Good evening. I'll now call this meeting to order. 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? Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Thank you. Motion carries. Our next order of business is to adopt the minutes from our June 17th, 2025 planning commission meeting. Commissioners, is there a motion to approve those minutes? Motion to approve the minutes. We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Great. Motion carries. So, we'll now move to our discussion items. The first item for discussion tonight is item 3.1, which is a sketch plat for the Bell Maple Farm Residential Development. Uh, as the commission knows, the sketch plat review is our initial stage of review and consider uh we we consider the proposal at a fairly high level regarding um the development, any concerns that that are expressed. No formal actions or recommendations at this stage taken by the planning commission at the sketch plat review or for that matter the city council. So, it's really just for input. Um, so we'll we'll give the applicant an opportunity to review. I'd remind anybody in the audience that's interested that there's no for formal public hearing associated with this, but neighborhood input is always important. So, if you have input, by all means, reach out to the city staff uh by email and or in person. Uh, feel free to share your input that way. At later stages, then there'll be an opportunity at the public hearing to share more formal input. I'll now turn it over to city planner Brian McCann uh for a staff presentation. Thank you, chair and plan commissioners. Uh bear with me here tonight a little bit. I'm feeling a little under the weather, so I might lose my voice. Um but we are looking at the Bell Maple Farm Residential Development. They have submitted a sketch plat request to get feedback from the plan commission city council. As the chair noted, we won't be taking any approvals this evening or recommendations. Uh so it's just to provide guidance to the applicant as they start to think through any of their future applications. Looking at the location area, it does consist of one large parcel about 8 acres in size as well as a small portion of rightway about a/4 acre in size. It is north and east of land owned by the Minnesota Landscape Arboritum. It's south of existing private uh development within Victoria boundaries. It's west of Chanhassen's uh existing residential development. As you can see here, the Victoria Chanhassen line is split right on the east side of the development. It's also in close proximity to the Lake Mitankka Regional Trail, which you can see a portion of in the image up in the upper left. For this site, they are proposing 15 single family homes. Looking at the existing conditions of the site, it's generally flat, dry land. They do have one existing single family on the property currently. Uh there is also a driveway access cutting through the property which also services the property to the west. And the property is within 1,000 ft of Lake St. Joe and Lake Tamarak. So here is the proposal in front of you this evening consisting of those 15 single family homes as well as a storm water pond and proposed lift station to service the development. Uh the shoreland boundaries are shown in the light blue with the distance from Tamarak Lake and Lake St. Joe as well as the existing driveway and the proposed driveway realignment after development occurs. So looking at our comprehensive plan, this property is guided for lowdensity residential in our 2040 plan. It was also guided for a similar type of development in our 2030 comprehensive plan. Amendments would be required uh regarding the conservation residential district. It's within that shoreland which makes it tough to meet our shoreland. 1.21 units per acre uh for the conservation areas but the single family portions will meet our minimum criteria. So they're going to kind of split the site here uh between those two districts to make it work. So here's what it would look like. we would just have the map line up with our shoreland areas um to meet the minimum density guidance for the low density while providing that flexibility for areas within shoreland. Looking at the zoning, it is currently zoned R1 lowdensity residential. A lot of the developments you've seen recently have been part of annexation, so they've been automatically established as agricultural. This one's a little different. It is already zoned R1. So a developer could move in meet the minimum bulk standards and the city would have to approve that development because that's what the property is guided for. So looking at the bulk standards of the R1 specifically, every single lot that is proposed is meeting the minimum standards of our R1 district or our shoreland requirements for those lots that are at least 50% uh encompassed within shoreland area. Looking at the product types, these are some of the renderings that were submitted by the applicants. The proposed building sizes would range between 4,000 to 6,000 square feet in size. And each plan for those uh 15 homes is proposed to be a unique plan. So a different type of product for each lot within this development. Looking at streets, parking, and pedestrian connections, they're proposing a public 28 foot wide street in accordance with our engineering standards with a temporary culde-sac and sidewalk on one side. Uh parking would be allowed on both sides of the street because it meets our minimum uh public street width. And then the