portions of the map. um mostly adjacent to the lake, but also small pockets back in the wooded areas. The property does have an existing church building and a parking lot with 234 spaces. I counted each one of those individually this morning, so I know that number's right. Um there's also some additional on street parking on Victoria Drive. And these properties are within 1,000 ft of the lake. So they are entirely encumbered by our shoreland district which allows very limited tree clearing and grading within those steep slopes that are shown throughout the church property. There are some existing grave sites on the northeast portion of the property uh highlighted here with my cursor and a small colarium within this area as well. The proposed cemetery expansion and columbarium that we're talking about tonight though is located on the northeast corner or northwest corner of the property that we just saw. Um they are proposing a single access from Victoria Circle. Once again that's supposed to be circle. My apologies for that. Um they are proposing a central colarium uh off the street there approximately 26 ft wide. They are also proposing parking on site that would accommodate up to 17 vehicles. As part of their proposal, they're also including 250 additional grave sites. And as part of their request, they are working on a lot consolidation for those seven parcels I highlighted earlier to make them a single church parcel. So, looking at the first variance request for the driveway, uh, which I've circled in the screen there, um, it's for that add additional access onto Victoria Circle. Um they do have a trail proposed with this columbarium which you can see a portion of down on the lower right side of the screen that will connect up through uh the elevations up to the main church parking lot and the main church building. The reason they need this additional access is to meet ADA requirements. There are some steps here that would not allow anyone in a wheelchair to access the columbarium. So they would need this access here or on street parking to um make it to any potential funeral service out here. So the practical difficulties which you're aware of are necessary to approve a variance. The first one being that the property owner is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner. A single access on Victoria Circle is a reasonable use to an otherwise limited access area. The landowner's problem is due to circumstances unique to the property. Notably limited. So no other option is available for them to meet the necessary ADA requirements and that the variance if granted will not alter the essential character of the locality. Uh driveways already exist on Victoria Circle and access is required to meet the ADA requirements as I've mentioned already. Looking at the second request for the reduction in the front setback from 30 feet to 5 feet. You can see in the image on the right um the areas that that 30 ft uh front setback encumbers. It takes away approximately 30 burial sites. Uh so the church has requested an additional variance for the front setback reduction from 30 feet to 5t. As I mentioned earlier in the presentation, cemeteries and memorial gardens are allowed as a principal use. So that means they have to meet the requirements of the primary use, including that 30-foot setback. Um, no other improvements are possible within this setback. So just noting if the plan commission does decide to recommend approval, there are limitations on what they can do within easements, steep slopes. uh they wouldn't be allowed to have an additional accessory structure based on our R1 one requirements uh things like that. Um and also due to the heavily wooded areas and the elevations, there aren't many other options available for them to place additional cemetery plots. So going back to those three points again for this second variance um proposing to use in a reasonable manner, St. Victoria has operated a church and a cemetery for over 100 years and it's also a permitted use in our R1 district. Uh the landowner's problem is unique to the property. As I mentioned, steep slopes and those heavily wooded areas limit any additional burial plots outside of the area they're proposing due to our shoreland requirements as well. And that if granted, the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. There are already existing burial plots on the property. Uh some as close within 10 feet of the right ofway on Victoria Drive. And then lastly, I mentioned this in my report, but there is also a sewer main that is located within the property. We have a condition in the resolution attached to the case that um if this needs to be abandoned that the church works with staff to um remove this pipe to allow construction of the columbarium. Uh one piece we are still trying to determine is if there are any uh service lines connected through the church property to this site. So our public works team is looking into that right now, but we have that condition in place to work with the church depending on the outcome of that situation. So then we do need a public hearing for this item. We published it in the Wakonia Patriot on May 8th. We also mailed notices to property owners within 350 ft. We also posted it online and at city hall. Um, as I mention or as the chair mentioned earlier, we did receive three emails uh not to stating opposition due to increased traffic and noise safety concerns regarding the elevation of the entrance from Victoria Drive on Victoria Circle and that there is parking already available within the church site with access to the trail. So with that, if the plane commission does recommend approval, I've attached the conditions that were attached to the case here. Uh the first one being that they're allowed to construct the additional access. Second being the setback reduction. Uh third that they need to apply to combine all of those seven parcels I mentioned in the beginning. Um, number four here is that we would not allow any additional parking for funeral services on Victoria Circle. All the parking would have to be contained to the church site and that they must coordinate uh removal of the sewer stub as I mentioned with our public works and engineering departments. All the other conditions are pretty standard that you guys see throughout our resolutions. And with that, I have a motion for the plan commission to consider to approve, deny, or table the variance requests either with or without staff conditions or with additional conditions. It's up to you guys. So, with that, staff can stand for questions. And we do have representatives of the application in the audience. Great. Thank you, Brian. I appreciate that. I'll now open the public hearing. Is there anyone in chambers who would like to speak to this issue? uh and if so I'd ask you again to limit your comments to three minutes to try not to repeat those who came before you and to clearly state your name. So uh let me please start with representatives of the church if anyone is present from St. Victoria's. Good evening. Uh my name is Chuck Beer. I'm an attorney. I'm assisting the church in this process. Uh we submitted the application working with Brian who's been very helpful. Um so essentially what we're trying to do is expand the cemetery operation which is a one of the primary functions of the church and its religious mission. Um due to the nature of their property as explained uh where they can place uh the cemetery expansion is extremely limited. They have lowlands, wetlands, trees that are subject to various requirements. Um so really we're kind of shoehorned into this one specific area. the u parking by nature of that is also limited with on the site next to the around the circle in the columbarium area and the access is needed to simply comply with the ADA requirements. We don't have any other option to comply with ADA other than to have that second access. And I have uh Ray Orman here who's the parish administrator who can uh add some answer any questions that may come up and also Vale who uh assisted on the uh plans and specification if there specific plans on that but we're just available for any kind of questions anything else. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yeah. Thank you. Is there anybody on behalf of anybody else on behalf of the church St. Victoria that wishes to speak? If not, we'll u next move to members of the community, neighbors that wish to speak. Okay. I'm Jane's. Uh my wife and I, we live on 1812 Victoria Circle. So, if you sit uh in our front lawn, you're looking right at where you're proposing making the change. And I'm just going to set my timer here for 3 minutes because I can talk. Um, so I did have some questions and I did send an email for the record uh stating my concerns and I don't think those concerns could be understated. I mean I understand that they're saying it's a minimal impact to the community to the traffic and all that. But what I want people to understand here is I've lived there for 21 years. I've seen many children to include two of my own grow up there and kids ride bicycles around there. People walk their dogs around there. It's a quiet community area. I don't think it's uh I don't think it's realistic to say that you're not going to impact that community, that circle, by putting traffic down there, and by adding a parking lot for 27 vehicles down there. It's going to impact traffic. There is that safety concern that's already been noted. I think it's obvious um that there is a safety concern going up and down that circle. It's real. it's legitimate and it shouldn't be taken lightly. Uh but in terms of the actual day in the life, I realize that funerals don't happen with frequency, but they do happen. And if you're talking 250 additional uh burial plots down there, you're talking about 250 different funerals potentially over time. That impacts things, too. People visiting uh the graves after the fact, all those things. We shouldn't kid ourselves. It's going to impact traffic. it's going to impact our community down there. And uh I'm completely opposed to having a parking variant down there. There has to be another option. I know that I understand the ADA guidelines and considerations. I don't know what the solution is for that, but um I don't think parking down there is a good idea for any reason. Um, I also can't help but think that opening up the parking could could create a window of opportunity, so to speak, for more development to happen down there. Basically, once the parking is there, maybe something else could be expanded and all of a sudden the scope of what they're looking to do down the road potentially be different and more robust and uh more development could happen as a result of that entrance being created. Uh, last but not least, I also saw, you know, I don't know, a dozen or so years ago when they paved our road down there, we lost much of our front yard. So, I have deep concerns that construction of a parking entrance is also going to somehow impact our side of the house. That has not been addressed in any way, shape, or form. And I don't seem to remember the church losing a single inch of their land when that happened. We probably lost six plus feet. So, you know, I want all that to be thought through. Uh, I know I'm running out of time here, so I guess that's all I have right now. