Good evening everyone. I'll now call our 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? U motion to adopt the agenda. We have a motion from Commissioner Riillas. Is there a second? Second. Second by Commissioner Croth. All those in favor? I I. Any opposed? Thank you. Motion carries. Our next order of business is to adopt the minutes from our May 20, 2025 planning commission meeting. Commissioner, is there is there a motion to approve the minutes? Make a motion to approve the M minutes from the May 20th meeting. Thank you, Commissioner Croth. We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. Have a second. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Thank you. Motion carries. So we'll now move on to our discussion items. Our first item for discussion tonight is item 3.1. Consider two variances for St. Victoria Catholic Church. As you recall, this uh item was continued from our last meeting and the 60-day review period actually expires June 23rd. So we will need to come to our recommendation this evening. Um, since the public hearing was conducted and closed at our last meeting, we won't be taking any public comments. But let me now turn it over to city planner Brian McCann for a staff presentation. Thank you, chair and commissioners. As you may recall from our last meeting, St. Victoria Catholic Church is requesting two variances. The first one being a reduction in the front setback from 30 feet to 5 feet for additional burial plots as well as an additional access for the proposed colarium off of Victoria Drive. So for the location and area, seven parcels about 26 1/2 acres in size. They do have three existing accesses already from Victoria Drive, County Road 11. Uh there are existing residential properties to the north and south of these properties. Church Lake is to the west and Lions Park is just to the east. All of these properties are zoned and guided R1 residential which allows places of worship with cemeteries and memorial gardens as a principal use. For the existing conditions, there are steep slopes throughout the property. It's heavily wooded. There are some wetlands present as you can see in the colored areas there. Uh there is the existing church building and the parking lot with 234 spaces with some additional on street parking on Victoria Drive. This area is also entirely within our shoreland area. So limited tree clearing and grading is allowed on steep slopes. And there are some existing grave sites and a small columnarium on the east side of the property as well towards the northeast corner of this area on the map. So what they are proposing is a single access from Victoria Drive. Uh no on street parking is proposed with this. Uh they have the central columbarium here. It's approximately 26 ft wide. Uh this drive entrance and exit would allow for parking of 17 vehicles. They're also proposing an additional 250 grave sites and as part of their application, they will be combining the lots uh for those church parcels that I highlighted in the last slide. So the first request for the driveway, as I mentioned, is for an additional access noted in red onto Victoria Circle. They also have a trail proposed which will be utilized for a majority of the funeral guests coming from the St. Victoria parking lot. Uh the reason for this access is due to the Americans with Disabilities Acts uh ADA requirements and the reason why utilizing the trail is not possible the whole way down is because there are steep slopes which prevent the use of the trail for wheelchairs. As you can see the steps and the retaining walls included in their plan here. So the practical difficulties for the driveway varants uh they propose to use in a reasonable manner. A single access is a reasonable use to an otherwise uh limited access area. The problem is due to circumstances unique. So there are access spacing limitations on county road 11 preventing them from putting another access there and access to the columbarium is extremely limited due to present wooded areas and steep elevations as well as shoreland conflicts. And then lastly, it will not alter the essential character of the locality. Driveways already exist on Victoria Circle. Uh access is required to meet ADA requirements for only constructable area. Now looking at the second request to reduce the front setback from 30 feet to 5 feet. Uh the closest burial plots will still be approximately 20 plus feet from the edge of the curb. And cemeteries and memorial gardens are principal use. So they are allowed outright, but they do have to meet the required setbacks for places of worship listed in our code, which is that 30 ft. uh within that area. No other improvements are possible due to other requirements in our zoning code such as uh placements of structures within easements, uh interference with steep slopes in the shoreland area and other city code regulations. So the criteria for variance number two is it proposed to be used in a reasonable manner. They have operated a church and cemetery for over a hundred years and it's also a permitted use in the R1 district. Uh their circumstances are unique to the property. So steep slopes and presence of heavily wood areas within that 26 acres prevent any other options for placement of additional burial plots and that if granted will not alter the essential character locality. There are already existing burial plots on the site that are within 10 ft of Victoria Drive in that northeast area I highlighted earlier in the presentation. And then just as an additional note, our public works team has since looked at that active sewer stub since our last meeting. They discovered that there were five stubs scoped. Only one of them extends outward on the church's property, though. It doesn't connect to anything. Uh so we are leaving that condition in the variances that the church would have to work with us if approved to relocate that uh sewer main to the property line here. So a public hearing was conducted at the last meeting. It was properly noticed. Uh we did have some various correspondence that was submitted to the planning commission before and after the meeting. So, I've compiled all of that into the report for you this evening. Uh, it was in your packet for your review prior to this. And then, as you know, it was tabled uh for the church to explore the potential for an ADA compliant ramp. So, moving on to the new information here. Uh, in 2016, an apartment building was proposed for this site. It never made it to the sketch plat process. Um, but St. Victoria at that time listened to the neighborhood's concerns regarding access limitations and created the plan that you are seeing in front of you this evening. That was their attempt to mitigate the neighbors concerns. Um so that design was constructed with the church and former staff members uh other than myself. Um, I did have a chance to go out to a neighborhood meeting with some of the individuals that live within Victoria Circle and I noted that they do not support the additional access or on-site parking. Um, but what we did discuss was the potential for um, parking on Victoria Circle, some designated spaces for the church to use for ADA spaces or maintenance vehicles. Um, as I mentioned, the ADA ramp is not possible because the current slope of the property is about 15% for ADA compliance. It would need to be 5% maximum. What that would mean is a dwindling path going down to the site with extensive grading and retaining walls. It's just not feasible to get a 10% grade reduction in that short of an area. Um, so at the neighborhood meeting at on June 10th, as I mentioned, there was overall support from the neighborhood for designated ADA and maintenance spaces, but there was not support for the access and parking. So, just to break down the available options for the plan commission this evening, option one being recommending denial of both variances. That would mean that the church has to comply with our current zoning standards. So that means no additional access, no burial sites within that 46 ft area of the curb to meet the 30ft front setback and the 16 ft right ofway from the edge of curb. Uh if that happens, there is still parking allowed on one side of Victoria Circle. So it's likely that the church would utilize the full extent possibly of parking on Victoria Circle for their funeral services because it is available public parking. Uh the second option being approving the access variance but no setback variance. Um so that would mean that all the burial plots would have to meet that 46 ft setback that I mentioned. Otherwise vice versa if the setback uh variance is approved but no access uh parking on Victoria Circle is expected as I mentioned it's public parking available to the church to utilize for their services. Uh staff would expect that this would congest the neighborhood and potentially be hazardous in case of emergencies out there. Um but the additional burial plots would be allowed. They would actually be able to increase that number because they wouldn't have as much hard surface with the parking available on the site. And then lastly, both variances, uh, if you choose to recommend that as an option, it would be approved as proposed with the access and the parking for 17 vehicles and those burial plots. And just to note for everyone in the chambers tonight, there we can apply conditions to variances. We have some conditions proposed which were in the packet. um planning commission and city council can modify, delete, add additional conditions if they see fit. And if the conditions of that permit are ever violated, the variance could be revoked by city council if desired. So for the 60-day requirement, as the chair mentioned before this item was introduced, uh they submitted on April 25th. We are legally required under state statute to process land use applications within 60 days which falls on Monday which is the next city council meeting. So a decision must be made by the city council within those 60 days and to do that the plan commission needs to make a recommendation to them this evening. So with that I have the conditions that were shown on the screen last time. They're unchanged from the last meeting. Uh, and they were also included in the packet. I do have a sample motion for you on the screen and representatives of the application are in the audience this evening. Thank you, Brian. Um, could you return to slide seven real quickly? Thank you. I just want to understand better where exactly the access point would be situated from Victoria Circle. There's a clearing um that would appear uh at the top of your red circle. Um and I just am curious, would it be to the west of that clearing or at the clearing? Yes. Uh chair and commissioners. So I've put up our local aerial imagery on the screen for reference. Um I can actually probably do this to make it even a little bit more clear. So, as you can see based on the red image, it's going to be close to this north property line. You can see that line here for reference. Um maybe 5 to 10 ft south of where the property line is. Okay. And it appears to be at a southwest angle. Is that right? Southeast. Southeast. Sorry. Yep. And this area to the I guess would be west is heavily wooded, isn't it? To the south. Um, definitely. And then along the street to the west. I'm just trying to understand how visible the columbarium and the circle, the traffic circle would be from the road and and therefore from the neighbors properties. Sure. I think um for this corner lot especially and for these uh two existing homeowners on the north side, it's going to be extremely visible, but um I'm not quite sure how visible it would be to the other neighbors. Okay. And approximately where would the traffic circle be on the map on the Google map you're