temporary culde-sac is shown just in case uh development does occur in the future further west uh for the property adjacent to this site. Our parking standards require two enclosed spaces per dwelling unit. Based on the renderings that were shown, uh those evaluations should be met. Looking at our landscaping and tree preservation standards, they'll need to place boulevard trees, uh, a minimum of three trees per R1 lot, and then a minimum 50% open space requirement in accordance with our landscape code. These will be evaluated as well as tree preservation at preliminary plat if they decide to move forward. And then I mentioned there are portions within the shoreland district. It's within a thousand feet of Lake St. Joe and Lake Tamarak, which I highlighted, cutting through the site. There is also a portion of a DNR protected stream running to the west, but they are without outside the 300 ft boundary for that area. What the standards need to be for those single family homes I showed on one of the previous slides, uh, but they would be allowed a maximum 25% impervious per lot. They need a minimum 20,000 ft lot size, a minimum 125 ft lot width. The homes have to be at least 150 ft from the ordinary high water line, and there is limited grading or vegetation removal within the shorland areas. Looking at park dedication for the 15 homes, what it comes out to be is.7 acres or just over $73,000 in uh cash in lie of land. So they are not proposing any parks or trails with this development and a connection to the Lake Minnitonka regional trail is not feasible uh due to adjacent property owners and grading for the site. The parks and recreation committee did review this at their meeting on June 16th uh and they were supportive of cash fee in lie of land for this development. Looking at grading and storm water management, it's within the Minhaha Creek wershed district. So their rules apply here. Uh wetlands if applicable need to be included in buffers that are deeed to the city and any storm water ponds uh should have an access provided within an outlot. Looking at site utilities, they will be extended from interlockin to the west. So uh here on the image on the upper right is where the utilities currently terminate in the interlockin neighborhood. just on the west side of the Lake Manitonka Regional Trail. As part of a land swap with the landscape arboritum, they did dedicate a 50 foot wide drainage and utility easement which comes up to this boundary here. So, this developer is working with this adjacent property owner to get an additional easement to get the utilities extended to their site. Um, so what that looks like right now, the yellow is the existing easement that was acquired with the arburetum. Orange is what they need to accomplish this. And then that will bring it down to the street towards the lift station on the right side of the image on the bottom. And then just some additional context, uh, the plane commission and the city council only review developments after an application is made. A concept was previously explored last August with Chanhassen. The Chanhassen City Council uh did not grant utility extensions. There was some severe neighborhood opposition. Um and Norton Homes decided that they would have to pursue either a private utility system to make their utilities work or wait for Victoria utilities to come to this area. So that land swap that I mentioned earlier occurred back in March with the city council. Uh now that Victoria utilities are available, Norton Homes can pursue development. As I mentioned, they'll still need that additional easement to make this work. Uh but that area, that 50-foot easement was engineered and reviewed for the shortest optimal route. Uh there are some significant grades out there. And so an engineer took a look at the area to see where utilities could come from interlock and where it makes the most sense and it just happened to go uh up next to that adjacent boundary of the neighboring property. So two neighborhood meetings did occur with this. The first one happened in the city of Chanhasson at their recreation center on August 21st. There were about a third uh 30 attendees at that meeting and the neighborhood as I mentioned was very opposed to any development. Uh they were previously told by city staff that the property would be preserved open space and would never develop. They were also expressed concerns of insufficient streets and parks to accommodate any additional development. And they were opposed to Chanhassen utilities aiding Victoria development. And then most recently uh a neighborhood meeting was held in Victoria where approximately four attendees uh spoke. They continued to express concerns regarding those inadequate infrastructure, the streets, the parks. Uh also expressing concerns about noise and dust during construction. And then they also expressed uh some transparency concerns regarding that 50-foot drainage and utility easement that I mentioned. So with that, as I mentioned at the beginning, no action is required this evening, but I did provide a few bullet points to guide the discussion this evening. I can stand for any questions, and a representative of the application is in the audience tonight. Thank you, Brian. Does the applicant wish to speak? Start with your name, please. Good evening, Mr. Chair, commission members. My name is Pat Hill Piller, one of the partners with Norton Homes. Um, Brian did a nice job summarizing the project, so I won't add to that right now, but