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. H. Is there anyone else from the community that wishes to speak to this issue? I'm Pam Peasant and I live on Victoria Circle, my backyard that's up with the church's yard. I've always figured for the last 30 years when I've lived there that the graveyard would come down. It never bothered me. It's that parking lot that's just kind of if it's for handicap, why do you need 17 of them? If it's for handicap, how many handicap cars, you know, really would need to be parking down there? And if they are, could we designate a couple spots on Victoria Circle for handicap instead of a whole parking lot? And I don't know if you've ever walked through the woods. We Everyone walks through the woods. There's a nice little path back there. Um, but further back through the woods, if you look up, you can see their parking lot. And it's not that big of an incline. Why can't they come if they needed a park e extra parking? Why couldn't they address something where they would come down on that side and have the two parking lots connected and then they can still have their little walking path to the graveyard. Um, you know, I think that that that would be a win-win for everybody because then it won't disrupt a little neighborhood. Um, I don't mind having the graveyard. I mean, it's literally going to be 10 ft from my vegetable garden. No big deal. But if I had to look at a car 10 when I'm gardening down there, that would be so sad. Um, he addressed one of my questions, so I won't have to ask that. Um because I think I think that down the road you'll receive another request that they want something else added and it'll go deeper in the woods anyway. So why not start deep in the woods? There's no wetlands where I'm talking where they could add an additional parking lot. So I think that if they just think about that and give us some other options that would be sort of lovely. Thank you. Very good. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that wishes to speak to this issue tonight? All right. Um hearing no additional public input. Commissioners, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Motion to close the public hearing. Thank you for the motion. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor? I I. Any opposed? All right. Thank you. The motion carries and the public hearing is now closed. I'll now open the floor for the planning commission to discuss. Um and just for the benefit of the audience members, the uh the planning commission is an advisory body only. Uh we are the voice of Victoria and uh our input then goes to the city council who ultimately make the decision. So, this is an advisory organization. So, commissioners, any questions or comments, concerns that you'd like to raise? Ryan, can you um talk to us about the street parking? Is it one side, both sides? I didn't have a chance to look ahead of this. Yeah. Um, so Victoria Circle, I believe, is a 24 foot wide road, which per our ordinance allows parking on one side. Um, after discussions with the fire chief, I believe there are some no parking signs out there in the neighborhood. And I'm looking to the residents here to confirm if I'm wrong on that. Parking's allowed on one side, correct? Ryan, quick question about the lots. Um, mentioned at the beginning that there were seven lots in question. How many of those lots are taken up by this particular proposal? Um, chair and commissioner, that's a great question. The two lots in the north portion here, which I'm highlighting with my cursor. If you can see that, this is the proposed location for the columbarium. And a question for the attorney, uh, if you would know, does the church have any other properties, not necessarily adjacent, that would be prime properties for a cemetery? large [Music] restrictions. They don't have upper locks that you refer to. Do do you mind speaking into the microphone so that we can we only ask because we record and broadcast so so that there the two lots that he was referring to the one that would be on the right actually has some burials in it and on the east side there the cemetery and there's a columbarium in there too. This is just an extension spot. So, it' be the most logical place for it in any event. And also, I do kind of want to point out about the parking. I understand the concerns. It's 17 uh different potential parking areas, not 27. But also, it's just an access road with the circle for easy ingress and egress. If you bend the funerals, you know, getting in and out is always a challenge when people park. So, this is very logical where you come in and you park in all the same direction, you can go out. So the parking is along that roadway and around the circle. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. So it provides the access ingress and then easyress. And it's 17 spots. Is that correct? And are those only handicap accessible spots? Uh no, just 17, but I suppose some will have to be designated ADA or handicapped. Okay. To whatever number would be required. I'm not even sure what that would be. So I suspect those be used not only for funerals but for people visiting the the cemetery plots and and the in that area. Yeah. I mean you might if you're buried in that low area you would probably park there but everybody else would park up top. Okay. To access the existing cemetery. Any other thing with with um burials and some of the concerns with safety they occur during the days. Um, it's not nighttime. It's, you know, well lit, uh, limited use. And not to minimize any safety concerns, but there are some mitigating factors in that, too. I appreciate that the church already has grave sites coming very close to Victoria Drive. Is the church open to considering u pulling back the grave site area, sacrificing, if you will, the 30 additional grave sites in order to be able to use that spot and not encroach. Um, as members of the planning commission know, I'm not a fan of variances because once we start down the path of variances, they become the ordinances simply become a starting point for negotiation. So, uh, are you referring to not having burials within that 30 feet specifically? Well, that's the subject of the variance because it does eat into a lot of the the burial plots, but you know, if that's the planning commission's recommendation and city council's ultimate decision, I don't think we'd have much choice. Preference is to have it just to accommodate the burials. Um, you know, there's we haven't talked about that specifically, what that would mean for the development as a whole. You know, we can talk about that. Um, you know, another Option two is um I don't know about pulling it back. I think already Brian, what did you say? Five or 10 feet. Correct. Back which five. So yeah, I think there's 10 already on Victoria. I suppose that could be an option too. Um but the request is for the variance to allow the varials because again it's just limited area and they're trying to utilize the space that they can. And what what is your response to the neighborhood who are concerned about traffic and safety issues related to the additional site? Well, again, like I mentioned that, you know, we don't want to minimize any of those concerns and I do understand that, but again, the burials occur during the day. They're sporadic. They're limited in nature. Um, you know, that's basically about all we can we can offer. I don't know how many extremely large funerals would occur that would create more traffic than normal. But again, the the number of parking spots uh and the with the trail and the requirement essentially to park in the existing lot of the church would mitigate some of those factors. And I think in part uh from the church's perspective, it's going to be some education to people who are having funerals to direct them, you know, the limitations on the parking and the use of the parking lot of the church as part of the the processes that making sure they're aware that you can't park in Victoria Circle and you know those things are subject to obvious enforcement uh and people will be keeping an eye on it. So you know somebody gets to order ticket it that would certainly make that message clear. So let's have to understand what the rules are and by the church can educate going in commissioners question. Yeah Brian before you move on from this. So the space before the red area is how many feet currently like that perimeter is that five feet? Oh. Um, chair and commissioner. So, the area highlighted in red is the 30foot setback from the property line. The area before that in Victoria Circle is the right of way. Okay. That's the right way. Okay. And how many feet is that, Brian? I believe it's 16. It's a typical rightway length. So, there's a 16 foot buffer between the circle and the development. Correct. And then on the the southern side, it's even pulled back further by the looks of it. Correct. And is there proposed to be a fence between or any sort of se physical separation between the road and the start of the new burial sites? I don't know if a fence is envisioned as part of the development at this point or not. Has the church explored a variance with the shoreland district regarding the land to the west? like I not aware. No. Are you referring to the to the south of this? I'm referring to the the land to the to the west behind the church. You know, I think Brian said that was 1,000 ft. And I was curious if you guys had explored a variance with the government agencies that be to um expand the burial plot into that direction versus towards Victoria Drive. I'm not Where would that be on um where commissioners? Yes. Um I'm believe this is where you're speaking. Correct. Okay. Directly behind the church building. Correct. Yeah. Again, I think that runs into the issues of the grade, uh, the tree removal, I see, and other things when this was first developed. I I walked out there yesterday and noticed that beyond the existing grave sites, it falls off steeply. Yeah. And it would be near impossible to grade that to make it usable for grave sites. Yeah. I understand I wasn't involved in that part of it directly obviously but my understanding is the grade in certain spots uh really limit what you can do with that particular lot um then add on the zoning requirements and other limitations because of its proximity to the lake that my understanding the assessment came down to that the those two northern lots were basically the only place that would be workable to expand the cemetery Brian, can you go back to variance one, please? So, can you walk me through again why we need a variance for access here? Yeah, absolutely. Uh, chair and commissioner, so our code designates that residential district properties such as the church are only allowed one access per parcel. Um so in the case of the lot consolidation combining all of these parcels we want to make sure we're having a conforming lot um when they do that. So as part of that approving a variance for an additional access is required to make that work or a zoning text amendment to allow two access per residential property which I don't believe the plan commissioner council has any desire for. So if they didn't combine their partials, they would not require a variance for that access. Correct. But they also