showing? Um traffic circle but the the columbarium circle. Yeah. So you can see the lot line split here which is shown here. So it's roughly going to be in this area here. They are going to have to clear a few trees to make room for it. Okay. Okay. That's helpful. I don't know if others had that question, but it helps me better visualize what we're talking about. Um again, thank you, Brian. Does the applicant wish to speak? Okay. Thank you. Um, again, my name is Chuck Beler. I'm an attorney representing the Church of St. Victoria on this matter. Um, and I had provided that updated information. It was some information that I myself didn't understand at the time when I first spoke here. Um, you know, essentially the, uh, project has been in the works for many years. There's been a lot of discussion with the city who uh has worked with the the the neighbors and this plan was developed um based on those discussions and close work with the city staff. Um at the time the primary concern was parking on Victoria Circle. So this plan was designed with the intent to avoid that whereas you know the church could in essence get a building permit for the colarian park on Victoria Circle and and use it in that fashion. But uh in lie of that the additional access which requires the variance then allows the parking condition to be in place uh which the church is willing to do in as well. build the walking path from the church which is rather expensive um project as a matter of fact. Um but they've been agreeable to all this to really accommodate those concerns. I understand there's not going to be a perfect plan that's going to satisfy everyone but that was how it was born and what the process was. And then in addition to that um the church produced the burial the funeral and burial records and I believe there were 250 different funeral services at the church but of those 138 in the last 10 and a half years involved interments or enmentsments within the cemetery. So it averages out to about 13 a year or one a month. So the use is going to be fairly limited to that extent. Um so again you know this plan was developed to alleviate the concerns. Um and when we came to the last meeting uh we didn't recognize that it would be a big concern about traffic and parking within the cemetery itself. So then that was a little unanticipated. Um but you know we've talked about that and looked at that and you know ADA is one requirement and again those things are the result of the variance which limits the parking on the circle. Um and in addition, you know, the ADA is one thing accommodating the hearse, you know, burial vehicles and immediate family, but you know, we're concerned about just elderly people as well who may or may not have a disability sticker or whatever. Um and have them try and traverse that walking path, particularly in inclement weather, raining, snow, whatever. Um, and just the dignity of a burial and allowing the burial vehicle to get to where it needs to be to take out the bodies and inter. There's, you know, there's some aspects of that. This plan was uh not just function but aesthetics and how it would be used in that capacity as well. Um, and again, you know, the numbers over the last and a half years have been fairly consistent. So, we're looking at like one a month in which we'd have vehicles that would come there. The other point is I think you know the cemeter the um funeral service is one thing at the church, but burial services are something quite a bit different. I'm sure we've all been involved in that. And typically, you know, those numbers are much more limited than a funeral itself. Often times private and only immediate family and obviously we can't promise that's going to be the case every single time. But that's the experience um of those matters. So with that in mind um again it was planned around the concerns as best they could but they do feel they need some on-site parking if they can't park in Victoria Circle. And so the other option is to park within the circle um which is available to them as it is the entire public. If there's any other questions, I could answer the best I can otherwise you. Thank you, Mr. Beer. Um, again, since the public hearing is closed, we're unable to take additional comments from the neighborhood u members, but I do want to say that we received many thoughtful emails. We've had a chance to review them. So, thanks to you who have expressed your your genuine concerns about this project and the proposed variances. Um, with that I'll open this for planning commission discussion. Any questions or comments from the planning commission? There's a gap between the two properties. Does that not impact chair and commissioner? I just want to make sure I'm confirming. Is this the portion that you're talking about here? Uh, not related to the setbacks that they're requesting. No. What this would be is a sideyard setback um which is only 10 feet. So 10 feet measured from this line doesn't impact any of those. Okay. I have a question for Mr. Beer. One of the concerns that the neighborhood expressed was um lighting uh and access by people for purposes other than um honoring their their um deceased relatives, family members, friends. Uh what is the plan for um lighting the area? Uh and what impact will it have on the neighborhood? And and if you can uh what is the plan with respect to signage that would advise people it's for only uh church use? I don't think there's a plan for lighting. Um right. It hasn't been part of the plan. So it wouldn't be lit. Right. I don't know. Well, I guess it hasn't been discussed and I don't know what the neighborhood thought on that would be either. You know, some would maybe prefer it not be lit, but it it's certainly signage for no parking and other things and private property, no public parking, those type of things. Okay. Certainly would be fine. Okay. Could I do a followup on that? In terms of a condition, if it's not going to be lit, not intended to be used after hours, you know, is there openness of having a gate that would restrict access? You know, we talked about that and I think it's difficult for the church to just operate it. They'd have, you know, they have to have somebody that would have to, I guess, if it's locked, unlock it every morning and have somebody available to lock it every night. And, you know, I don't know if they have staff or others that could do that on a easy basis or not. Good question. Other comments, questions from the commission. Just clarify on that one pot. I mean, that driveway and those parking spots around the columbarium, I mean, they're going to be available for anybody that wants to come and visit. Yes. Uh you know, not necessarily as part of a funeral, but they just want to come and pay respects, right? Or whatever. So there there will be some I I don't know that you can chain it off if Well, rightclude to be open all day. That's what I'm saying. It would be a logistic issue for the church to have staff where they'd have to open it every morning for that purpose and then close it every night and do it every day. I guess it would be a little difficult for that purpose. Was there a discussion on reducing the parking amount of parking in the circle from 17 down to a lower number? Cuz I know another concern was how many cars are going to be down there. Well, I think that the parking is a product of the design, not necess not that the the design created the parking spaces. Um, you know, it again, it was a plan for for function, but also for aesthetics and uh easy, you know, the the concept of being able to have people drive in one direction and park in the same direction to get out in and out easily without having to back up and do the, you know, backing out from the interior road onto the circle, for instance, would be much more difficult than if they can just drive around. So, I think the 17 parking has just come from the specific design as it is. So I mean if you the way you would limit the parking you'd have to I guess just identify where you could and and you couldn't park. The other thing that you know I you know I I we didn't have a traffic study or you know have a engineer study this but you know the the limitation of parking and at least in my mind and I've talked with some others is it could have the opposite effect of what we're trying to achieve because you know if you limit it to such an extent that everybody had to walk the trail and there's just elderly people that can't do it. You're going to have a lot more drop off and pickups instead. And you're gonna have people coming in and out of the circle at different times. And so, I mean, this was, I think, all put into the thought process of the design in the first place. And again, I wasn't part of the design. I got involved after it was done. And but I just noticed and the design engineer retired. Uh, so there's a new person there. I got on board late. Uh I know Brian's new so we're we're all kind of learning about the history uh together on that but again this has gone on for a number of years with a lot of different considerations and the idea was to present a plan that addressed them but obviously at the last meeting uh the real concern came to the parking on our spot in internally as opposed to and traffic through the circle as opposed to parking on the circle. But again uh the 17 spaces as it is based on the design at this point. Would this would the church be willing to add um some trees or foliage uh on either side of the entry point and what appears to be the north boundary of the property. Uh, I'm I'm just thinking one of the concerns expressed by the neighbors is is privacy and and not wanting to necessarily view the um the activity there and that could help perhaps mitigate Yeah. some of that they would again yeah they're trying to alleviate as many concerns as they can and they can do as long as it's practical and sure and within Yeah. I I noticed how tree covered the rest of the Victoria Circle area is that abuts the church's property and it struck me that nobody could see in there really except for the entry point but given where it's located perhaps there could be some trees added that would provide a measure of blocking other comments questions can I ask a question about the uh setback and change how many plots would actually be lost if the setback is not allowed We calculated that was it 80. Chair and commissioner, I we counted it last time. I believe it was 40. Correct. And still 210 would be allowed. So you you'd lose 40 out of 250 if that variance were not granted. Correct. Yeah. You know, we talked about some of those things too. Um you know, one thing I guess for consistency, it could be a 10 foot setback to be consistent with the other setback. Um I suppose as another potential alternative is within the setback area that only flat monuments be allowed markers as opposed to upright monuments. So it would have very little effect on any kind of view or anything else. I thought about that too. But then you'd have the you'd still have the vertical plant stands and things that people would put in place. So true. So that would be unfortunately visible in that in that setback area with I think it maybe is worth noting too though that if the 30 foot setback is not approved I mean you go back to that visual you were asking about where the where the drive kind of comes in. I mean I don't know what the actual count is. We have another page that has the trees identified, but right now if I remember, Brian, do you know I think it's like 40 or 50 trees that would have to come out. Correct. And so we would could reduce that number to some degree if we didn't approve the 30 foot and then those trees don't have to be cleared off out of that right away to make room for those area plots. That's a good point. Other comments, questions? Okay, commissioners. Um, hearing no further discussion, um, I'll ask for a motion. Let me offer a motion. I would I would um move that we recommend to the city council to approve the access variance on the basis that um it provides a greater measure of public safety and and relatively little neighborhood disruption but recommend denial of the setback variance uh on the basis that um the need for that variance is is not as great as the access point, but I'm open to other uh conditions or suggestions. I would second that motion. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? I opposed. Nay. Nay. So, two nays. I would we got beyond the conditions quickly because I would I would I think one of the things that I heard with the public that lives north is having some kind of foliage which could provide that buffer and and I don't know how that would affect spacing because it looks like you're pretty close to those new homes with the intent. But I think the hard thing for me is it's hard to sit up here and say that it's not complying with our standards in the city, but there's a lot of concern within the neighborhood. So that would be a compromise that I think it's a good point would would be nominal cost but high impact for what it would provide. With that, I would have a So, so uh would you like to revise your motion? Yeah. So, the the motion would be revised to approve the access variance with the additional condition in addition to the staff recommended conditions uh that foliage be added both on the sides of the access point and to the boundary that abuts the neighbors whose backyards join the church's property. Uh and so that would be the revised motion. And let me let me uh repropose it then. Um, if there's a second and I I'll second that with with those conditions. Fair enough. So, all in favor of that motion? I I opposed. Nay. Nay. Okay. So, the motion carries by a vote of five to two, I guess. Great. Thank you. Um, our make sure I get it right. Um, our third item for discussion tonight is item 3.3 condition. Uh, consider a conditional use. Oh, no. I'm sorry. We missed one. Uh, unless Brian, I'm mistaken. Did we lose the variance? No. Request. Oh, maybe I'm just missing it. 3.2. Yeah, 3.2 for Virginia Drive. Yep. Okay. It's It's not on my list for some reason, but Oh, here it is. Sorry. I apologize. I do have it. Um, so the second uh item on our agenda tonight is a variance request um for 6407 Virginia Drive. This item does include a public hearing and I'll now turn it over to Associate Planner Travis Briarley for a staff presentation and then I'll open the public hearing for those in chamber that wish to speak to this request. Travis. Good evening, chair and commissioners. Tonight in front of you is a variance request for 40 or excuse me 6407 Virginia Drive. Uh this is a request to change to allow to go beyond the maximum impervious surface as regulated underneath the shoreland district which is 25%. Uh just a quick background on this, the application was considered complete back in May 16th which means our 60-day rule is July 15th. Uh we did do a public notice uh within the 350 ft as well as the newspaper and other standard sources for the city. We did receive one call from residents on it and the questions were more or less what is a variance and what what did it mean? So information only no comments either direction or against. Uh when we look at variances just a reminder we're looking for many things. Uh the biggest thing we're looking for is practical difficulties. Um with that means the reasonable land use of plight of the owner and it and the effect of the characteristics of the neighborhood. Um we also want to take into account that there could be economic conditions but it can't be the sole purpose of approving a variance from our city code. There's a few items that we also want to consider. one is the strict enforcement or interpretation would result in that practical difficulty or undue hardship um which needs to be in the uh consent to the code. Uh there's also exceptionary or exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and again if there's a granting of a variance that doesn't cause a negative impact to the community. So what we're looking at is a variance to go over and on the screen uh there's a few different things. The property in question is outlined in blue and there's proposed to be a single family home built on the property which is currently vacant. You'll notice on the left side there's a shaded in gray area that is currently thornberry curve which was put in around the early parts 2010s. That was actually moved out of the rightway which is shown in the orange lines just to the left. that was moved because there's a wetland there and it would be easier to shift the road over than have to go through wetland mitigation. Um it was a so you've got that when we talk about the practical difficulties to build on it we're looking at the first thing is it a reasonable manner? Well, it's a proposed single family home which is consistent for the zoning that's in the area which is R1 which is our single family zoning. the plight of the land owner. It's because the city proposed a project to resolve an issue the city had by shifting the road onto this parcel. Um, if the variance is granted, would it alter the character of the locality or the neighborhood? It would not because it would fit in with everything. Uh, economic considerations with it, there really isn't too much except for the greater impervious surface coverage allowance would allow for a larger home to be built. Currently, the area where the road covers is about 14 and a half% of the hard cover for the property and the proposed home is only set at 22.2% of the property. So, if we were to take the 25 and subtract out the 14 12, you'd be down to 11 12% which would be an extremely small home which might not be practical to build on the property in the first place. Um some of the things for discussion tonight is uh should the variance be recommended for approval? Um I said exceptional or extraordinary circumstances would there be any adverse effects in granting um including uh mitigation strategies if needed and the addition to that would be if approved would there be any conditions that the planning commission would want to attach to um a recommendation to the city council. Um, with that there's a sample motion on the screen. It's a little wordy, but basically what it says is that the road rightway area that exists. Anything that the city put there would not count against the 25%. So, but we have to write it so that it can total 25 plus that amount. So, it's a little weird phrase, but that's the intent behind what it says. With that, I can stand for any questions. Could you go back to the the site? Okay. So, just let me paraphrase. So, the orange is the existing road. The gray is no longer there. There's an easement tied to that gray. Let me pull up because this is the one that we actually recommended. So, this project was done in 2010 uh when it went in. And when we come up, this is the property in question on the screen. So the road rightway is right here where normally you would connect the road through. However, this is a wetland area. So the road goes through the parcel just through this far edge because okay that's and the main concern here is that uh for a variance one of the reasons that we could say or that staff justifies it as an undue hardship or apply to the owner. They didn't create it something the city proposed to resolve a city issue with the connection to the road. Correct. That's helpful. Thank you Travis. One question. Um, was the prop forgot on the other slide you just had up. Is the proposed driveway onto Thbury or to Virginia. It's on the I see it. Okay. Got it. Okay. All right. Thank you, Travis. Does the applicant wish to speak? Okay. Fair enough. Fair enough. I'll now open the public hearing. Is there anyone in chambers this evening who wishes to comment on this item? Hearing no additional public input. Commissioners may have a motion to close the public hearing. I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. Motion made by Commissioner Quint. Second. Second by Commissioner Cross. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Thank you. Motion carries and the public hearing is now closed. I'll now open the floor for the planning commission to discuss any questions, comments that you have. Commissioners, what can you remind me what um the percentage of impervious is supposed to be for R1? So, uh commissioner, this area is with inside the shoreland overlay district. So, it's limited to 25%. So when we looked at or when we met with the or when staff and I with the applicant prior to uh applying for a variance or anything like that, uh we discussed that it had to be under the 25%. And then as we did our research on the property, we learned that the road was actually put in using a road rightaway easement instead of the city purchasing it. So if the city had purchased that, they would be limited down to the 25% for the remainder. It's a little higher than that, but the street does have storm water controls on it. So, it's going to act similar to any other project that would go in. You said the road is 11% currently. The road makes up 14.5% of the property for its entire rideway. And how much does the applicant expect impervious percent or whatever? like something like 22 is the the proposed area or the proposed impervious for the site uh that was submitted with a permit was 22.2%. Just for the house that doesn't include the road. That's just the house, the driveway and those type of improvements to the property. So that would be separate from the road right away itself. Gotcha. So I summarize in total they need like 30 let's call it 37% Correct. Thereabouts. Can we just make the sample motion to be can't exceed 37 or 38%. Commissioner, we would be able to do that. My concern would be that if the city goes in and makes changes to that road or it gets moved in the future, then now we have a a property that's allowed a greater percentage rather than just making sure the city improvement portion is removed or is not counted towards the overall percentage. Gotcha. So, can you go back to your sample motion? I'm sorry. I didn't miss that part. All right, that makes sense. And so going back to Ariel, in essence that 14% is owned by the property owner, but for all intents of purposes was a street through it. So um you know, they bought something that they don't get a lot of value out of in considering this. So to me, yeah, it's kind of a practical thing that's pretty easy to see that they're building under that 25 in a normal situation. Is is there a reason the city didn't just buy it? Yeah. Or is there a reason we can't propose the city buy it now? I mean, reduces their taxes about the homeowner a lot. I understand. Uh so commission, that is one of the questions we asked. Why wasn't it purchased back then? We weren't able to really find an answer. Um I read through a lot of minutes and a lot of packets between 2009 and 2012 regarding this and there wasn't anything that was too clear. Um generally when that happens, it's usually an administrative dis uh decision that's kind of made away from the public spotlight and that's why we couldn't find a m a record on it. What we did find out is it is an easement that's placed in. So the city has the right to put a road through it. Okay. Um it was an easement. It wasn't just a correct. For me, this is an easy call. Um the homeowner didn't uh choose this road going through the property. Um it's it's for me the most justified situation in which a variance ought to be granted. and they purchased it knowing that that property