I'll be available for questions if uh if you have any. Great. Thank you, Mr. Hiller. Um, I'll now open the floor for planning commission discussion. As I mentioned, there's not an opportunity at this meeting for public input. We've had one city meeting and um neighbors, others concerned are always welcome to contact city staff. So, commissioners, um, no formal motions required. U, so any questions, concerns at this point? high level observations about the proposed sketch plat. Sure. I just have a couple of clarifying questions. Um Brian, can you go back to the um topo map and just clarify a little bit better where was the land swap with the arboratum and the city? Chair and commissioner. Yeah, let me find the best slide for that. That'll work. I think this one would probably be better um just because it gives us the entire area for reference. So here is the termination of Interlockin. It's a street currently within Victoria boundaries with you can see some existing single family homes. Then there's the Lake Minnitankka Regional Trail. And then on the opposite side of the trail, there are some properties here that the city did acquire um I believe about 15 years ago. And we acquired these because they were originally platted for development. You can see this plat was recorded. These lots were supposed to be built upon. That's what I'm confusions. and a road was supposed to be extended through here which would get to the other side to serve this portion of the city of Victoria. It never came to fruition. And so as part of a land swap with the Minnesota landscape arboritum to facilitate some of our bigger uh traffic or uh street construction plans right now regarding Highway 5, County Roads 13, County Road 18. Um, we swapped these lands here with the easement areas that we needed along the landscape arboritums land to uh for them to use and so that we can move through with our transportation projects. And part of that so that square from the end of the um you know where the utility ends now that is now Victoria city-owned. No. Uh so the Lake Minnitonka Regional Trail, right, is or was owned by the Henipin County Regional Trail Authority. These properties here are owned by the Minnesota Landscape Arburedum. Now, but there is a 50 foot wide drainage and utility easement through the site, which I highlighted in yellow here. Yep. That the city does have and that's how utilities would get to the site. And those utilities run I mean upon uh extension would they run underneath or over the creek? They would be underneath. So they would be directionally bored underground so that we wouldn't have to take out uh any trees or any other vegetation. And do we know whether the existing home in in that square you know, right around the the existing house. Could Could that be potentially further subdivided? Um, yes, that could be. And if decided they did want to sell their land and subdivide, uh, I don't believe they're interested at the moment, though. No, I it just sounds like there's some family discussion as to what's going to happen there. So, I just was wondering what what options do they have? And has Norton had any conversations with the family about what might happen with that home? Commissioner Bean, um, we there's it's owned by one of the family members, Alec Wilson, owns that parcel to the west, and I have been talking with him on a regular basis mo mostly about just acquiring the 50oot eastment corridor for the utilities and then the driveway realignment. Um, he's not expressed an interest selling the land to us at this point and we're not we're not really talking about that at this juncture. Okay. I just just we're just trying to get the other two things done here to get the easements. So this the project that's enough to chew on. I I get that. I just was curious. Thanks Bob. Any other questions from the planning commission? Question. So they are wanting it to be a public street. So meaning that the city of Victoria would be plowing for snow. How does that work being that access to that is going to be through Chanhassen? Is Chanhassen going to be doing that or are we? Uh, chair and commissioners, that's a great question. It would be city of Victoria. So, we would have a plow truck go out to this area to plow this street. So, I guess my recommendation at that would be instead of having it be a public street, have it be a private and do have that neighborhood, you know, be in charge of plowing and for, you know, one of our trucks to go all the way out through Chanhassen and all the way back down and around. Just my thoughts. Other comments, commissioners? Ryan, when was has this always been zoned R1 or did it change at some point? Uh, as long as I've been here, it's been zoned R1. It looks like it's been guided that way since at least the 2030 plan, which was formulated in 2008. So, I'm going to guess it's been zoned that way for at least that long. Okay. With the addition now of R1 conservation. Correct. Right. Within the shoreline district. Good. Other comments, questions? If not, um we'll close the discussion. This item does not again require any approval or action on behalf of the planning commission tonight. So with that, we'll move on to our uh next agenda item, which is sketch plat for the shores of Marsh Lake 2 addition residential development. Similar to our last item, sketch plat review, since we'll um have no formal motion, it's intended to provide feedback for the developer. Uh, I'll now turn the, uh, table over to city planner Brian