would not be able to construct the colarium because it prop it crosses property lines and we do not allow improvements to cross property lines. So it's a multiaceted reasoning behind this. And so if we approve this variance, is it I can't remember your dependency. Is this one dependent on the combination of the lots? Um, I did provide both variances within the same resolution. So, if the plan commission desires to split those up and recommend denial for one and recommend approval of the other, that's certainly uh something that you would be allowed to do. I just provide the resolution prepared for you guys as a template of your discussion. But in that did you include that it a dependency of that variance being approval is that all the lots are combined to one? Yeah, we would want that regardless. Okay. So that is in there as like a dependency correct of approval. Um and then is the is another dependency that you have. Maybe we want to go to the dependencies or the conditions. I don't remember what we call them. Is another condition that it's only one more and that it's not more like I don't know how it's written. Yeah, it's uh number one here. St. Victoria Catholic Church is permitted to construct an additional access to their parcel via Victoria Circle. I think I don't know what you guys think. I would want to be very clear that that's one additional to seek anything just again otherwise just covering one it. Okay. Is it possible to put a time frame on when people can access it? So like during, you know, Monday through Friday business days or holidays, you know, just so that if we do approve this, it's not going to be so much of a hardship on the residents that are there in those evenings or days that, you know, kids are going to be out playing or people are out walking. Chair and commissioners, that's a great question. Yes, that is something that you are able to do. I would just ask that we verify with the church that the proposed hours work for their proposed um funeral services. Yeah. You just wouldn't want disruption during evening hours for example or weekend uh I would imagine weekend times as well to that work in St. Victoria. We're a church. We do things on weekends. Saturdays and Sundays are holy days for us. So, it would not work for us to restrict to weekdays only. However, daylight hours, I can't remember in the 23 years that I've been at St. Victoria that we've ever done a funeral outside of of uh daylight hours. So, certainly not a burial comment. Can I add something? Sure, please. Well, the ongoing issue again, please go to the microphone. We live there seven days a week, business hours. business hours. To my count, there's probably close to 10 people there that have kids that are under 12 years old in our circle. There's going to be more kids in that circle. This is not We're not talking about a weekday only type thing. I work from home. I could see out the window all day long. People walking their dogs, people with their children. It is a safety issue. It is a daylight thing. It is a weekday thing as well as a weekend thing. and anybody that's a stakeholder for the church as well could consider my lawn with me for a day and they could see that it's definitely going to be an impact to the circle. Thanks. Brian, can you help me understand the parking? Um, there's currently on street parking allowed on one side. How do we differentiate between funerals or people visiting the grave site from the community? Um, chair and commissioner, that's a good question. So, we would we do have a condition in the draft resolution stating that none of the on street parking can be for the church. Um residents of Victoria Circle, if they notice any vehicles that are there for a church service parked on the street, they're welcome to call the sheriff's office. Um we can site or tow because of that no parking signage out there. And because this would be a required condition of the variance, we have something to fall back on. Um, Ryan, can you go back and the statistic on how many additional grave sites are being added down off of Victoria Circle? 250 is what I 250. 250. And you said 35 would fall within the 30 foot setback approximately. That was a rough figure. I didn't I didn't count those ones like the parking spaces. Could I get a response from the church as to the hardship that it would create to lose those 35 burials plots? You'd still have 20. It's 30 is what it 220 strikes me as a pretty good ad. I guess the hardship kind of speaks for itself. It would be the 35 additional burial spots. Um I guess it' be just an underutilization of the it would just be left I guess vacant from that point on. I mean it's pretty self apparent and I understand your question and um that would be the significance of it would be the 35 additional various impact to mission or objectives. I mean based on the size of the um the current, you know, number of parishioners and I mean how quickly do you think those last 35 spots are going to get filled up? Just for clarification for everyone, I I just counted it's 40 40 spaces would be impacted. Yeah. I don't know what the rate of burials are. You know, sometimes cemeteries take decades upon decades to fill up, but the idea is that they can carry forward their ministry into the perpetual future. So, uh they they will fill up eventually. Um and they're moving to a columbarium to to uh meet the needs of those who wish to be cremated and have a niche. So, they're just trying to serve whomever uh today and then long after we're all gone. In essence, um, you know, the church's mission, religious mission in large part is to have burial spaces to do that. I understand the numbers are for you. It's about a little less than 20%. And again, this is kind of the last area in which the church can develop any kind of cemeteries. Quick question. My understanding is that more people are beginning to get cremated as it is. Any thought to expanding the columbarium instead of worrying about in ground plots? Uh they're doing both. Uh they have a columbarium now and then the new one accommodates 300 plus uh niches. Can that be one or two earns? That's my question. Can that be expanded? Well, I mean the development was thought out kind of based on what the church understands the needs would be for uh the the public and parishioners. I guess we I assume all those issues were thought out before they did kind of fell on this particular plan. They have professional consultants that are helping them develop the plans and the size of the columbarium and the the burial areas and part of it, you know, having the burial areas too kind of continues the pastoral nature of the area. I mean, it's kind of an aesthetic issue as well. you know, those things all go into the development of of the plans and also with the access too. Just to note that uh it's it's necessary for ADA, but it's also going to be necessary for any kind of vehicle that's carrying the seedant to allow a burial. So for a hearse, they're going to have to be able to drive in unless they can park on Victoria Circle and try and manipulate the process from there. But the preference of course I guess my comment to council members would be can we recommend doing just a few parking spaces and access for a hearse so that we mitigate how many people that are going to be there because part of my understanding for this is that they need the ADA parking spaces. So, do we allow just a few ADA parking spaces and space for hearing and then any other funeral attendants would need to go through the path from the church and the main parking? No, it's it's a really good comment and um I don't know where we come out on this as a group and I don't pretend to say, but it seems to me that a lot of good points have been raised today. Um, and I for one would be in favor of tableabling this for today to um encourage further discussion of options. Uh, I like Bob thought perhaps we could um reduce the number of grave sites to uh reduce the impingement on the on the encroachment. Um, my personal view is that um it's their property. This is an appropriate use. they should be permitted access to this area for horses and for some ADA. I was concerned about older people attending services and masses, you know, masses in this area. Um, but I I I just sense that there's a lot more to be discussed and decided here. My two cents. Other thoughts from the commission? I would be curious to see a study on the feasibility of an ADA ramp. I'm sure while it's complicated due to the grade change, I' I'd be interested to see, you know, some figures on the length required um or, you know, more some specifics as to why that's not an option as well. Second, that I don't feel that ADA statement has been well proved to warrant a variance for the driveway, which seems to be the issue at hand here. That's why I was going back to the first variance request is that that's the sticking point here is the driveway. I don't I don't fully understand is not presented to us of why ADA is the sticking point. Sounds like it's a combo of 88 hertz not. So I think that needs to be beat down and table this and get more information. Brian, I mean, I've been kind of noticing that with a dry with the sidewalk is if it extended around and was more gradual, it's the hardness of the stairs. I mean, you can visually see there is a ramp. Yeah. Pathway around um that would you know what again without the road it would accommodate. Is it the final solution? No, it doesn't seem like the answers are coming in. That just just to address the ADA question, the ADA is required because of the grade from the parking lot down to where the burials would occur. Correct. in that does not allow for but that rail that goes down the stairs could extend circularly around the north side and create a much easier contour that would be ADA compliant and then would avoid the need for perhaps the variance for the road which would be more satisfactory to others in the room perhaps but it's the direct directness of the stairs that creates the ADA Anderson with LAS. Um the trail as it was designed is to get down as far as it can. Um there's still a sixoot grade difference between those two and at a maximum for ADA maximum for a ramp is 5% slope. That's going to take a lot more room than they've got there to even switch back. It'll go into a lot of the grave sites, take a lot of those out just to get that ramp down that six feet. Presuming the road existed. Presuming the road existed. And the road is only there for access. If you're going to allow them to park first and ADA on the street, then it would there would be foot trail, but not necessarily a vehicle. But either way, there's going to have the same amount of vehicles that are going down on that residential road. because the ADA and the hearse are still going to be on that road if they're going into the site or not. Yes. Could you explain please come to the microphone and state your name? Name is John Elen Victoria Circle. Um in the some of the diagrams I saw uh look like two walls in some of the pictures and I saw one wall and another picture and I I couldn't quite understand how that um wall set up. Yeah. Uh chair and commissioners, I believe the two walls that are being referenced are these two partial circular areas that I'm highlighting with my cursor here. And that's to