wasn't quite theirs. What to do with Yeah. Were there any conditions that staff was recommending for the variance as well or Commissioner? There's no additional conditions with the variance itself. Um mainly because it would only be allowing the impervious change. So all other things such as uh following state regulations with storm water management, following any of the DNR regulations, setbacks, all that type of good stuff, all that everything else still has to apply. So it's only to allow that the road right away not to count towards that 25%. This is really splitting hairs, but when you're calculating the 22% for the house, does that is that of the total lot or is that less the road? That is of the total lot, commissioner. So then theoretically that's actually higher of the lot less the road. It it it would be yes. Is that amount under 25%. I wouldn't uh commissioner I'd have to consult with the surveyor to get an exact number, but it would be a little bit over. The area where the road ride rightway covers is about 4,900 square ft. Um, which is pretty significant. Uh, when staff did a review, we looked at how would this how would a project here compare to if the road was within the rightway and there wasn't an easement, how would storm water be managed in that fashion? because that's the main concern here is is where's the storm water going and making sure we don't cause an environmental issue or any type of environmental damage. Uh and the road would be able to handle what could shut off this property. I guess that would be my only recommendation to edit the motion then is to say it's to not exceed 25% of the lot less the what however many square feet the road is cutting into it because then it's equal playing field with the rest of the neighbors. Right? Basically just saying that lot that part of the lot doesn't count. So if it if the lot's I don't know I'm making this up. It's 15,000 square feet. You take the 5,000 square feet out of it and then you say you can't go over 25% of that whatever's left. But I open that up to the rest of the planning commission to discuss just trying to keep it fair to the rest of the community. I know that's really splitting hairs, but I think we open oursel up for some criticism if we say it's 25% of a total, but oh, you don't have to count this one part. the next person's going to come over and be like, "Well, I've got a river running through mine, so I shouldn't have to count that." So, I don't know. Just trying to protect us. Except the city didn't create the river. I know. But you you know, but I'm say I think bad example. The big the big issue here is the fact that the city's created the uh the conflict. Mhm. Um, this is a little bit maybe a sidebar, but it appears that the house to the northeast when that existing house that driveway crosses this little nubbing of the lot. Is that correct? Uh, commissioner, that is correct. So, there is a long history with this area of the community. Uh, Thornberry used to stop right here. It didn't go up. So when it was connected, part of this is there's a road that goes through here and there was easements and all and there was all types of stuff that that went into this area and the property owners were to clear those up. This area that you're talking about that kind of looks like the chimney that was actually a vacated street. So Virginia Drive was vacated from there and then you have access easements and whatnot. um at that point that becomes a private property issue uh where the city wouldn't get involved. But I from my experience I can't see why the city would allow for a vacation without having those other controls as a condition. Is is this a time to try to rectify that since we're going to potentially grant a variance? Uh the a variance and the street vacation because they're different items. I don't believe that it would be appropriate to address any type of access issues that may exist because that's a private property matter and the variance wouldn't have an effect on any type of access for adjacent properties. Agree. Thank you, Travis. It does add a little wrinkle. Is that part of the property part of the calculation on the 25? It the commissioner. Yes. Okay. So it's it's every it's this entire part. So it's it's everything in blue. So that's that little area that we were talking about where Virginia Drive comes this way and then you have the home to the east which has access through there to get to uh Virginia Drive. So can I ask the homeowner question? Is that permitted? I guess so. Has there been any arrangement in terms of you allowing the driveway to across your land? Okay. So, they have a recorded easement across your lot. Okay. Okay. Any other discussion or questions, commissioners? Yeah, I guess is that road that's on that easement included in the impervious? It is. It is. We uh commission we did confirm that with the uh with the surveyor when looking at the percentages um and specifically asked and had shown that all hard services proposed and existing uh were calculated including the calculation for the road itself. So that way we could get a full picture of staff before bringing forward a variance request. Right. So one last nitpick I'll join the nitpicking. Um, does the neighbor's driveway count against this gentleman's impervious surface, commissioner? Yes, it does. And and so that number is already in there. Correct. Okay. Anything further? Can you go to the sample motion, please? I'll make a motion to recommend approval to the city council for variance request permitting the amount of impervious cover greater than 25% shall only be included within the Thornberry curve rightway easement shall only be counted if the construction was included in a city street project. Thank you. We have a motion from Commissioner Croth. Is there a second? Second. We have a second. All in favor? I opposed. Thank you. Motion carries. Um the next item and our third item for discussion tonight is item 3.3 conditional consider a conditional use permit amendment and site plan review for quickrip. This item also includes a public hearing. I'll now turn it over to city planner Brian McCann for a staff presentation and then I'll open the public hearing uh for those in chambers that wish to speak to this request. Thank you chair and commissioners. Yes, as you mentioned, we are looking at the final site plan and building materials review for Quicktrip number 1792, as well as an amendment to their conditional use permit approvals to allow a dynamic display sign. So, with the site plan review, I'm still going to go over all the things you already know, including the location and area. So, it's one parcel west of County Road 11, north of County Road 10. It's also just south of the railroad and the Victoria Ridge development. Uh the entire parcel is about 48 acres, but the site itself is just over 4 acres. They are proposing the 91100 ft² convenience store with gas pumps and a car wash. So, it is a vacant site right now with some farm fields. Uh on the entire parcel, there are minimal trees. there are none in this specific 4 acre area that we're talking about. It's also close to the 120 foot or 125 ft wide power line easement. I highlighted the tower there on the screen just so that you can see for reference the location of the site and that easement. Um, as you're aware, you've seen this one a few times now, but they're proposing 10 gas pumps which I've noted here. uh the single lane car wash. They would also have full access points on Ridge View Boulevard and Crossings Parkway uh as well as a full access onto Victoria Drive here. Looking at their parking, they're required to meet zoning code section 20 for off- streetet parking. Um their retail store and service use requires them to park it with 3.6 six spaces per thousand square ft of retail area. That comes out to be about 33 parking spaces, but they're proposing 63 spaces, so almost double. Uh they are also compliant with the minimum requirements for drive aisle and parking stall dimensions. Looking at their pedestrian connections, they have proposed concrete sidewalks along Ridgeview Boulevard and Crossings Parkway, which I've highlighted in blue. They're also showing a sidewalk connection from Ridge View Boulevard into the site as well as a future trail along County Road 11 highlighted in green. And then here are some architectural renderings of the proposed building and gas station canopy that were included in your packet. Uh looks like I'm sure all other Quick Trip stores that you guys have seen in your travels. uh all those standards and building materials do meet our requirements of the zoning code as well. They also provided a phototric plan which included street lights, building lights, and gas station pump lights as you can see on the rendering uh as well as those uh pole locations and what they will be illuminating. So, the renderings that they provided do meet our lighting requirements for the site as well. And then looking at their signage, uh this these renderings were included with your package as well. They have two building signs, two wall signs proposed for the actual retail structure, and then they have a LED stripe for the canopy as well as some directional signage, some parking signage. Uh but this is the one that we're going to focus on for the conditional use permit amendment. So, uh, dynamic display signage per our sign code requires a conditional use permit for approval. So, what we are doing this evening is considering an amendment to their conditional use permit approval for their car wash and gas pump. So, we would just be including dynamic display signage as well. Uh, they are compliant with our maximum height requirement of 25 ft. uh as well as our general and specific conditional use permit standards sections in our zoning code. So, we did publish the public hearing notice in the Wakonia Patri on June 5th. We also mailed it to property owners within 350 ft. Uh posted it online and at city hall. So far, staff have not received any comments from the public. And then if the plane commission does recommend approval, these are the noted conditions that were included in your packet. Um, and then always that fifth bolded area there that if you want to add, delete, modify any of these, that is your perview as well. So lastly, I have a sample motion for you on the screen and a representative of the application is in the audience this evening. Brian, can you go back one? Sorry, not a very fast. Thanks. Thank you, Brian. Um, does the applicant wish to speak? Anyone has any questions? Very good. Thank you. I'll now open the public hearing. Is there anyone in chambers this evening that wishes to speak or comment on this item hearing? No additional public input. Commissioners, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Make a motion to close the public hearing. Thank you. We have a motion to close the public hearing and a second. All in favor? I. Any oppose? Thank you. Motion carries and the public hearing is now closed. I'll now open the floor for the P planning commission to ask any questions or provide any comments they have with respect to this request. I have two questions. One is just catching me up to speed. Um the quick trip itself has already been approved. Uh yes, chair and commissioners. So, the Quick Trip did go through plat approvals uh earlier this year for their final plat approval. We've been working with them since August of last year, I believe. So, um for our new commissioners, uh the general location, if you didn't know, as I mentioned towards the beginning, it's going to be south of the Victoria Ridge development, uh not too far off from the Angler Boulevard and Victoria Drive intersection. So this area highlighted in blue here, but uh if they receive approvals on Monday