McCann for your staff presentation. Thank you, chair and plan commissioners. Once again, similar to the last item that you just reviewed, we are just giving feedback to the developer. We are not taking any approvals or actions tonight. Okay. So, uh, just provide them guidance based on what you see and discuss this evening. Looking at the development, the total area is four parcels about 42 acres in size, but only about six of them are the actual project area that we're looking at. So the area in blue here, it consists uh consists of one currently platted lot within the shores of Marsh Lake development as well as two small outlots and one unplatted lot within Lake Township. This property is intersected by County Road 43. Uh the development the proposed development is south of Marsh Lake Road here. It's north of Marsh Lake. And with this about 6 acre area, they are proposing five new single family homes as well as the a lot line adjustment for the existing single family home out there. The properties are currently vacant uh with some steep slopes. There's the one home on the west side of County Road 43, but they are not proposing any development on this side of the street this evening. Uh there are some wetlands close to the development uh because it is so close to Marshall Lake. There are not any current access points to County Road 43 or Marsh Lake Road on this property. There is an emergency access here uh to Marsh Lake Road, but the street and utility connections would come from the stub street at the end of Lakeside Drive here within the short. The entire project area is within the shoreland district because it's within 1,000 ft of Marsh Lake. So, here is the proposed sketch plat this evening. Uh you can see the five new lots, lots one through four block two and lot one block one and then they would be readjusting the lot line of lot one block two uh to fit this additional home here. So with that they're ex extending utilities and the street of Lakeside Drive for a culde-sac. They're also showing a sidewalk on the north side of the street, a continuation of the sidewalk that's already there currently, as well as some open space areas. And uh in purple here is the existing right of way for County Road 43. Outlot B here is proposed for some additional right ofway for the county because the county does have plans at some point to upgrade the intersection of County Road 40 uh 43 and Marsh Lake Road. So looking at the comprehensive plan, it's guided for lowdensity residential with very small portions of open space kind of lining up where those wetlands are. Uh the proposed density for this development comes out to 1.35 units per acre, six units over about four and a half acres after that right-of-way reduction. And the comprehensive plan amendment is also anticipated for that conservation residential we talked about and a rightway adjustment. It's also worth noting that this property is not currently within our growth phasing area. It's guided for development between 2031 and 2040. What that means is we're just going to have to take a closer look at this to make sure our utility projections can accommodate these five new additional homes with the development. Uh so it shouldn't require too in-depth of an analysis, but it is something that the plan commission city council should be aware of. Then looking at annexation, reszoning a portion of the property, the notably larger piece here is within Lake Township. So annexation is required. When that happens, it would automatically be zoned agricultural. So what they are proposing is a planned unit development with underlying R1 lowdensity residential. As part of that, they would also be requesting a residential shoreland planned unit development, similar to what happened in the shores of Marsh Lake development. What that does is it just allows deviations to our shoreland requirements, similar to how our PUD allows us to revise our standards. A shoreland PUD allows them to revise shoreland standards. So um at sketchplat you are looking at input on the acceptability of any type of planned unit development. Keep in mind that they should be sensitive to environmental, cultural and economic considerations in partnership with public values. So the bulk standards that they are proposing to deviate from include the minimum lot area with a reduction from 12,000 square ft to 10,000 as well as a reduction lot width from 80 ft to 65 ft in the front setback from 30 ft to 25 ft and the side setback uh down from 10 to 7 1/2 ft. I will note that all of these standards are the ones that were incorporated with the shores of Marsh Lake Plat that this is basically an extension for. And then the shoreland deviations are that 10,000 square ft instead of 20,000 for the lot area, 65 instead of 125 for the lot width, and increasing the maximum impervious up to 33%. So these are just some screenshots of some of the existing homes out in the shores of Marsh Lake currently. Uh this is coming from the same developer. So the same product types would be incorporated with the extension of this neighborhood. And then for streets, parking and pedestrian connections, they are also proposing a public 28T wide street with the culde-sac. This one would be a permanent culde-sac, not a temporary one. Um, parking would be allowed on both side of the streets. Part of this is if this development follows through, uh, there are too many houses on a single access point from Marsh Lake Road according to fire code. So, what needs to happen is an