accommodate the grade change with the stairs in the middle. So then that those two would be the only those are the only builtup walls, correct? That accommodate that. Yep. Okay. So, those are retaining walls, I presume. Correct. And how tall are those? Are they four feet each? Yeah. So, then there's a lot of slope. Correct. Yeah. What is the drop? Um, each of these lines is a twoft contour, which means every dash line in between there is a twoft drop. So if we're looking at the top here, it's 2 4 6 8 10 12 down to the from the top of the stairs to the bottom. Will thatffect a water issue for my house? I kind of have one in that corner anyway of my house. If they do that wall, where's the water going to go? Uh the property does drain towards the lake, so it should not impact your property. and they're well under their imperous requirement as well. I should note for the commission to address what you had said about you know you know the losing of 40 grave sites if they didn't have the parking where they are that road that's that's a lot of sites right there as well. If they parked on the street and they had three designated spots for or you know, whatever it is. So, I'm gonna So, the public hearing has been closed. I just want to ask the commission if there are any other questions or comments at this point. No. If not, uh, I would entertain a motion if anyone has one. At this point, I would ask maybe Brian if we can go back. I mean table this for a bit but maybe split up the variances. It seems like there's a lot that they want to do within this variance and there's a lot of questions I think we all still have and we would like maybe a couple other solutions to this. Sure. Uh chair and commissioner. So your alternatives here could be either tableabling them both or splitting it up and taking each motion for each variance one by two. Right. I would I would move that we table both variance requests for the time being to enable further discussions uh with staff to make sure that we explore other options for both parking and for the setback um and and come back when we've got some further information. Thank you so much. Did you make a motion? I did. That's my motion. I'll second the motion to table the variance discussions. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? All right. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. What would be the next public hearing for this chair and commissioners? I'll use the list of attendees who signed up. We probably won't advertise for another public hearing since it was tabled and not officially recommended for denial. So, I'll reach out to that list and then if you want to talk to your neighbors about the next time this comes up, that would be greatly appreciated. Since we tabled this, Brian, will it go to the city council? It will not. So, um I will follow up with the church folks. It will have to come back to you guys before it goes to council. Very good. Thank you. Our second and final item for discussion tonight is item 3.2. Consider a zoning text amendment to reduce the minimum dimensional standards for R1 low density residential districts. Um, this item also includes a public hearing and we'll have a similar process from the last public hearing. Um, I will now turn the meeting over to associate um, uh, planner Travis Briley for a staff presentation and then I'll open the public hearing for those in chambers who wish to speak on the request. Travis. Good evening, chair and commissioners. Uh, tonight uh, we have a request for a zoning tax amendment uh, specifically to the R1 district and uh, reducing the minimum standards for lot dimensions. Uh this request has come from the owner of 8101 Victoria Drive. Uh specifically they want to reduce uh minimum lot width, minimum lot size and reduce the front yard setback. Uh this slide is specifically towards their property and some items that they've discussed with staff when splitting or when to split the parcel. Currently the standard is 80 ft for your lot width. Uh their request to go below it would allow that this parcel to be split. Um, so just some background information though, homes that they were proposed would fit on the site and fit with the character. However, when we look at a zoning tax amendment, we're looking beyond one parcel. Um, but I think it's important that we understand where the request is coming from. Quick background on it. Uh, we did consider the application complete back in April. Our 60-day rule ends June 15th. We did publish a, uh, public notice in the Winona Patriot. There was no mailer as it reaches for almost the entire community. Um what we did advertise in our other fashions as we normally do. Um the application is based um on the 8101 Victoria Drive property as I stated isn't large enough to split under the current uh zoning regulations. And then we have this scheduled to go in front of the city council on June 9th. So there is a planning commission between now and then. Uh just to keep that in mind. Um first thing uh what is a zoning tax amendment? Uh zoning tax amendment is a request by residents staff order for investigation to city council or directed language from other government agency and others to look at what ours our ordinances say. Um it's a request to change the language of the ordinance. It's also not specific to any specific property or location throughout the city. So when we're talking R1, talking the entire R1 districts, all our single family home that we have throughout the community. Um R1 in the case for terms tonight is going to be considered, we'll use the term under lane zoning, which just means that there's overlay such as shoreland, uh wetlands, and things like that. Um the one thing to kind of point out is that the request being made tonight would not have any effect if they're within those other districts. So, if they're within the shoreland district or they're regulated by bluff setbacks or anything like that, the request that does not have any effect on those partial dimensions. Um, we want to talk just real quick about what R1 zoning is. It's our low density residential single family homes, detached. Um, and our comp plan has our low density between two and a quarter and six units per acre. Um, that's based on the 2040 comp plan for single family homes, duplexes or twin homes. would like to point out duplexes aren't permitted in the R1 under our current code and twin homes are two single family homes that just happen to be attached to each other. So when we look at our bulk standards that we have uh in yellow would be the requested changes. So, it' be a reduction from 12,000 square feet for the minimum partial area down to 9100. As well as the minimum lot width, which is currently 80 feet, being broken up between quarter corner and interior lots. Corner lots being 75 ft, so 5 foot reduction, and an interior lot going down to 65 ft, which would be a 15t reduction. There's also request to do a front yard setback reduction of 25 ft. None of the other standards would change such as impervious, sideyard setbacks, rear setbacks, lot depth requirements, as well as the minimum uh finished floor area of the home. Just to do uh some quick comparisons to what all that information means because it's a lot of numbers. Our minimum R1 density is two and a quarter units per acre, which means that uh at that you would need 19,360 square feet would be the size property you'd have and 2 and a quarter of those equal exactly one acre. Our maximum is six units an acre, which would require a lot size to be down to 7,260. Uh this request or this request would be to 9100. So it's roughly 4.7 units per acre. So, it's within our comps van plan. However, our minimum lot size right now is 12,000 square ft, which is 3.6 units per acre. Uh, there has been discussion with the Met Council as well about the need to increase our density uh which will be coming up in the future comp plan discussions and preliminary they're looking at about three and a quarter for uh Victoria. There'll be more on that and over the next couple years as we go through the comp plan. Um so uh the other thing that we looked at is we looked at the recent subdivisions to uh what those front yard setbacks would be as well as the lot west and you can see in here through the the Brookmore the Hunters Brook the Marsh Hollow for the single family portion only uh those were all 25 ft setbacks. The Meline Trail was still held to that 30 setback standard. Uh when we look at lot Wids there was a reduction in those developments for that. I would like to remind you those subdivisions were put in with a planned unit development which allowed the city to create flexibility and relax standards within the zoning code through that type of agreement. Travis, if I can interrupt, do you have square footage size with respect to the recent subdivisions as well to the lot sizes? So, I uh chair planning commission, I looked at that and was trying to figure out a way a good way to do that. Unfortunately, there's a lot of unique parcels out there. Uh so it's it's a little bit more difficult. You would see a very wide range anywhere from uh the upper eights to 20,000 square feet. So it and it it was a lot of information and there wasn't a real simple way to present it. The other thing that we want to look at is um comparison to our market community. around us as well as our own zoning regulations and earlier I had stated that any that the request to change wouldn't have effect on the overlay that includes our Lake Minnetonka residential district. Uh those properties already require larger widths and they require larger sizes. With that being said, you don't um the more restrictive takes control. So in the shoreline overlay, if you're on city sewer, you still need to be and you're not along the shoreline, you're still looking at a 15,000 to 21,780 ft parcels, which is bigger than the current standard. So that type of stuff doesn't change. When we look at our neighboring communities such as Chanhas and Chaza, Shorewood as well as Wakonia, they have different standards. You'll see that there's kind of a spread when it comes to Chaza and Shorewood that they have multiple single family residential districts broken out between different types of natural amenities and things like that, but they range generally between um for your typical single family home, you see about 9 to 15,000 square feet for that. Uh the 40,000 square feet, that's that's pretty special for them. But like I said, they're a different community. they have uh uniqueness within their community that we don't have throughout our entire community. Uh just to kind of take a look at where all our zone, excuse me, where R1 zoning is. Um I broke just a couple screenshots out of the city. This is north part of the city. Everywhere that you see that's in the lighter color yellow is R1. That orange, that's your Lake Minnotonka residential. But you'll notice that you can see some blue dots on there as well as some striping. The blue dots represent our shoreland overlay districts. That's anything within a thousand feet of the ordinary high watermark. There are greater restrictions which would not be affected by a change to the R1. In the PUB areas or the striped areas, the city generally has agreements and it's been a practice of the city for many decades that you can't