I call the regular meeting of the Victoria City Council to order. Please join us for the pledge of allegiance. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. The first item on our agenda this evening is announcements. We have several announcements this me this evening. On Monday, June 24th at 5:00 p.m., we'll hold our second of several council meetings to discuss Victoria's 2026 budget. This meeting will feature department overviews from directors who will highlight cost savings and operational efficiencies. All meetings of the city council, including our workshops, are open to the public and held in the council chambers at city hall unless otherwise noted. We encourage anyone wanting to attend our council meetings or workshops in person to contact our city clerk in advance. In other announcements, we invite everyone to join us for our truck rodeo on Thursday, July 17th from 5:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at the Victoria Recreation Center. It'll be in the southeast parking lot for a free fun-filled community event of exploring city, county vehicles and heavy equipment as well as local, state, and federal first responder equipment. You'll also have a chance to meet the hardworking people behind it all. We're still accepting applications for night toite. This annual event takes place on Tuesday, August 5th from 5 to 8:00 PM. Neighborhood organizers can register their parties with the city of Victoria to secure a visit from firefighters, sheriff's deputies, and members of the city council and staff. We guarantee visits to the first 20 parties that register. So, be sure to sign up early. You can find more information about Nightunite and schedule a visit on our city website at www. victorian.gov. gov. Please be aware that registration will close at the end of the day on Friday, July 25th. Don't forget to check out the city website at victorian.gov in the tab labeled community events to discover the city of Victoria community partners and an array of free public events. With that, there are no other announcements this evening and our next order of business is to adopt the final agenda. Council, can I get a motion to adopt the final agenda? Move to adopt the final agenda. >> We have a motion. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. The next item on our agenda is open forum. Open forum is the opportunity for the public to address the council on an item that is not on the agenda and not an application form that will be coming to the council at a future date. Please do not expect action from the council this evening regarding your comments. Council members may ask clarifying questions, but open forum is not intended to be a back and forth discussion. We will allow two minutes for every individual who wants to speak. We have had two individuals who have registered to speak tonight, Mr. Nick Gardino and Miss Christina Butterworth. Because the council is in receipt of emails from both Miss Mr. Gardino and Miss Butterworth regarding Bell Maple Farm, your comments are likely in regard to that project. If that's true, we want you to know you'll have an opportunity to comment during an official public hearing should this project move forward. However, since you were not informed of this policy when you registered to speak, I'm going to request um ask my council colleagues to make an exception and take your comments this evening if you're still wishing to speak because you are here this evening. So, council, is that agreeable to all of you? All right, seeing that, Mr. Gardino, should you wish to speak, please step to the podium and state your name and address for the record. And you'll have two minutes to ad um address the council. I'll ask our city clerk to set a timer, please. Mr. Gardino, welcome. >> Thank you, Mayor McMillan. Members of the council, thank you for hearing me and uh allowing me to speak tonight. Uh you are all in receipt of an email with some talking points about the Bell Maple Farm development. Uh I'd like to just cover a few points and I'd like to start by saying the neighbors are not opposed to development. And for the record, 7050 Mil Creek Lane in Celsier. I also represent Kings of Neighbors, a nonprofit uh established to further the interests of neighbors in Victoria and Chanhassen. Uh we believe that as you review the sketch plot, we'd like you to view questions that help inform a better development and is that four homes? Is that 15 like are proposed? Several things should guide that discussion and that process. At the outset, I'd like to say I do think this looks like a land grab. There's some discussion about city residents potentially having to connect to a city sewer. And if the ordinance is that your property line, and I believe I read it, if your property line's within 100 ft of a city sewer, you may be forced to connect. Uh that could be an issue for owners that can't afford a city sewer main connection. And what does that do? Are they then forced to sell their land and have that developed if they can't afford it? Uh we do have some transparency questions about when the easement through parcel 202 uh that was sold to the arburetum. uh was that fully addressed at the March 10th city council meeting that there was a development plan whether it was requested or filed with the city or not. There had been plans for about two years putting together development at that site that would benefit from that easement and I think some further discussion investigations needed there. I do think there's some prematurity to this. I think that the land sale to the arboritum not being entirely finalized the fact that they're conservation easements are not fully established. If the purpose of that land sale was conservation, should that then rest until those items are settled before that land is then built adjacent to? And I think that's a fair question. Uh whether or not the development's in harmony with the community, if you look within the city of Victoria, which I think is the purpose of the city's analysis, should be what does it look like within Victoria, the adjacent homes are all large multi-acre lots on septic. uh the harmony with the community should be the people that have been there for 15, 20, 30 years or longer and taking that into account that their expectation is development that comes in might be similar to what they have, not necessarily what's the case with the neighbors in Chanhasson. I