emergency access needs to be incorporated. Similar to the West Creek Village development that you just saw recently, they had an emergency access onto County Road 10. our fire department would need an emergency access here to County Road 43. Looking at those uh product types for the single family homes, they would meet our minimum requirements of those two enclosed spaces per unit for parking as well. And then they have the sidewalk on the north side as I mentioned earlier. So for landscape and tree preservation, they would need to incorporate boulevard trees. uh the minimum plantings of three trees per R1 lot and that minimum 50% development open space. It should also be noted here that buffers come into play being adjacent to County Road 43 and having lots with two frontages on Lakeside Drive and on uh Marsh Lake Road in the back. And we will take a closer look at all these standards as well as tree preservation during preliminary plat. So, as I mentioned, the development area that they're looking at is entirely within the Shoreland Overlay district. They are proposing the deviations, which I highlight in red. Uh, all of the homes building pads that they showed do meet the 150 ft ordinary high water line setback, and there is limited grading and vegetation removal allowed. We did send this one to the DNR for review because they are asking for the RSPUD. I haven't got any comments back yet, but uh we really don't need them until preliminary plat anyway. That's when they'll they'll be formally uh notified and when we'll be asking for very specific comments from them. So that RPUD um as I mentioned, we sent it off to the DNR. We haven't got anything back yet, but they will provide formal comments at preliminary plat. As part of that, they need to do what's called a tier analysis. And how that works is they take a certain distance from the shoreline and they call it a tier. And they break that up into four tiers. And what they do is they limit the allowable density within each tier. Um within the first two tiers, I think it's you only get 50% of allowable density and then 100%. But after that, the further away you are from the lake, they essentially give you a density bonus where you can increase the amount of vents that you have. That doesn't really come into play here. Just wanted to give you all some background. Um, since we are looking within those first two tiers, what their allowable unit count basically comes out to be is a maximum number of 14 units. Now, they're proposing six. If they were proposing more, we would typically see a variance request. We don't anticipate that in this case. Then looking at park dedication about a quarter acre is what the calculation comes out to be or about 25,000. Uh they are not proposing any parks or trails. It's worth noting there is an existing private park within the shores of Marsh Lake development and that a trail will likely occur in the future along County Road 43 with any uh future reconstruction. This was also reviewed by the parks and recck committee on June 16th and they were supportive of cash fee in L of land for this development as well. So for grading and storm water management, this one's also within the MCWD's area. So they have to meet their wetland impact mitigation requirements. They have to plat any wetlands and buffers that are deeed to the city and any storm water facilities should have an access provided so that the city can access these storm water areas. And then for site utilities, as I mentioned earlier, they'll be extended from Lakeside Drive with the road. One of the comments on the city review memo is an extension of utilities to the edge of County Road 43. Uh we want that for future utilities to be extended across the road in the future. There are some properties within Lake Township. Uh they're running out of uh available area for septic and well, so we're trying to get utilities there to help them because they will be annexed into the city eventually, but also uh this could service any other future development out on the opposite side of County Road 43. So, regarding County Road 43, we are not quite sure when reconstruction is coming, but we know it is coming. They are looking at doing a roundabout at that County Road 43 and Marsh Lake Road intersection. So, as part of this, they are requiring some additional rightway, which I highlighted in Outlot B for reference. Uh and then Marsh Lake Road, it also has the potential to become county road in the future. And I highlighted some green area there. That was right ofway that was acquired with the first shores of Marsh Lake Plat in anticipation of that future uh road extension. So a neighborhood meeting was had for this development. about five attendees uh showed up and had a lot of questions regarding emergency access as well as our annexation process, where the utilities are, where they'll end up, if the development will meet the high water line setbacks. Also, some questions regarding the future of County Road 43, where they're putting their storm water, uh how they're making grading and tree removal work, and uh ownership and open space of the outlaws. So with that uh no action is required tonight. I do have some questions on the screen to guide discussion. I do have some representatives of the application in the audience and I can stand for questions as well. Thank you Brian. Does the applicant wish to speak? Hi, John Sonic with Charles Cut Company, one of the owners and uh so just here to answer any questions that