do re-ubdivisions of those parcels. Plus, those parcels would be unlikely to be split anyways unless they're an outlot. Outlots are generally set up either as a future development which is planned in the phasing process or it is for storm water management. You'll notice in the upper right corner there's a it's circled there's a couple small parcels. Those are what is is outside of the shoreline district. Those parcels would not be able to be subdivided under the current or proposed regulations. We look at between highway 7 and highway 5. The biggest areas out by Kings Road. Those are larger parcels. Sewer is not provided unless we wouldn't be able to get it from the city of Chanhassen. Um but even with those those parcels would be unaffected by uh the change because under the current or the proposed they would be able to have the same restrictions. Uh the other area to look at is south of Church Lake Boulevard. Um lots of PUDs in there. Just about every development there is in PewDie and just about everything else except what's highlighted is underneath the shoreland district. Um those lots are small in the if you look in the north northeast those are really small. There's no way that they'd be subdivided under the current ordinance or under the proposed. And when we look towards the center of the screen those are larger parcels and there is a potential that those could get changed into something else. It's unlikely because along a county road, you have to get access from the county. The county has certain restrictions of distances. Um, so the county doesn't like driveways close together as we've discussed in prior planning commission meetings. Um, so I would say it would be hardressed to see those parcels split unless there was a combination to go with other parcels in the area. So that's just a general overview of where we are. More specifically, what this request would affect are the parcels listed in red. So, the parcels listed in red or shown in red. Currently, uh this is mainly along Victoria Drive and Highway 5. You'll notice that the parcel uh that's in question today is also highlighted. These parcels would be able to be subdivided into two parcels under the proposed language, but not underneath the current language. So, this is one affected area that the ordinance would have. The other area to look at is uh 82nd Street uh West and Barbaria Road. Those are larger parcels. They can currently be split right now in two. Granted, they're on a county road, so you have that factor going into place. Any type of development that would go into this area is likely going to be done underneath parcel collection and looking at more than just one parcel at a time just because of the evolution that the city is going through and will go through over the next 5 to 15 years. Uh the next area to look at is just west of Meline Trail in Brookmore. Um there's five parcels here which could be subdivided out. You'd be looking at an increase if those parcels were to divide by themsel. Instead of having five parcels, you could have six to eight at the most. Um there is one parcel over here that is large enough to split. However, the topography is extremely steep and it'd be um in in our estimation cost and effective to split it and try to develop a home. There's too many restrictions that we have for that. Um with that, uh the planning commission, I have a a few questions that were also in the staff report, but probably the biggest one would be how would a change to the R1 zoning standards affect the character of the community? Would it be a positive? would it be a negative? What would that look like? And what type of challenges would we see or challenges that could be perceived and overcome for um with that I do have a sample motion for everything. Um and I'll stand for any questions. We do Oh, and excuse me, we do have the applicant as well as a member of his real estate here as well. Excellent. Thank you, Travis. I appreciate that. I'll now open the public hearing. Is there anyone in chambers that wishes to comment on this item? If so, please come forward and state your name and again try to limit your comments to three minutes. Good evening. Uh name is Chris Thomas. I'm currently the owner of 8101 Victoria Drive. I bought it back in April. Actually been living in Victoria for 20 years. I live on Kelser Pond um in the Watermark uh neighborhood. Um but uh John and I serve on the Victoria Lions and uh John brought this property to my attention um on the day it went on market and I've noticed it for a long time. I drive by that house every day to go play pickle ball or go into Chan or go go go anywhere and it's a site for sore eyes. I did put a couple present uh slides together just to give you an idea of if you're not familiar with the property. Um it's uh it's currently condemned. I wasn't able to look at it when I bought the house. Basically couldn't go. I was bought sight on scene. And the idea for me is one to help improve the community. Uh like I said, I've lived here for 20 years. I'm proud member of the community. Been in the Lions c currently serve as a president of the Victoria Lions. Um and I want to make this community better and uh more pleasant. And what you guys are doing in this community has been fantastic. Like the the improvements we're seeing, I love it. Right. and I plan to build on this lot in one of these lots. I would love to build on it and be my forever home. That's our goal is to move closer to we can walk into downtown and then sell the second lot. Um so the the request there you can maybe go to the next slide. Um this is kind of a rendering. I've been working with a local builder in terms of what we plan to build on on lot one. Um the idea would be to have um detached garages so that nothing No one, you don't need to access a property off of County Road 11, which you know is tra high traffic, hard to get in on, safety issues, um, but access it from the alleyway with a with a detached garage for both of these properties. Um, just another example of the the elevations of the home. Um, I don't know if this really matters anymore because this was done probably 1947 when the originally was platted out, but you can see the property that I own there was originally platted for I think like two and a half lots, three lots or three lots for that originally. They they sold off half of one of them to the neighbor next door. I guess whoever built this house wanted to have a bigger lot than what currently sits on that street. Um so in the original platting um you know today would probably be considered two and a half lots. If you go towards that house and say towards downtown by by uh Floyd's right that whole lot all those are much narrower lots and even the house on the current property um you know doesn't fall within the current setbacks of the city given the code was different back when the when the home was built. So, we aren't we aren't building it or creating a safety issue um outside of you know you know building a nicer home on it. Um next slide. So I think you know um Travis did a great job summarizing this. Um so you can skip this one since we just talked about that. But I did pull I think to your question Joseph about um some of the minimum lot areas. So this was Brookmore um there for and I realize it's a it's a much larger development but their minimum lot area was 8,900 square feet and the next one was for Hunters Hunter Glenn um was 8,500 right with similar um you know minimum lot west of 65 and front yard sapbacks of 25. So um I think that was it. Um I did try to answer some of the questions that I saw on the agenda. So, um, you know, I think to Travis's point, like really in this area, there's potentially a five lots. None of them, they're all currently, um, occupied. None of them are are condemned or the state of this house is. So, I wouldn't expect that that would be a big impact. Um, you know, obviously the second home that we put on this property would have incremental tax revenue for the for the community. um they're going to be constructed in a way that's consistent with our look and feel of that street, especially those homes with front porches and detached garages. Um you know, uh in terms of reduction the front yard setback, really the the new home is going to be further back than the current structure already exists. Um and in terms of reduction creating any issues for parking or or driveway, again, we're not going to use Conor 11. We're going to use the rear access to the alleyway um for detached garages. So, I'll leave it at that. Thank you. My name is John Wickman. I've been in the community for 25 years. Actually got to sit on your side of the table for about sevenish years. So, I've been know where you're at, which appreciate all your service. Staff's been wonderful. So, we're kind of a precursor to what you're about to go through. Back when I served where you're sitting, we everything look at that committee is pud pe our streets are narrow here our streets are wide there lots are narrow here not so are wide there a lot of inconsistencies what we tried to do back then was to try to create more by right development so developer comes in here's the rules to minimize the puds and create more consistency throughout the community so by requesting the text event we're requesting tonight gets you closer to that goal which I think is a goal you've been working on with the 2040 comp plan which in the upcoming year or two so we appreciate your time. We appreciate what you're doing for us. We're here to answer any questions you may have. All we're trying to do is get rid of the one ugly house we have in town. I love our community. It's amazing. And Chris has step forward, hopefully clean that mess up. Thank you guys. Thank you, staff. Since there's nobody else uh in the audience, uh is there a motion to close the public hearing? Motion to close public hearing. Is there a second? Second. A motion and a second. All in favor? Any opposed? Vel. Uh, the motion carries. Public hearing is now closed. I'll open the floor to the planning commission to discuss any questions, comments, concerns about this proposed zoning text amendment. Can I start out with a quick one? Um, I think I heard you mention the house is intended to be behind the 25 um foot setback. So, is there a reason we're asking to change that for other properties when it's not going to be a barrier if it remained at 30 for your particular? Just give me the logic behind that. Yeah, actually we would use we would we would use the incremental 5T to build on. Um, currently the house that's currently built on the property is outside of the setbacks, right? So, I'm sure the current the new house be further into the lot than the current structure. Okay, we would use we would utilize it just the full fiveT um for the for the home structure actually. If you look at most of our streets up and down, we try to keep the line up and down. You're fine. I I have a question about the trees. I noticed that there are some beautiful oaks on the property. Um I don't know if they're heritage trees or not. What is the plan for preserving those if this is Yeah, there are I mean there are the the front one in the front yard is leaning kind of into almost County Road 11. Um so that one probably would have to be taken down. Um we will try and