from council, they will be fully approved, ready to go. Okay. So really the only modification that we're talking about is the dynamic signing. Yes. And uh the formal site plan, right? Correct. Was anything changing with the sign like the height or anything or exactly the same as we've seen? Um, we didn't receive signed renderings until late in the final process and that's what triggered this cup amendment. So, it's the same as staff have always seen it for the last few months. Okay. And maybe question for the applicant. This is what we see at every gas station. That's essentially a quick trip. The same type of you're changing the prices and you got that one area underneath. Yes. So the site the sign that you see is I would say 90% of our our stores have this exact sign. Um it's really important for people to be able to see gas prices to be able to compare or those who are uh what I would call economical shoppers to know, hey, if I'm going to go buy a Costco or Sam's Club, I want to know what Quick Trip is to compare. Um and then obviously any specials and things that we run. And just to add a little note, um when you asked if I had anything to add. This project did get pushed up on our Gant chart. So, because this developer is on time with their site work for us, um we are looking to add this to your community next year. Thanks. Any additional questions or comments from the planning commission? Would it be consistent or reasonable to consider reducing the height with the addition of the dynamic signage maybe other projects or into the community? Chair and commissioner. Uh that's a good question. I think there is a legal question in play there because we allow signages up to 25 ft in height. Anyway, we're really the amendment is just for the uh advertising dynamic display portion. I know that area, the sign won't really be much of an issue cuz uh we were looking at the apartments that are right there as well. I believe the apartments are like 40 ft tall cuz they're four stories. So, the apartments are going to completely block that signage from anything north and then it's really the signage is going to be more for the roadways south. Yeah, I guess I was just thinking of uh you know, additional development going south. Yeah. Fair question. Good. All right. Anything else? If not, I'll close the discussion, ask for a motion. I'll make a motion to recommend the city council approval of the request for the quick trip uh 1792. Very good. We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. Have a motion and a second. All in favor? Any opposed? Very good. Motion carries. Our fourth and final item for discussion tonight is item 3.4. Consider a preliminary plat annexation comprehensive plan amendment and preliminary PUB zoning request for West Creek Village Residential Development. This item also includes a public hearing. I'll now turn it over to city planner Brian McCann for a staff presentation. Then I'll open um the discussion for a public hearing uh in case anybody is in chambers that wishes to speak to this request. Brian. Yes. Thank you, chair and commissioners. Uh, this one should not be entirely new, maybe new to our new commissioners as well. I think they brought this sketch plat back in March for the plane commission to review. Uh, so where they are at right now is the preliminary plat stage. This is where they submit their detailed applications with their large plan sets that the city takes months to review and finalize before we're ready to bring it forward to the plan commission, city council. Uh this is also the phase where any major entitlements are granted such as cups or variances. So as I mentioned uh they previously went through a first iteration which was for 148 town homes and 13 single family homes back in July and August of last year. And then most recently they had a revised sketch plat with the current design that you will see this evening which was presented to the plane commission city council this past March. So, their requests this evening, they're looking at preliminary plat, a comprehensive plan amendment for altering our low and medium density areas for the site, as well as incorporating a portion of our conservation residential district and changing a very small portion on the opposite side of the railroad tracks from commercial to open space. Um they are also seeking preliminary PUB reszoning approvals and an annexation approvals from Lake Township. So the area is approximately 89 acres in size. It consists of two parcels uh north of County Road 10 and the railroad tracks. Uh they are proposing 50 single family homes, 18 twin homes, and 56 town homes in this current design. the existing conditions of the site. Uh the west side is generally flat vacant farmland. As you can see, a significant portion of the east side uh is encompassed with wetlands and they also have a portion of West Chesa Creek on the north side of the site. So the preliminary plat that was submitted, I'll go through each of these uh colored areas here. On the north side, this would be the conservation residential area. This is the area that is within 300 ft of West Chesa Creek. Uh meaning there are strict DNR requirements. They aren't able to meet the density there. Uh so what they will need is a comprehensive plan amendment for lower density guidance. These would be the uh larger estate lots. These lots one through six here. And then these others would also uh meet the 56 ft lot standard I believe or no 75 ft. Correct. I'm getting myself confused here. Um yep, that's it. So the the shoreland line kind of crosses just before these two lot ones here. Uh so all of these will be the shoreland lots and these two would not be. Uh and then the area in the red are the remaining single family homes. These are the 56 foot wide lots that were proposed in the package. And then the area in green are the town homes and the 18 twin homes. So as I mentioned the property is currently guided for lowdensity residential and open space. open space is the green area and then that very small portion of commercial in red. Uh what the amendment would be proposed for is to uh shift some areas some medium density here. Uh basically split the gap here with low density on the east side and medium density on the west um to comply with those town homes and twin home uses and then the conservation residential area on the north side. Um, when it comes down to what the density actually looks like for these areas, for that conservation area, it comes out to about 1.1 units per acre, which complies with that conservation residential district. Uh, then there's the single family 56 foot wide lots that results in about 4.71 units per acre. And then the twin homes and town homes would be about 7.14. So overall uh meeting the density guidances after the comp plan amendment would be initiated. So to see what that looks like on the map, here's what it would be. That conservation residential, the medium adjustment, the low density, and then the open space from commercial on the south side. Looking at annexation and reszoning, it's currently within Lake Township. So there is not a zoning designation. When a property is annexed into the city per our code, it receives an automatic agricultural zoning classification. Uh, also of note, the township has already reviewed this request and approved the annexation. Uh, but when it comes down to the zoning, the applicant is proposing a PUD with underlying R1 for the single family lots as well as PUD with underlying R3 for the twin homes. The town homes as proposed would meet our standard R3 requirements. So no PUD necessary for those lots. And then anytime a PUD is proposed, I just like to incorporate this slide that it's to allow innovative, creative, and flexible development. Uh input is provided at sketch plat which you guys have already done, the council has already done and the details are approved during preliminary plat. uh but even after they are approved here the final ordinance won't be adopted until final plat. So you will see uh the PUD coming back if the preliminary plat is approved. So some deviations that were included in the packet um a reduction in minimum lot area, lot width, lot depth and front setback. A new one that has come up since the packet was posted was a reduction in the rear setback as well from 30 feet to 25 ft. Uh this is incorporated to allow improvements in the rear yard. If the setback is at 30 ft for those lots on the east side that are close to the wetlands, it makes it really difficult to have a deck be built onto the back of the home since it's attached to it. So a reduction from 30 ft to 25 ft just gives a little bit more flexibility for those future homeowners for improvements. Um, and then a reduction in side setbacks from 10 feet to 8 feet and the maximum impervious for those lots outside of shoreland to be 55%. And then looking at the twin homes, the PUB would be requesting a reduction in minimum lot area and minimum lot width as shown on the screen in red. And then, as I mentioned, those town homes would still meet all of our R3 requirements. So, no changes there. Here are some architectural renderings of the single family products that I have provided in the packet. These are the 56 foot wide lot renderings. And then here we have the private acreage lots and the culde-sac lots that were highlighted in the yellow towards the beginning. A design for the potential twin homes and then for the town homes. Um, based on what staff has reviewed and our architectural requirements, all of these designs would meet our minimum standards. Looking at lighting and signage, they do have street lights provided at intersections and along sidewalks and trails, noted in red in the image on the right. And they also have a possible monument sign proposed at the southwest intersection of Street D and Creekide Lane. Uh we'll evaluate that in the future with a building permit just to make sure it's not going to cause any issues with sight lines or be placed within easements. And then looking at the parking, our standard for single family is two enclosed spaces per unit. And for twin homes and town homes, it's two spaces with at least two spaces for 50% of the units and one enclosed space for the remainder. So that basically becomes one and a half uh enclosed spaces per unit based on the renderings that we just reviewed. Uh all of these requirements would be met for all of those products. And then in addition to that, they are proposing 31 guest parking stalls which I've outlined in red kind of surrounding the uh proposed park on the north side within the town home area. And then they also provided a parking exhibit showing available on street parking on streets D and E for the public spaces. Then looking at pedestrian connections, they are showing an 8-ft trail connecting to the Marsh Hollow development on the right side of the screen here as well as a 8ft trail along the south side of Creekide Lane. They are showing six-foot sidewalks on uh street A here, the public culde-sac, as well as along street D and streets E. And then they are showing sidewalks on both sides for the town homes surrounding the park area and connecting those town homes across the street. This is a new addition from the last time that you saw the sketch plat. Um, our code says that they may have sidewalks on both sides. So, the applicant has incorporated that into their consideration for this evening, although it was not required. And then looking at landscaping, they do have boulevard trees um that generally meet the 35 to 45 ft spaces. There are a few here and there that were noted in the staff memo in the case that uh might have some impacts to street lights or hydrants that may need to be relocated slightly. Uh there are also plantings for um three