you would have. Great. Thank you, Mr. Sonic. Um I'll now open the floor for the planning commission to discuss the sketch plat. Again, we're at a preliminary stage. Uh so there' be no opportunity for neighbor input, but as always, um you're welcome to contact the city staff and express any concerns that you might have. So with that, any questions, comments, concerns? Ryan, can you clarify the annexation? Is it just the spot that's going to be developed or is it that entire blue blob? Jiren, commissioner, that's a great question. I should have clarified that. Just for the blue blob. So, we are not annexing the entire parcel. Uh just those six acres of the development. So, basically, uh what's that like southeast of uh Highway 43? Correct. Really just this pocket which I'm highlighting 43. Thank you. Yep. Okay. So, the north and west sections are not yet will not yet be annexed if this moves forward. Correct. Got it. Thanks, Brian. Maybe you can clarify what is the distance from lot 4 from the ordinary high water line. That that seems to be about the closest of the lots. Sure. They do have a measurement here. It is exactly at that 150 foot mark. Okay. So, they do meet that requirement, correct? And when we were looking at um recently a proposed build on Highway Five, um excuse me, on Victoria Drive, um the PUD, we we looked at the PUD process, but thought that we couldn't use it for a small number. Here, the number is five. Can you help us as a commission understand what is the I mean, that seems like a low number for a PUD. Sure. Um the unique situation here is that this property was ghost platted with the shores of Marsh Lake development. And what a ghost plat is, it's saying that they're looking at developing an additional phase in the future with a few extra lots here and there, but they haven't fully committed to that yet. Uh either because they don't own the land or they don't have enough capital to fully build out the neighborhood yet. So, this phase was always anticipated and planned for. Um, we are just now getting to the I guess the start of the finish line for this neighborhood if that makes sense. Okay. Thanks. So, Brian, is it a new PUD or are we amending the existing PUD for shores of That's a good question. It's kind of both. So, it's property that hasn't been zoned yet. So, we have to zone it with a PUD. Um, but the PUD, we want it to match the existing neighborhood out there. So, it's it's a new PUD, but we're also taking the standards of the PUD that was already established. Okay. So, that was my question. Can we can we make that a stipulation as far as approval that that the standards of the of this development would coincide with the existing EUD requirements? Correct. And that's uh what the applicant is proposing this evening. Just get some clarification. You had said that they are asking for 33% impervious. Correct. Is that the same as the rest of the marsh? So all of them are also 33%. Correct. Okay. And the new PUD and reszoning only applies to six acres, not two property across. Correct. Yep. The extension of the utilities out to County Road 43. Could they run through or adjacent to that emergency access? I believe they could. I'll have to confirm that with my engineering and fire department. I think that would be the ideal scenario. Uh just so we don't have larger of an easement than we actually need, right? Um but yeah, that's something we'll have to take a closer look at with preliminary plat. But will that emergency access be gated similar to what we talked about? Correct. Our fire department would require that it would be gated. ever find out whether we can automate the gate? I did not actually. My apologies for that. No problem. I was just checking on you. John, please the microphone in other develop about four or five of these in North Oaks and a bunch of small areas like that and it's just a breakway. So if the fire department ran it over, we just come back and put it back on. One we were I'm sorry. The one we were talking about was actually going to be locked. Yeah. With a padlock with a key. We actually uh put down either the tip down ballers. So the fire truck drives it over and when they're done, they tip themselves back up. But we have a neighbor that really wants privacy because where we need this exit to go and the sewer line to go is going to keep the headlights. shining in her front window. And so I told her that, you know, we'd have a fence. And so basically, we just have breakaway hinges on the fence so fire truck could drive up and either they could go up and tip it over or they can just drive over with the fire truck and then pick up afterwards. The only time it's ever going through there is if the other end has a big, you know, crash in it. So you've got somebody blocking the other end of the neighborhood with the fire to ever come back around this way to try and So it it's not a problem for us to deal with that. I mean it it is a pretty long culde-sac as it is. So if I had a medical emergency, I'd sure like to know that they they could bolt into my back door there. Yeah. And and you got to understand we're we have a great big circle street. So the length of this culdeac seven houses long. The neighborhood happens to have uh 37US, you know, not that many on this end. And if you look at it, it's only limited by the fact that it has a single entrance. Otherwise, they have two different directions to go once they're in. So, unless there was a big crash that happened on the input road, uh there's two