salvage as many as we can, especially the ones on the what it be the south side. Southside, right? Yeah. This separating my lot with the house next door. There's several trees there. There's some old shrubs that have kind of been overgrown, but I mean, whatever we do take out, we plan to replant trees as well. But, um, yeah, we'll try and salvage as as many of the trees as possible. Other questions, comments? Two quick ones for Travis here. Um, I think they said it at the end here, but I want to confirm like, you know, We have been approving a bunch of stuff through PUDS. What is the city's stance on like where we're headed with setbacks? Like is that just going to be in basically arguably the next developer that comes in to bring something? They don't need a PUD anymore to do the to change the setbacks. This is going to set a new standard. Commissioner, that's that's a great question. uh when you do have the larger developments that come in, when you're talking 100, 200 homes, those developers are going to want a PUB th those type of developments just don't go in. When we're looking at the minimum standards for the R1 district, what we're looking at more so is the infill type of housing. So that's your redevelopment of existing homes, one property, maybe two or three properties at a time getting collected together. Um, so that that's your big difference between it. As far as uh PUD goes, you generally need 10 acres is our minimum. There are some exceptions, but those exceptions aren't very common. Um, and has been. Yeah. So, yeah, POD is going to be for the bigger. This is for the smaller is is what we're looking. So, but if I understand this, we're we're resetting R1 like right. This is a text amendment to R1. And so, like I know we have south, what is that? Southwest development going in in the near future. Is that not going to be zoned R1 where the developer would now not need any exception to have a 25 foot setback? Like the city would have no no way to say, "Hey, you can't have anything less than a 30 foot setback." When when we're looking at developments coming in, especially in the south growth and the way things are going to move forward, developers are going to be looking for more than just that setback. They're going to be looking for lot sizes. They're going to be looking for lot depths. Flat depths is a big thing. 130 ft. It's a long distance for a single family home, especially in the in the new modern era when we're looking at this. So, they're going to be looking at shorter distances there. There's also things such as street wideway uh that go within our subdivision code that developers will look at as well as lighting plans and things like that. So, there there's a there's a plethora of reasons to why PD go in. As far as the setback part, if a developer came in and said they wanted the setback at 25 ft because that's what our code already allows. If this change went through, they would not need the PUD to request that type of Yeah. And I think that's my point is they can go in developing knowing that they don't need any more than a 25 foot setback, which then adjusts and and what's the other change? Sorry, it's 25 foot setback. And so it'd be the 25 ft setback is one. Uh the second is to change the minimum lot widths, corner being 75 ft. Mind your corner property has two front yards. And then you also have an interior lot which only has a single front yard of 65 ft. The other change would be to do a reduction from the 12,000 foot minimum down to 9100 square ft for the minimum. Yeah. I think just the thing we need to all take in consideration then that's the new minimum standard. And like listen all the new developers they're going to go for the minimum right because they're going to cram as many houses as they can in there. So, I think the question we ask oursel as we advise city council is is that's what's best for the long-term growth of Victoria. I want to see these guys be able to build their house because I think it's the right spot. Like, hats off to you guys for developing it. That's what we need to do. But changing this concerns me that now we're saying we're good with smaller lot sizes, smaller width for the future growth of Victoria, not just for redevelopment of current ones. And I know a lot of it's already happening through PUDS, but again, now we're telling developers like, hey, you're good to come in and do, and now the PUDs are going to get smaller. Now they're going to come in and say, hey, 20 feet instead for So I'm I'm just throwing that out there as my two cents of I need totally agree with you on that. My my thought is I wouldn't want to change the R1 like coding or description of anything. I would be more I guess okay with do we reszone nearer to downtown to an R2 because R2 would be what they're asking for because R2 is the minimum lot width of 60 ft front yard setback of 25 ft and the R2 zoning if that's I believe most of those lots that you were initially discussing were near the downtown district. Not all of them, but So, that was my follow-up question is like are there alternatives to get these guys to be able to do what they want to do down there or is this the only way? So, uh chair, commissioners, um couple things to impact there as staff, we did take a look at other options. So, we took a look at a variance. This property doesn't qualify for a variance because there's no way they'd be able to meet the plight of the owner factor. Practice can't get met. That would get denied. Um, we looked at PUB. PUB is a is a 10 acre parcel or 10 acres worth of land unless there's a a significant benefit to the community. One parcel being turned into two parcels is not a significant benefit to the community. Um, it is a benefit just not enough to compare to a 10acre development. Um, we looked at resoning. Um, I will pull our zoning map up on the screen. So, we did look at resoning. Now, the parcel in question is this parcel right here. And if we wanted to reszone, um, we would have to reszone a significant amount. If we reszone one parcel, that's considered spot zoning. We're not allowed to do that. Um, we looked at, well, what if we expanded the central business district out? What would that entail? What it would do is we would have to say one of two things. all the parcels between this parcel and the current zoning of the central business district are either legal non-conforming single family homes or we'd have to say we're okay with permitting single family homes within the central business district which isn't the intent of the district. So the reasonzoning piece doesn't work. The only way to look at this parcel, we were to specifically go at this parcel is a reduction in the standards to make the split work. When it comes to a larger development and it comes in, whenever the city does a larger development, especially when we're annexing it, when we annex any property from Lake Town, what happens? That gets annexed as agricultural. With the PUD comes the resoning for the R1 or R2, R3, what what may have you for the development. The nice thing is that the city is under no legal obligation to actually issue a PUD. There's some other rules with that that I'd defer to the city attorney on the specifics, but the city does not have to issue a PUB on the request because they're asking the city to say, "Hey, we know your rules are X, Y, and Z, but those rules don't work for us. Can you give us a break, and could you do uh A, B, and C instead?" Um, so with this, if a developer came in and said, "Hey, we want the 20 foot setbacks." The city's under no obligation to say yes, you can have it. They can't say no. If the minimum setback is 25 ft, you you can't necessarily go in and say, "Well, now we want your setback to be 45 ft." That type of stuff doesn't work. So, you are looking at that. But when we look at an overall change to a zoning district, especially the R1, it is our largest zoning district by far in the community. There are thousands of parcels that could potentially be affected, but after we knock out PUDS or partials under a PUD and we knock out partials within the Shoreland overlay districts and we knock out the single family homes that are in the Lake Minnetonka residential, we're at we're looking at a very small amount of of parcels that would be affected. However, it is still a change. It does still change that minimum standard. Um, when we look at our our square footage of a parcel, we have to consider what does that mean for density. If our minimum is 10, there's 15,000 square feet, you're looking at density about three an acre is about 45,000 square feet. Okay? Well, it's a little less, but 45 to make it easy. Um, so when we look at those calculations, that's changed in our density. Our comp plan says that we're okay with the density between two and a quarter and six. So, we are going to be getting into the comp plan. We're going to be take taking a look at the zoning ordinances and we're going to be trying to line everything back up as we go through this process over the next couple years. So, that is one thing. This will come back to the planning commission. It will come back to the city council. Um, there is time that that's been aotted in this. that there's specific questions on parcels or anything that comes up that that you'd like staff to look into or any research that we that we would need to bring back. So, but it's not an easy answer. That raised a bunch of questions for me. Yeah, sure. So, you just said that as part of the comp plan amendments that are coming, we would be looking at reszoning or we're going to look at zoning all over again. Oh, uh, Commissioner, uh, when we go to the comp, we have to do a comp plan every 10 years. Our comp plan is going to be the 2050 comprehensive plan. Uh, generally, you would start those about three to four years before the comp plan is due, which is due at the end of the decade. So these are different things that get looked at during those comp plan processes. Okay. So when I understood that we were going to be starting that 2050 plan soon. We are. So does it make sense to do an R1 redefinition now knowing that literally maybe a year from now we're going to be revisiting R1 zone? Commissioner, that is a question for the planning commission. Un unfortunately I can't speak to that. Okay. It just seems like we're okay table that. Um so on this picture though, but um to the question previously raised, any discussion that we could say for example um designate as a a zoning amendment, you know, all of these properties south of 81st Street as R2. Could could we uh it's a it's definitely a possibility commissioner um to do the resoning for that. Uh I would I would have to confer with the city planner a little bit just to make sure that how much that would be wouldn't be considered spot zoning and what that process would look like in the city of Victoria. Um, unfortunately it's not a question that I've been asked in uh since I've in my tenure with the city. Uh, nor was something I thought to ask, but it's definitely something that we could find out. And I don't know what the farthest right uh street is where that where the corner right where your cursor is. I What is that street? Oh, that's that's uh still 81st. Um I'm sorry. It's still 81st, Commissioner. So Oh, I see. It wraps around. Okay. So, you could