trees per R1 lot. They meet that requirement as well as one tree and one shrub for every thousand square feet of our minimum open space requirement. They meet that as well. uh buffers are not required since there are uh homes separated by streets and outlots between the R1 and R3 uses and the open space minimum requirement is also being met for a minimum of 50% for the R1 and 25% for the R3 and they did indicate on their plans as well that foundation plantings will be incorporated with future submittals. So for tree preservation, as you know, a maximum 20% removal is allowed without replacement obligations. They are removing 34.6% of the trees on the site, meaning that they have to make those trees up with additional um plantings. So that comes out to be 789 in of replacements or about 316 trees meeting our minimum size standards. So for our shoreland overlay district, as I mentioned, those lots highlighted in the yellow are within 300 feet of West Chesca Creek. So what that means is they have to meet all our requirements of the shoreline district. So a maximum 25% per lot. I think there's a exhibit in their plan uh showing a 25% average spread out for everything north of Creekide Lane. That won't work. It needs to be 25% per lot. based on the DNR's guidance. So that's something that we'll be have to address in a future submitt. Uh and then also a minimum 75 foot lot width. So they are meeting that requirement of these 75 ft wide proposed lots. Looking at park dedication, it comes out to 4.3 acres or about 452,000 in dedication. They are proposing that quarter acre park that I highlighted as well as some trails that can be reduced from that calculation. Uh parks and recreation committee also reviewed this twice uh once for each rendering and in both cases they were supportive of the remainder and cash fee but also supportive of the quarter acre park being proposed. And then I will pass it to Cara for her stuff. Thanks. Good evening chair. Uh, members of the planning commission, there are some new faces here, so I will just say hello to the new faces. Those of you who don't know me, I am Cara Garin. I'm the city engineer. You see me a handful of times a year. Um, when developments are on the agenda, I show up. I have worked for the city for 24 years now. So, have a lot of history. So, I will move on from that and talk about what I'm talking about. Um so streets um so yeah I will cover streets utilities and storm water management for the preliminary plat. Um so we talked about streets quite a bit in uh the sketch plat phases the couple of times it was through both with the planning commission and with the city council um to talk through both the use of public and private streets for this development. Um, so they are proposing the extension of Creekide Lane, which is a neighborhood collector, um, running through our South Growth area. So, what that means is that there are no driveways allowed on the street. Um, this road runs through Hunterbrook and through Marsh Hollow and will eventually connect to Red Fox Drive, which will be a north south extension from Marsh Lake Road to County Road 43 as development extends to the west. So, it's a pretty important connection that we need to maintain as development extends westward. Um and then they are proposing a north south public street um highlighted here in blue and then um a stub off to the west that would continue to development as development would extend to the west um and a culde-sac up to the north. One thing I want to highlight here is that, and we will talk about this on another slide, is that this is an extension of what is a very long dead end um with the Marsh Hollow neighborhood to the east of here. Also doesn't have another connection to County Road 10 on the um south side of this development. And that is because County Road 10 has access placed on it by the county. So um we will talk about that on the next slide. But in addition to that um they are proposing a private street um through this area. So highlighted in red here um we did discuss that extensively whether it should be a public street or a private street um with the city council as well and the conclusion was reached that um they are proposing a private street in this area. Um, so it is proposed to be 24 feet wide, which is consistent with other private streets in these multif family areas that have been built in the city. Um, parking would be restricted on it. Um, and that's why they've added these guest parking stalls that Brian noted. Um, and so, uh, that's what you're seeing here. And then these two little green streets are also um private streets that would serve um these handful of homes similar to what was completed in Hunters Brook Creekide fourth edition. So um same sort of concept for these unique um environmental areas where we're trying to protect more trees um in those areas. Um so yeah, right now the way it's proposed, this is proposed to be private. So um what you're seeing here down on the south end, so when we go to this next slide, we're focusing in on the area right here um on the overall plat. Um this is a gated emergency access only connection to county road county road 10 that would be available to um emergency access only. So, it will be gated so homeowners can't suddenly start using it to sneak out to County Road 10. Um, but this was a very important um requirement that we've been working towards as we've progressed westward in this area to have a secondary emergency access um out of this area until development progresses further to the west where we will have a um dedicated access onto County Road 10. So, um, Carver County is comfortable with this and has reviewed this and provided comments that, um, they're comfortable with approving this, provided that it's for emergency access only. Um, we will need to remove this, uh, once development occurs further to the west and we have a regular full access intersection out to um, County Road 10. Um, one other thing that's worth highlighting here too is that they are um dedicating additional rightaway for County Road 10. Um, County Road 10 is planned to be expanded um in the transportation plan because we really want more construction and transportation projects because we don't have enough planned. So, more to come on that at a different date. um grading and storm water management, they are required to meet Carver County Water Management Organization rules, including wetland impact mitigation. Um so in the city of Victoria, wetlands, wetland buffers, and storm water management facilities are required to be placed on outlots that are deed to the city. Um and so the preliminary plat submitted does account for that. And then utilities are extended from Creekide Lane to the east and um need to be extended to the property boundaries. Um we've been talking about this for quite some time. Well number six has been constructed and is completed and we're continuing to work with the DNR to have permission to actually pump that. So that process is underway. We knew it was going to take a long time. Um no no reason why we aren't recommending approving the preliminary plat. Um this this property is within the area of a future search area for additional water treatment plant. Um we did discuss that and didn't identify a need to or I should say a desire to work with this developer to locate water treatment plant number two specifically on this parcel. Um but we are continuing to highlight it because as we continue to develop in this area, this is something that um we'll be looking very closely on. If um the city decides to entertain parcels to the west of here, which are technically outside of our 2030 um growth boundary, this is work that we are going to have to accelerate is figuring out where we're actually going to locate water treatment plant number two. um because we don't want to have developed all the land without accounting for that need. So we continue to highlight it so you all know it's coming. And then here I've just added some discussion points uh while the planning commission discusses this evening. These are all the same ones that were included with your packet. So, there shouldn't be any new surprises in this list, but I can keep going back to it if it would help uh move the conversation along this evening. And then looking at our public hearing requirements, we did publish it in the Wakonia Patri on June 5th. We also mailed it to property owners within 350 ft of the development boundaries. We posted it online and on the monitor at city hall. Uh as of this moment, staff have not received any comments on the request. Uh lastly, if the plane commission does decide to recommend approval, these are a list of conditions that were included in your packet. Uh a note on number three here, which requires the mitigation of street E, that hammerhead turnaround that Cara mentioned. Typically, when a development comes in, we have them mitigate streets and utilities all the way to the western boundary. Due to wetland impacts and elevations, they aren't able to do so in this case. Um, so we came up with an alternative that uh the western mitigation is not necessary unless they can get an easement or provide an escrow so that whoever develops to the west of them uh has permission or the ability to access those funds to extend the street westward in the future. Uh other than that, all these standards or all these conditions were in your packet. And with that, I have a sample motion for you on the screen this evening. and a representative from LAR is in the audience tonight. Thank you, Brian and Cara. Does the applicant wish to speak? Good evening, chair and members of the commission. My name is Josh Metzer with Lenar, Minnesota. Um, not a lot to add. Uh, Brian and Cara summarized it very well. Um, you planning commission and city council have seen this project come through a couple of times. Um, LAR, our engineer and city staff have been working uh pretty hard on this one for a little over a year now. Uh, we've kind of uh cut it up and reformed it a couple different times and we're hopeful that this is the the final uh iteration uh and hopeful that we're headed towards an approval here. Um, obviously if we stuck with it for a year, we're very interested in this property and Victoria. Um we've had a couple successful communities here um so far where um we've built through a large one already. We're about halfway through a second one. Um so by the time that one wraps up, we're hoping to have this one open for sale. Um if we proceed through approvals on schedule here, the idea would be to start grading here uh on the second half of the summer. And if we can get far enough with grading, uh try to carve in at least a small phase of street utility work so that we can uh use the winter uh to build homes and hopefully have a model ready for uh springtime. So um here for any questions that you might have. Thank you, Mr. Mezer. Uh I'll now open the public hearing. Is there anyone in chambers this evening that wishes to comment on this item? Please state your name and address. Good evening. My name is Jefferson. I'm at 5780 County Road 10. That would be in the southwest corner of the I'm the property owner. My home is in that southwest corner there. And I would just like to verify. So at this time we will remain Lake Township and we are not going to be annexed into the city and required to connect to city sewer and water. Is that correct? Ryan, I'll defer to you chair and commissioners and um Mr. Mason, that is correct. You are not being annexed as part of this development. Okay. Um, so the the temporary access point that is along the east side of my property line there, where is that gate or how is that going to be monitored coming off County Road 10? Uh, chair and commissioners, I can handle this question as well. So there will be gates on both sides. So there will be one gate on the access to 10 as well as a gate on the culdeac. So, so relatively close to County Road 10. Correct. My concern is, you know, I I'm fine. I I'm not against any of this. My concern is I live on County Road 10. Anywhere where somebody can pull off and do anything, exchange kids, you name it, they do it. And I don't want it to turn into they're driving down that access point, having a get together, and then going back out on County Road 10. Sharon, commissioners, there there will be locks with the gate as well. Our fire department is requiring Knox um locks with them. Very good. Um did I have here? So that access is just it's going to remain there. Nobody knows how long till whenever the development moves further to the west. That's correct. Okay. Yep. It will go away once we have a true public access onto County Road 10 for residents in this area. Okay. Will there be any construction traffic from start to finish of the project allowed to use that access or where is all the construction traffic going to be coming in and out of the development? Chair and commissioners, uh, we haven't finalized that yet. That's typically part of final plat in the development agreement, but I'm looking to our city engineer. I would expect that it would come through Creekide Lane and Game Farm Road onto Victoria Drive. Yeah, I would not anticipate that the county would allow construction access from there, but we would finalize that during the final plat process. So, we will know more in the next step. Okay, that's all I got. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Um, hearing no additional public uh input, commissioners, may I have a motion to close public hearing? Motion to close the public hearing. We have a motion. Is there a second? A second. Have a motion and a second. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Thank you. Motion carries and the public hearing is closed. I'll now open the floor for the planning commission to discuss. Commissioners, any questions or comments? And we do have Josh Mer here who can answer any on behalf of Lenar. Could you go back to the slide that has kind of the size based on the R1 where it is where it isn't? I'm that one. Yeah. So, and then there was one more that was talking about R1 on average was 4.71 [Music] per trying to wrap my head around this. The 5762 or 5672 it's about 1.4 acres. So that's like eight. So that is the smallest of small lots proposed, but the average would be closer to 8,000 square feet. Chair, that's correct. So they're requesting the minimum just because um that's what we have to for the lot sizes that they're proposing. That's not going to be the lot size for every single lot that they're incorporating. So a a gen or a good portion of them will be that 8,000 square foot that Mr. Metser indicated in his narrative that was supplied to us. 5672 is just the absolute bare minimum. That is the smallest of lot that would be incorporated within this neighborhood. Uh for reference uh the Hunters Brook second edition the Villa lots in that area. There are a few sizes that are also 5600 square ft in that neighborhood. Uh, so it's something that has been approved relatively recently. It's a it's a small single family villa style lot size. And then the image of kind of the renditions. These are still in many cases three car garages respective at least a couple of them. Correct. Yeah. Trying to wrap my head around those. I'm guessing it's a the third stall is a package option. Maybe it's something that's not included with every model. Uh, notably this one here is only a two stump. Yeah, the other ones have threes. Ryan, I don't recall seeing a project at preliminary plat with this many deviations and significant staff questions. Uh, my question is very high level one. Uh, are we premature? Uh it strikes me that there are so many big issues, not least the impervious issue with the DNR. Uh I I just have to ask, is this the right time for us to be reviewing this? Uh chair and commissioners, in my professional opinion, I don't think it's too soon. They we did have a lot of comments on the memo, but they're generally minimal comments. Um as we've shown tonight, we've been through several iterations. This is just the latest plan. And with each draft that comes in, we're going to have minor changes here and there. There was nothing glaringly obvious. Um that 25% one is just going to have to be a condition of approval with their PUD. Um based on the building pads that they were proposing with the lot sizes in that area, they should be able to meet 25% uh no problem. But uh I understand at first glance it does look like a lot of extreme deviations. And the council when they reviewed the sketch plan indicated that they weren't interested in making complant deviations for products that we already have in Victoria and we do have products like these. Uh is that in your opinion a showstopper? Um chair and commissioners. Unfortunately that decision is not up to me. Yeah, it's going to come down to council on Monday and if they still have that same mindset um or if they would like to see this development move forward. I don't know if I have an answer to that. Fair enough. Fair enough. Other comments, questions? Can we see the next slide on the deviations? There's one other slide on I'm sorry. I thought there was another slide on the deviations of the town homes, etc. Oh, um, that might be this portion right here that I'm circling. Uh, the deviations for the proposed twin homes. Is that what you're referencing? No, I thought there was another one that had a lot more deviations for some reason. Um, okay. Apologies. of the R1, those 50 homes, how many, again, I go back to the math, how many of them are of this size relative to again the larger ones which are more 8600 square feet. I mean, are there five of them? 10%. Yeah, if you would please come forward. Sorry, Commissioner Ree. What was the question? So, in in terms of these deviations for R1, you know, the 5672 is kind of the minimum minimum. Um, like when I was doing the math again, the 4.7 obviously there's there's, you know, the weight of them are larger than this 5672. So, I'm just trying to understand like of that those 50 single family homes, I think there's 12, you know, the larger ones in the red, how many of those are actually these smaller um because on balance, they have to be larger than that for the mean to be as high as it is. So only of those 37 in red, only three are below um 64 6,440 square feet. Okay. Um we have so the average lot size of those red lots um is 7,36 ft. The largest being 10,866. Uh the smallest being at 5,672. And the reason we asked for the 5,672, um, if we had it higher than that, we wouldn't be able to plat that lot. And again, reminder that these 56 foot wide homes are that's an area that's being regued from medium density to low density. The alternative is a row town home with a a lot that's much smaller than that. Um, currently there's 19.82 net acres of medium medium density of this these parcels guided for medium density. With the revised plan, it drops from 19.82 to 11.68 net acres of medium density. So, previous versions of this plan trying to conform to the existing land use designations which is more dense was not working. So, this is a much less dense plan that we're hopeful that it's it's um getting us closer where it needs to be. Um but the city has guided this for a mix of medium and low density. We're meeting that. This is within the um growth area for 2021 um I think it's 2021 to 2030 which is the um you know part of the city that's meant for growth in that time. So it's not premature from that perspective either. Um Brian, if if you have it, could you pull up page two of my narrative? It kind of gives you a perspective of the deviations that you were concerned about as well. Um, so this is a this is looking at Huntersbrook, Huntersbrook Creekide, Marsh Hollow, and Victoria Ridge. All recently approved residential communities in this southern growth area of the city. So everything in red is a deviation from code. Um, so you know, in our opinion, we're We're not out of line with what's been approved by the city within the last two, three years or even more recent than that. Um, we have a wider sideyard setback uh on the on all of our single family homes uh with the exception of the large executive lots in Hunters Brook Creekide. Uh lot widths went down to 51 and 55 in Marsh Hollow and Huntersbrook. We're at 56. Um, we are a tad smaller on the smallest lot size. Um, as Brian mentioned, there are some lots within Marsh Hollow that are 5,600 square f feet. Um, and lot depth. The lot depth issue is, um, we could resolve it by going back to town homes. Um, but we have we do have single family homes that will fit on a shallower lot. Um so you know that's this planet we we think works better for LAR as well because it gets us a mix of products. Uh it makes you know allows us to uh reach uh more demographics of the market with three different types of homes instead of all road town homes. So um we think it we're hopeful, you know, we know it works for us, we're hopeful that it works for the city as well. Two more. If I'm remembering correctly, we did talk about the trails kind of on the north side. So, it looks like that was accommodated. And then the parking, I remember we talked about snow management and the private road. So that's kind of been talked over by the city and kind of accommodations. Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. Thank you. I I do remember reading that page. What and um Chair Uttersteer, you did bring up architecture. Um the city has some performance standards when it comes to material types. We meet the city's standards on material types. Beyond that, there are no architectural standards in the city code. Um, I understand. You know, it's a city council has a desire for something that doesn't exist in the city. I'm I'm not quite sure what that is. It's, you know, single family homes, town homes, and twin homes. Um, you know, my comment was that the city council had indicated previously during sketch plot review that they weren't interested in comp plan deviations uh for products that we already have in the city. And we do have these sorts of products already. In fact, many LAR products are like this in the city of Victoria. So that was my question to Brian, but it really he as you rightly pointed out is really a a city council question. Sure. And the comp it's it's not necessarily a comp plan deviation. It's uh re realigning the designations on the property. This this is a tough parcel to build. I I I acknowledge that I do think that we're lowering the averages on the deviations on on the various lot dimensions quite a bit and as you point out that's probably so you can configure the the single family homes within the setbacks that we have to have from the wetland areas. But I don't know it's this is a tough one for me. I would say for me the red zone I would be okay with the variance for that or not the variance the setbacks on that just because we are maintaining more of that wetland area and preserving you know the wetlands and the natural parts of Victoria. So I feel like a lot of people that are going to be coming moving to this area they're going to be okay with you know a little bit shallower backyard but they get a beautiful view of the marsh. And you know based on some rough measurements you know between upland open space wetlands wetland buffers and the park um I estimate that 70% of the site is left for open space that will not be further developed. kind of wide one last. So the impervious is kind of 55%. thinking about it. So, it's a, you know, smaller lot, a little