ways around the neighborhood. There's only seven houses in that. So, and again, whether or not You know, the firemen normally have a fire key that gets into hydrants and commercial building stuff. So, we can put that padlock on it. Okay. It's just for privacy light purposes. The neighbor is really asking that we put up something that will help. Which house is the neighbor have where they have Can you use your mouse and show the little farmhouse there straight off the end of our road there? Is this the one you're talking about, John? Probably the one across. So, we've got headlights flashing into that. She's saying that we've got when they come down the end of our current culdeac and turn and spin that shines into her. Wow. There's a lot of trees. I agree with that. I'm just trying to do what I can for the neighbors. Yep. Great. Thank you. Any other questions, commissioners? Did we What was the grant of the lot reduction on the other adjacent property? Uh, all the proposed PUD standards that I showed were what was approved with these shorts of Marsh Lake. So, the 10,000 square foot lot area, 65 ft lot width. Um this whole slide right here those are those are all approved in the existing one. Correct. And then the other question is uh related to uh the setback the wetland set back on building on the property. It's 150 ft right I think on the map it showed 100. There's actually foot up the building. So, does that 150 get anywhere near where a pool might go on any of those properties? Chair and commissioners, yes, it would. Um, specifically for lots three and four, I could see that scenario happening. Um, for reference for those in the audience, we've had a few individuals in the past approach us about variances for a pool to the ordinary highwire line setback, which is 150 ft, no matter the structure, whether it's pool, deck, the back of your house, everything. So, in that scenario, yes, someone would likely come forward with a variance request to that setback. I'm just thinking back to the fire department easement. Um, and not necessarily on this, but just because it keeps coming up in a couple different locations around the city. I'd say maybe we really do look at, you know, what would be the easiest best option for the fire department to access these areas and see the best gate option there is. That's good input. Commissioners, any other questions? If not, we'll close this off for tonight. Again, no formal action is required at this point in time. Um, so with that, we'll move on to the miscellaneous items in the agenda. Any miscellaneous items from staff, Brian? Sure. Thank you, Chair. Um, so we have a lot of community events going on, so if you haven't got out to the farmers market or the classic car night yet, be sure to do so. And then at our next meeting, we're hoping on bringing back our next chapter of the zoning code, which I'm sure you're all thrilled about and can't wait to dive right back into it. Uh, and then August will be busy. We've already got some more sketch plat requests coming in, some more zoning, uh, code changes happening. So, uh, just please keep me posted if you're not able to make any future meetings. That's all from staff. Thank you, Brian. Commissioner, is any miscellaneous items? I've got one to check in on the um the supercar garage um over in the neighborhood. Uh the question would be, you know, obviously we're sympathetic to that going up and the fact that that could go kind of in a lot of different neighborhoods. Have we considered having some sort of an amendment? I I know grandfathered in and we went through and you know, uh it is what it is. have met the rules and and we couldn't really say say no with an honest uh answer. But as we go forward and look at that, if that were to happen in somebody else's neighborhood, uh does that precedent, you know, something we want to set to let that that kind of thing go or is there something we can put in there for the city council or um has that been considered? Yes, it is being considered. We do have a draft ordinance prepared. uh we kind of put on hold with some of the internal review of our wider zoning code. Uh but if it's a rush request that the plane commission and city council would like to see through, it's something that we can bring sooner than later. Yeah, I think we all felt pretty uncomfortable about that. This is the property on Smithtown Road where the owner built I don't know 40 car garage with pickle ball court inside and it was it was sort of the ultimate man cave and um I I think all of us including the neighbors around felt like this was inconsistent with the property around it. Uh but it was entirely consistent with the zoning code as it exists today. So Ben's point is quite simply we'd like to look at maybe an ordinance that would limit the size of these structures in a planful way. So you know not to be unfair but so that people are aware when they buy polar salts like this that there are limitations on what they can do. Sure. Well that garage would be considered accessory space under Victoria's code. Um Commissioner B. It's a little before you started but they attached the garage to the main structure. So their house. So it is not considered accessory at that point. Different definitions from what I'm used to. Got it. Any other miscellaneous items? If not, um, commissioners, no more items this evening. Can I ask for a motion to adjurnn? Motion to adjurnn. We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? We are adjourned. Thank you all.