go from there all the way out to that outer section line and say that's a new R2 district. And commissioner, that that is something that can be explored. One thing I like I would like to point out is that if you do the resoning to R2, what you would be saying is that within the R2 district, you would either want to allow single family homes to be within a multifamily district. I mean, your R2 is generally town homes and uh row houses and type of construction like that. So you'd either want single family to be part of that which would allow anybody to come in and put a single family home in town home in single family home town home within that district or what you would do is you'd have to say that all the single family homes within that resoning now become non-conforming uses. Okay. Well there I mean I just use that as an example. You could have another single family home R 1A district that has smaller lot. I mean, so I'm I'm drawing on Shorewood. We had, as you said, we went from 10,000 to 40,000. Those are all single family designated lots, but 40,000 was the Shorewood acre, not 45. you know, we just arbitrarily 43 560. Yeah. We rounded down to 40,000 and said that's an acre. And we had areas that were zoned one house per acre all the way down to one house per half acre. Um or we're all in a series of R1 something zones. I mean, why couldn't we come up with an R 1A zone that's smaller lots that fits with the more urban size lots that we're dealing with right here south of downtown. Um, and and not necessarily if R2 is multifamily, we don't have to, you know, go into that definition. I just I I want to go back to the first slide. There's been something. Okay, it's it's the one the number three, please. I was just trying to remember some of these numbers commissioners on on So, yeah. Yeah, I kind of confirm what what I was what I was trying to figure out, but I you know, for me it's it's this idea, guys. I think you know, you made a purchase and are asking our team to make a spot decision that we really probably want to think about. So because for me reducing lot size 24%. Um I start to think about other Yeah. Like how many possible properties in the city are actually going to experience this? 17. 17 total that we could find. Yes. Well, I'm sorry, but that but but that's just one question. That's one question. But that are you had mentioned that everything that we enex to the southwest is going to by definition be zoned egg. Uh correct. So uh commissioner when when we annex from Lake Town like uh when we were talking about um Huntersbrook and Marsh Hollow and that area that was part of Lake Town. It falls underneath an agreement that we've had in place with Lake Town since the 70s. And when we annex the property, it automatically comes in as an AG agricultural property through the PUD process. There's a reasonzoning done with that process. So therefore, when an annex is in, it meets the R1 or R2 or R3 standard for the type of development that's reviewed not only by the planning commission, but by the city council multiple times and a year with staff uh through that. So it is it's to this to your point even if it has to come in as a and I guess I'm not sure why that necessarily is the case. Why don't we reszone it R1 right from the get-go and now you're you're negotiating PUDS based on the parameters of an R1 district. Commissioner and chair that that that is a good question. If it's being reszoned to egg or if it's being reszoned to R1 and they still need relaxed standards, dimensional standards, street with standards, anything like that, it doesn't necessarily change the city's position too much. I guess there are points where it would come down to very specific, but even when parcels are being annexed in and they come in as egg by ordinance, that's how they're determined to come in as egg to get reszoned. We look at the south growth area. We're bringing in C2 for our commercial district that still a reszoning from the egg to the commercial. But you said that that's happening by virtue of a PUD. So you're sh you're shifting from egg to PUD. Why can't we zone them as R1 R2 or something? So uh Commissioner with with commercial. Yeah. With with a PUD a PUD is a planned unit development. I understand. So with that document, what it allows the city to do is basically make an agreement to what a developer would like to do and the city gets some oversight into that control. Whether it be the zoning, um whether it be conditions for the use of the property, whether it be relaxed standards in the property, a PUD is just an all-encompassing document. instead of having to do a conditional use permit and a resoning application and maybe a variance application, a PUD allows for all those things to be rolled into apply. Right? So, maybe we can take this discussion offline and and and really focus on on this particular matter. Um, what I'm hearing um first of all is that we appreciate the redevelopment. This this current property is not attractive. It's it's sort of a center point of the community, a very beautiful street. Um and and the development you propose is definitely an improvement for the benefit of the city and the surrounding community. Um the question is how to get there. And I I share Erin's concerns that uh if we change by zoning text amendment, we've all all of a sudden lowered the bar and therefore our negotiating starting point as we go forward on PUDS with developers. Right. I'm I'm less bothered by the 25 foot setback than I am the the lot size for instance. And I think to Bob's point, um that sort of preempts the discussion we're going to have in a year or less about the new the new comprehensive plan. If if the choice then is between a zoning text amendment and a planned unit development, even though a PUD typically is for 10 acres or more, I guess I lean more to a PUD unless you're telling me that there's a statutory or ordinance requirement that we we not do a PUD here. Can you help us? it uh chair and commission. It would be my professional opinion that a PUD for property of this size would expose a city to potential um legal actions or or things of that nature because more or less it it could look like favoritism if you give a PUD for one parcel to split from one into two. So there there there are some things with that. If that's a route that the planning commission would want to explore, I would definitely um I would want to run that by the city attorney to to get a get an opinion on what that would A quick question. I would as well. Yeah. A quick question for the applicant if you guys don't mind. Um did you guys talk to the owners of the lot just south of you? Like is there any opportunity like buy a little bit more of theirs and then it becomes your split falls within the realm? Yeah, I I have not yet. Okay. Um just trying to think creative. Yeah, I mean that's not a bad idea. I mean I'm willing to have that conversation. I I do want to just can I just talk about the I think both you guys made the comment about the concerns about setting a new standard for development. Um totally appreciate that. I think Travis has kind of coached us like that's not I mean that's going to be a big deal, right? I mean we don't want to set a new standard in the community for develop. But I would but I would just make a case that you've already set a standard through the PUD process. If I'm a developer, I'm not looking at what the standard is. I'm looking at what you've approved for PUDS. And you've approve pre you've approved multiple PUDs that have a lot size under what I'm requesting. You've approved multiple PUDs with shorter width and shorter setbacks than what I'm asking for. So if I'm a developer, that would be what I would I would look at what you've already approved for other developer and say I want exactly what you approved for Hunter Glenn or for these other these other developments as a as a standard for my starting a negotiation not what you know you're going to do for this little I actually address that because I think it's a great point the the downside though is it it removes so typically those get approved because there's very unique stance where it's going to be like a small portion of those are actually going to be that small and it's because the lot is screwy like this Y most of them though because of the nature fall under the R1 within that plan unit development which is why if we lower the bar all of a sudden we don't have any bargaining chips. they can come in and say, "Well, no, we're meeting your R1 standards and now we have smaller lots." Which I think you guys can appreciate being Victoria residents like in our planned development areas in the south gross growth. Like I don't think that's the vision for Victoria, which is where I'm coming from. Like, right, I would love for you guys to do this because I agree this corner would be an amazing development. Like I just want to do it in a way that we don't ruin things for the future. Ruin is not the right word, but you know, there are there is flexibility. I mean I think my ask was to be as aggressive as I could because I mean I could build a smaller house on it right and and live within the setbacks. It just you know how you know practical is that right? I mean in terms of the dimensions of the house like there is a there is a possibility to build a smaller footprint on it and then live within the setbacks. Um, but I think it's it's lot size too. Like remember it's lot size and sap. I mean even like you know if you want to pull up the lot picture there, right? I mean there is the where that middle the splits like there is a chance to move it left or right, right? I think this is just kind of worst case scenario of what we wanted to ask for so that we had flexibility in what we could actually build on it. But that middle lot between parcel A and parcel B like it could be more like 7570, right? It is that there is flexibility in terms of where that width and then the obviously the square footage of the lot changes too. So for me it's the biggest thing has always been the size. It's less than the setbacks. And I'm very much a agreeing with my peers that it's changing the standard from which everyone is going to be expecting and bartering from. And I think the character of this community is that the lots in R1 start at that 12,000 with these standards and 9100 is a big drop from that. I completely agree. Unfortunately, we as a community would like to keep large cords. I've been in Deer Run for 25 years. We have large lots and I wish they were all still 100 foot, 80 foot, 90 foot large lots. Unfortunately, the market is trending to much smaller lots. And unfortunately, we don't always get to make that decision. We get the Met Council jamming things down our throat saying you have to have density, density, density, density. We have condos coming to town. We have high rates coming to town. Landscape is changing. Not that we wish it to do that, but that's just kind of where the market's running. You're going to be looking at with the upcoming comp plan, you're going to be pushing density, as Travis mentioned, 2 point something to six point units per acre. One thing we pushed for many years ago when I sat in your seat was how do we get this to a point where we can create a harder line of buy right versus fewer PUD so we have more