do think that the DNR should be asked to consult for a more detailed um view of the shoreland overlay districts, creeks, and wersheds. I think that the fish and wildlife should be contacted to do a full assessment if this area is a critical habitat for the rusty path bumblebee which we know is endangered. Fish and wildlife should be consulted to evaluate whether what the risk is to that um that species. There's concern about public land benefit and should a trail connection be established. I think there's valid reason that a trail connection be established. Um who bears the cost utility easement? There is strong neighbor concern about this uh retention pond for storm water being across the street from their homes. There's four residents that'll be directly affected by that along with a roadway where headlights from cars will shine directly into at least two if not three homes that from multiple homes and that becomes a substantial concern about what happens to the value of their land with a sewer pond, a lift station and headlights coming down their street. What does that look like? And then lastly, city of Chanhassen did adopt appendix D of the state fire code and I believe Victoria is considering the same. Uh that fire code does make clear that the number of dwelling units on a single fire apparat apparatus access road should not be increased unless it's served by two roads. And I do think that provision applies both in Chanhassen and if Victoria does consider this. There are already 34 homes served by Kings Road which becomes a single access road west of the intersection with Country Oaks. And that provision may in fact bar further development of this land. >> Thank you, Mr. >> Thank you very much. >> Yeah, Miss Butterworth, if you would still wish to speak, you can step to the podium. >> She just texted her son that got out of surgery. >> Oh, okay. All right. We will see her during um public comment then if we Is there anyone else who wants to address the council on an item that is not on the agenda or not an application form coming at a future meeting? All right. Seeing none, I will move on to the rest of our agenda this evening. I'm going to recognize city manager Dana Hardy, who would like to speak. Miss Hardy, the floor is yours. >> Thank you, Madame Mayor, members of the council. Uh, this evening is fun for us again because we get to do our quarterly introductions of our newest staff members. And, uh, tonight I believe we have three who, uh, are able to be here with us this evening. Um, and the first one I'm going to Amanda, I'm going to put you on the spot. So, um, some of you might recognize Amanda. So, we are, um, excited to have her back and part of the team. And I'll let her do her brief introduction. >> Hi, welcome. >> Hi, good evening, mayor, members of the council. My name is Amanda Meyer. I'm a senior project manager with Bolton and Mink. Um, I've been in the engineering industry for about 14 years, six of which were actually with Focus Engineering here in Victoria. So, I'm excited to be back, work with the staff, get to know you all, and uh do some great work here in the city of Victoria. So, I'm excited to be back. Thank you for having me. >> Thank you, and welcome back. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. And then we have two individuals that have just joined the team for in our public works area. So, I'll have them step up and introduce themselves. >> Hi, welcome. >> Thank you. I'm Nick. I'm in the parks department. I started in May. >> Welcome. >> Thank you. >> We're glad you're here. >> Welcome. >> I'm Jason. I'm also in the parks. I've been here about five weeks, so it's going great. Thank you. >> Terrific. Thank you. It's so great to meet you all. Thank you so much for joining us. We're delighted to have you on the team. Anything else from you this evening, Miss Hardy? >> Nothing from us. >> All right. Thank you. We'll now move on to the next item on our agenda, which is the consent agenda. Items on the consent agenda are routine administrative and do not require deliberation or are housekeeping items that are required by law. They're approved with one vote unless someone requests an item to be considered separately. Miss Hardy, does staff wish to pull any consent items for separate discussion and vote this evening? >> None from staff. Madame Mayor, >> a member of the council wish to pull anything from the consent agenda or anyone in the audience this evening that wishes to pull anything from the consent agenda? Seeing none, um, may I get a motion to approve the consent agenda? >> Motion to adopt the consent agenda. >> We have a motion. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. Moving on to the regular agenda. The first item on our regular agenda 6.1 is a sketch plat for Bell Maple Farm Residential Development. Presenting on this item this evening is city planner Brian McCann. Mr. McCann, welcome. Thank you, mayor and council members. Yes, tonight we are looking at the Bell Maple Farm residential development. Uh it should be noted that the sketch plat process is just to provide feedback to the applicant. There aren't any official actions to be considered this evening. Uh so this is just to help them as they consider move forward with any preliminary plat or subsequent applications. Looking at the location and area, it's largely one parcel, uh just over 8 acres in size. Right there, you can see it highlighted with the Kings Road label. Uh there's also a quarter acre of right ofway adjacent to the site that would be considered with this development. The property is located north and east of properties that were recently transferred to the landscape arburetum. It's south of some existing private uh development within the city of Victoria boundaries. Uh to the east, sorry, not west, um is the Chanhassen border. It kind of splits the line right here at that edge of the right ofway. Everything to the east is within Chanhassen. Everything in the west in this image is in Victoria. Uh it's also in close proximity to the Lake Minnitonka Regional Trail. You can see a portion of it here in the screenshot. So it just continues down this way to the west of this area. What they are proposing for this site is 15 single family homes. For the existing conditions, the parcels are generally flat, dry, vacant land. Uh there is one existing single family home uh which you can kind of see tucked back in the woods