bit larger home, potentially three car garage park garage, which is again taking up more square footage and I think we're at 40 and some of these are the average was 55%. Is that correct? Could we go back to that slide? Yeah. More one more time. Chair and commissioner. So, kind of like how the deviations proposed for the minimum lot area and the minimum lot depth are the absolute base minimum of what a lot could be within this development that 55% is the maximum of what it could be. Uh, yes, exactly. Well, it's I mean someone it would be generally allowed 55% for any of those lots whether it's the 5600 foot wide lot or the um 10,000 square foot lot. 55% is the standard. Granted, not everyone will have the funds and capability to be able to maximize the impervious on their property. Uh but that would be a land use right granted to all of the homes within that red area if approved. Correct. And there's no way the DNR is going to with at least within the shoreland district grant deviation from the 25%. So what is the plan for that? Yeah. So the the 55% is intended for the single family homes that were in the red area. the shoreland the homes north of Creekide that's they they will be you know meeting DNR standards for impervious which is 25 within the shoreland and I think there's two lots that are allowed 35 I think Brian correct what's the average impervious of those lots you know that off top so I know you said like most of the three small ones are couple small ones are obviously 55 right so of the the single family the 56 foot wide um the um there's 37 of them. So, what I did is I took um the footprint of our largest home that would be built on those lots, it's known as the Burnham floor plan, uh added a 842 ft driveway, which is a three stall wide driveway, and assumed a 12x 20 foot deck or patio or porch combination of thereof on the rear of the home. Took that square footage and divided it by the lot size of each lot. The average is 42%. Do you have like a Are any of them going to be 25? We've got like would any of them fall within the the city's 25%. Shoreline district. What is it, Brian? What's the R R1 is 35? R1 is 35. Sorry, 35. Sorry, misspoken. So, we have One, two, three. Three. That would be under 35%. Again, it's, you know, it's due to the constraints of the site. Absolutely. It's narrow. It's shallow. Thinking about future projects that a homeowner might do. Patios, papa, larger decks, sheds, whatever. um that really could eat up a large portion of those lots at 55% allowable. Chair and Commissioner, um that is correct. I will note that decks are probably the largest and most common improvement that we see and decks are considered uh not impervious unless they have a finished patio or something underneath. Just for reference. in by allowing this it it kind of bypasses. I think we've had a couple times where we've had people want to add a add a deck after and it has become a variance. Um so I think it's good that it's thought through that that would be that footprint would be within this area. say my other comment was actually street related um specifically on Creekide Lane traffic there for what is already built. Um I'd say there's typical Minnesota drivers and they love to speed down there and there is no stop signs really. Um there's one stop sign but for the main creek side there is no stop sign. So traffic does go quite fast and my concern is going to be adding more of these houses which I think is a great idea but what are we going to be doing for traffic? How are we going to mitigate speeders? You know and there's going to be a lot of people walking in this area and if the park is confirmed a lot of kids are going to be in the area. How are we going to be protecting the pedestrians? Sure. So, um, part of the design of Creekide Lane, the reason why it's so narrow, um, was intended to help control speeds, um, and it it's pretty difficult to, um, we do what we can to engineer out bad behavior. Um, which is a challenge, but, uh, we don't use stop signs to control speeds. The city does have an adopted stop sign policy that I'd be happy to share with you um that um lays out when what conditions we implement stop signs. Um there are specific criteria for when they're implemented and then um we have specific pedestrian crossings built into the roadway. Um, that's one of the reasons why we have a lot of conversations about having pedestrian facilities on both sides of collector roads and why through the concept stage you kept hearing me um bring it up a lot and why um this current version shows the connectivity um between the two private streets in order to create a safe crosswalk um for the crossing at the what'll be the new street that doesn't have a name yet. Um but yeah, we'll have to continue to look at what the um crossings look like and how are how they're designed. But yeah, it's very difficult to for the city to control bad behavior and it is something that we've been struggling with everywhere. I had I had a few questions. Um one is just educational the private versus public streets. Um, will the city do the plowing and so forth or will they be part of an HOA or if they're private? So, for the private streets, the HOA will be responsible for the snow removal. Okay. Um, and that emergency vehicle um access gate, I mean, is that going to be with a key or how who's going to control the access? Chair and Commissioner Bean, uh, the gates and the locks were will be equipped with what's called a Knox box. It's specifically used for emergency services by our sheriff's office, our fire department. So, um they will be locked with a very special lock that can only be used in emergency situations. They can't be electrified and subject to remote um so that the first responder doesn't have to stop and get a key out. I don't know if that option has been explored in the city in the past and I'm not sure what that looks like from our cooperation with the sheriff's department if they're interested in doing something like that. I fire chief. Yeah. Um here's my analogy where we've got uh intersection 74 lights controllable by the first responder vehicle. you know, they can turn the lights green in their favor, right? And it and it automatically happens. Wouldn't it be a safer solution to say the first responder vehicle has an ability to electronically open the gate so they don't have to stop, get out, do some something? Chair and Commissioner, I I don't disagree. I just don't know if it's something that our current sheriff's department and our fire department has the capacity or ability for at the moment or the budget for at the moment. Will they have an opportunity to weigh in on the solution? Yes. So, we meet weekly with our fire department. So, we can check with them this week on that matter um before council on Monday evening if it's something that the commission agrees that you would like us to look into. That would have just been my observation. I'm not sure that um to the gentleman from LAR, I just maybe these aren't final uh product renderings, but I was curious that there's no single family I mean single level homes for us old disabled people. Correct. our uh so the single level homes that we have and that most builders have uh because you're not gaining square footage of the second level, the main level has to be larger and deeper since you're restricted to a certain width, they have to be deeper. And due to the narrow nature of this site with a creek on the west side and large wetland on the east, there's just not the depth there to be able to accommodate our our standard single level unless you made the lots wider and and less of them. But that we don't have a home that is designed that way. Okay. Um, and it's kind of top of mind. I live in Whispering Hills, um, over off of, uh, you know, Coachia on 78th, that area. Um, we've had quite a bit of problems with storm water drainage on the private properties. So the I don't know when do we address the actual grading plan to determine whe whether we've got adequate on-site property drainage, not just going into the streets, but you know between the homes and so forth and and then water, you know, how is water flowing to the wetland if that's going to be used as part of the storm water runoff? Is that when would we address that chair and commissioners? Uh at preliminary plat where we are right now in combination with evaluation at final plat and in coordination with the local watershed is where we would take a look at storm water and grading plans more closely. So u we've done the preliminary review here. They'll still have to come back with final uh which it will be reviewed again and that would be delineated in the actual development uh plan agreement. Correct. Okay. Um, and will there be a line of credit or some kind of escrow set aside for contingencies like that post buildout that if we find out that homes are settling or, you know, foundations are cracking and we've got a storm water drainage problem, there's going to be some funds to mitigate that. So, Chair, Commissioner Bean, the development agreement addresses the public improvements um that are constructed to support the development. So, that would be the public infrastructure. So, the roads, the sanitary sewer, the water system, um the public storm water system and the city does take security, so letter of credit for all of those improvements that are required. The city council approves the development agreement as part of the final plat approval as the development moves through the process. And then as Brian noted, um the detailed grading plans come in with the final plat and final construction plans that get approved by the city and by the Carver County, in this case, Carver County Water Management Organization. Okay. And as you recall, we had a substantial erosion problem in Whispering Hills. um or we we almost had immediate lakefront access from our house. Um I just hate to see that occur again, particularly when we're backing up a lot of homes to a rather substantial wetland that that we've been mindful about what that grading plan and that storm water runoff plan is going to look like. That would that's where my attention's going to go. Thank you, Commissioner. Any other questions, comments? Okay. Uh if if not, I'll ask for a motion. Brian, if you could put the motion back up. Yes. Make a motion to recommend City Council approve the requested application for West Creek Village Residential Developments. We have a motion to recommend approval. Is there a second? Second. All in favor? I I opposed. Motion carries. Um, Commissioner, that concludes our discussion items for the evening. Moving on to the miscellaneous section of our agenda. Are there any miscellaneous items from staff? Brian? Yeah. Uh, first off, a fun update. If you haven't noticed in the council chambers this evening, we do have some new artwork for the commission to vote on. I think there are some voting slips uh on the table by the entrance of the chambers over there if you would like to fill one out and provide it to me so that I can give it to our city clerk. And then secondly, our next meeting is on July 1st. We do have two sketch plats coming to that meeting. Um I know it's the weekday before a holiday, so please just let me know ahead of time if you are unable to attend. I want to make sure we have a quorum before we uh get those applications officially scheduled for the meeting. Very good. So that's July 1, if I'm not mistaken. Correct. Y very good. Thank you. Uh commissioners, any miscellaneous items? If not, that concludes our agenda for the evening. Can I ask for a motion to adjurnn? Make a motion to adjurnn. We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. A motion and a second. All in favor? I oppose. We're adjourned. Thank you all.