consistency and continuity through our community. I'd hate to change all the rules for us cleaning up one dirty lot. I would love to do it via POD. I'd love to do administrative split. I'd like to make this much simpler, but there's so many rules around those basic rules around the rules. We're open to whatever suggestion the commission comes up with. Everything you've been done has been very very helpful. Take us down the path of least resistance. We just want to clean up ugly house, but eventually what we're talking about tonight will be in front of you in the next four to six months or 12 or 24 months to deal with because that's kind of where the market's going. As Chris brought to our attention, most of the stuff that's been approved, PUD is well under what we're asking for. And unfortunately, again, in today's market, if you look through development, I've been in real estate since 1991. And I didn't see stuff marketwide, and what we're asking for is far less than where the market's going. Unfortunately, nobody wants grass. We're all too busy. We all got little bitty lots and big houses on them, and they're all garage forward. We're just trying to maintain some character, some continuity, and enhance what we already have. Thank you guys for your time. I really appreciate your help. Thank you guys. Can just one question on the slot size. The lots that are on the same street one block towards downtown. I think they're all within the current ask if you know what I'm referring to on still on County Road 11 all those lots to the the north. So um planning uh chair and planning commission uh one thing that I think he's getting at this part of town is our oldest part of town. you can go and you can go find images of some of these homes from 1930 aerial photos. Um, with that, the way the process was done with platting is you have the the term lot actually involves the actual plaid itself. Uh, compared to a parcel. So, it used to be you'd buy a lot and you build a home on the lot that became your parcel. Over time, you'd purchase multiple lots to create one parcel. So, you see a lot of smaller lots on here because those line or excuse me, smaller parcels there because those line up with the lots. Um, so, uh, take where the where the smoke or where the cigar shop is and those properties, those are going to line up with the actual plat. Well, the two properties below it are one and a half lots to make up the parcel. And that's just how things were done. When we talk about development at today's standard, we're reviewing those type of plats and we don't necessarily have that rigid grid system that that used to exist. One of the questions came up was about the southern parcel being able to make a deal to get a little bit of the of the property. We did look at that uh as staff uh as well as having a discussion. um it's it would still need flexibility from the current uh zoning because if you took the the eight or the the 10 feet that you would need to get there, you still wouldn't be able to meet the 12,000 minimum. So there there are a few factors. This was a discussion that that we had and um the biggest thing the biggest takeaway that the the planning commission should be asking at this is what is the character of the community? How does this affect the community as a whole? knowing that we are looking down at a single parcel, but we need to think about what happens a couple blocks away or with the other parcels that were highlighted through the presentation. I No, Go ahead. Please go ahead. I was going to say I think the proposed plan matches the character of what's, you know, the future of that part of our town. Um, I'm not sensing, Travis, a lot of concern from the staff's perspective on the reduced setback or lot size. Am I correct in that assumption? You feel like you still have control with the PUD process of development going forward. When it when it comes to infill type of housing, which is what the zoning amendment would change, and it can change the negotiating platform as well. Um, I don't partake in those negotiations, so I can't comment on exactly how those go. But the the main object or the main thing this will affect is our infill housing and mostly in our historic area of downtown. So between um Highway 5 going down to where 43 cuts in. That's going to be the largest focus. Now you could get a few homes that could split in. So instead of a lot splitting into two, you could get it into three. especially by Cochia, you can get an extra home in there. When it comes to infill housing, for this to have any type of s or what I would consider significant effect, you'd have to do partial collection. Unfortunately, if you buy three houses and have to you have to pay for the house, the land, take it down, and then rebuild. That come that would be a developer option right there. But if we do set the standard as a smaller standard, it it can have an effect and it could lead to we could have somebody come in and say though the two properties that are across from uh from Adeline Trail and Brickmore, they want to come in instead of splitting it two now it makes financial sense to split it in three or something like that. But it is this is more geared towards your infield, not your large development. No. Oh, no. No, no other questions. I just wanted to know if there were any other questions. Just following up on your comment earlier, what why can't we do a PUB on this and Travis's question for you, instead of doing a zoning text amendment on the overall zoning rules, can we do a zoning text amendment on the PUB rules and minimize that from 10 acres to lower site parcel? I chair planning commission if if I may. 10 acres is a standard that's been set in other communities. Um and and I'm sure it comes from other rules outside of just our local jurisdiction. Um I would be hesitant to uh suggest that type of change to our code to allow for that type of relaxed standard. It's there for a reason. You had mentioned infill housing specifically. Um, I guess I would really ask staff to review looking at doing a zone 2 and R2 and how that could be a better effect of the zoning just because, you know, the difference between R1 and R2 is about 15 ft of the changes. And so I would rather see us do an R2 reszoning of the district and do like a wider district cuz I'm sure there's going to be more houses down the line in this area that developers are going to maybe want to look at, you know, tearing down a couple, putting up some newer ones, but still remaining within the aesthetic of the town. You know, I don't see that this that your guys' development is going to be the very last one in the city. You know, actually, I hope that's a trend. I mean there's a lot of old h homes that could be you know replaced and not but I mean obviously standards are important right we don't want what happens in Dina right to happen but there's you know there's standards and why you guys are in place but I yeah I would not expect this the only one I think this one's unique because it's actually condemned and has to be torn down and there's significant costs that we're going to have to incur to actually prepare the lot to actually do anything on. So, um, financially a little bit different. M, following your line of thought. If you continue south on 11, there's a sixun town home development half mile away. I think the bulk of the comments I'm hearing, I think that for this location is the right it's a it's a good solution. I think we just want to make sure we do it the right way and exploring a potential resoning. Um, makes sense to me to at least understand if that's an option. One one last question. Going back to the variance idea, I mean, I know normally this wouldn't meet the requirements, but we have a non-conforming condemned property that's outside the owner's control. Does that give us any latitude to think uh commissioner with the property? The property is considered legal non-conforming. Though it's condemned, it's not habitable. the property could be rehabbed. It would have to be rehabbed within conforming of the city code as far as a variance goes. Um we wouldn't meet the practical difficulties test that'd be needed because the property is able to have a single family home built on it and a decentiz single family home at that since that's already potential. Saying that you want to build two would be a change um with looking at changing to an R2 and things like that. that would also involve zoning tax amendments that would need to be done through the R2 and could have a could have a greater effect than just initially seen. So those are different options that are definitely there. Creating a new zoning district is is an option there. Pointed out with Shorewood. I believe they have three single family residential districts. Uh Chan Hansen has two. Uh so you have different things like that. So there isn't there isn't a set playbook to what the standard should be. There's not a set playbook to how the order should be written to regulate our single family districts. Um, that's what we're all here for as well as a city council and uh and whatnot. I will make a motion to reject the zoning text amendment of section 24-1f to the city council knowing that they are the ones who will decide the ultimate fate. So that we have a motion and a second. Commissioners, all in favor? I I any opposed? Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that. Um I do hope on a personal level I hope we can find a solution to this because I think we all agree that what you're proposing to do makes makes good sense, makes the city more attractive. So, thank you for your efforts. Um so, those are the two discussion items that we have uh on our agenda tonight. Um are there any miscellaneous items from staff? Joe, can I jump in real quick? I'm sorry. I got an SOS for my wife. I got to go guys. Um I'm really sorry. Thanks Eron. Appreciate it. Any miscellaneous items from staff? Yeah, chair commission. Uh the June 3rd meeting, we don't have any agenda items. So that meeting is uh likely to be cancelled. Uh there was a variance request that was submitted. Um however, that was going to be on the 3rd. We're going to push that back uh as there's some information we want. Uh that variance involves a property that has a city street going through it, part of a construction deal from 15 years ago. Um outside of that uh we will yeah we will be uh if remember correct the tableabling of the uh the variance that was tonight staff will bring that back within the next couple meetings. So if if that could work on June 3rd I think we'd all be amendable to hearing it. I I heard a lot of passion around that issue and I just don't know if you can have the discussions with the stakeholders between now and then. it it potentially that's going to be a city planner thing uh uh city planner mechanics running that and sure do you have the the holiday coming up uh this next weekend so understand very good we'll get more information from him else besides that uh staff doesn't have any more comments for tonight thank you Travis commissioners any miscellaneous items discussion tonight thank you um commissioners there are no more items for the evening can I have a motion to adjurnn I'll make a motion to adjurnn a motion. Is there a second? All in favor? I We're journ Thank you everyone.