here as well as a driveway that extends to the property just to the west. uh these properties have portions within 8,000 ft of Lake St. Joe and Lake Tamarak. So the shoreland overlay district comes into play here a little bit. So this is the sketch plat that was provided to the city for consideration this evening. You can see the 15 single family homes as well as a proposed storm water pond and lift station as well as a temporary culde-sac which would connect the existing home just to the west there with the driveway shown in orange. And then the blue lines are representations of that thousand ft line from the two lakes that I mentioned. So everything within this area is shoreland for Lake St. Joe and this portion is within 1,000 ft of Lake Tamarak. So in our comprehensive plan, this property is guided for lowdensity residential. It has been since our 2030 comprehensive plan which was developed uh about 2008 2009. Uh so for just about 20 years this has always been anticipated for lowdensity single family residential development. Uh this would require a comprehensive plan amendment based on the density that they're proposing. So right now our allowance is 2 and a/4 to six units per acre. With the 15 homes that they're proposing, they would fall under that minimum density guidance. So they would need to utilize the conservation residential district, which allows us to develop at lower density uh and still meet the metropolitan council's requirements. So, here's what the after could potentially look like for a future comprehensive plan amendment. You can see the uh shoreland overlay district coincides with that conservation residential area. Uh that's something that would potentially come forward with any future preliminary plat submittal for consideration by the council. >> Ryan, would you take a minute please and just remind me about that um shoreland overlay district? What are requirements with that? >> Yes. Uh, absolutely. So, our shoreland district requires uh larger lot areas and larger wad wi lot widths uh for our parcels. So, it's a 20,000 square ft minimum as compared to our 12,000 ft standard. So any lots that are within this green area as proposed by Norton Homes would have to either meet the minimum shoreland requirements um and receive this comprehensive plan amendment to make it viable from the metropolitan council's perspective, the DNR's perspective, and our city code. >> Thank you. So now looking at the zoning specifically, it is already zoned R1 lowdensity residential. A lot of applications that the council has seen recently have included reszonings. This is a situation where the property is already zoned. It's ready for development uh if someone were to move forward with it. Now the thing about an already zoned property is we lose some of that discretionary review that we have. If a development comes in and it meets our minimum standards, we have to approve it. Um, it gets into some legal murky water there. So, in this situation, we really need to look at what the existing bulk standards are in our code and how uh the applicant is either meeting or not meeting those standards. So in this case, the applicant is meeting all of our minimum standards for the R1 lowdensity residential district as well as the shoreland district. So that comprehensive plan amendment that I mentioned earlier is just to change the future guidance of the area to allow the metropolitan council to issue a sewer permit for development. They are meeting our minimum standards but falling below that density allowance. Before you switch that, can I ask a quick question? >> Yes. >> So, they're meeting and above our standards that we require. Um, you know, one of the things that we've been asked about by residents in the neighboring neighborhood is well, but Victoria has lower standards than Chanhassen. My understanding is is that these also meet the requirements that if this were in Chanhassen, this land, they would meet those standards as well. the highest most restrictive standards that chain has and has. >> Mayor and Council Member Roberts, that's correct. Uh their standard lowdensity residential district like ours has a 15,000 square foot minimum lot size requirement. So you can see the applicants proposing just over 15,000. They still meet that standard. Uh Chanhassen's standard is 90 ft for lot width. They're meeting that as well. Um, interestingly enough as well, if this were say land within Chanhassen, their shoreland is actually less restrictive than ours. Their shoreland uh has a minimum lot size requirement of 15,000 and 90 uh foot lot width. So less than our 20,000 and our 125 ft. So they could theoretically if it was in Chanhassen they could have put more homes because of the smaller the correct >> thank you. >> Yes. Uh looking at the architecture these are some of the products that would be proposed within this development. Their sizes for these homes range between 4,000 to 6,000 square ft. Uh, and something different with this development, since there are only 15 homes, every um, home would be a unique model. You wouldn't see the the cookie cutter, copy paste uh, types of homes that we've seen recently. Excuse me. So, looking at streets, parking, and pedestrian connections, they are proposing a public 28 foot wide street with that temporary culde-sac that I mentioned on the west end. uh with that parking would be allowed on both side of the streets which is typical for our public street and that temporary culde-sac is present uh just in case any development occurs further to the west in the future. So looking at parking, our minimum standard per our code is two enclosed spaces per unit. Based on those architectural renderings we saw on the last slide, uh they all have at least two style garages, so that requirement should be met. Can can I sorry, can I ask another question? Um so we do square foot a lot, but people talk in acres sometimes. Can you give a general like what acreage size would like is it half acre, is it a quarter, is it like what would these lots be? >> Oh yeah, sure. Um, mayor and council member Roberts. Um, so 43,560 ft is an acre. So for reference, this lot six here is 24,000 ft. That's over half an acre. Uh 15,000 ft is about a third of an acre. So generally uh you're looking at 33 to 0.5 or larger >> and and based on this rendering all of the shoreland requirements are met by the size of these lots that are laid out here because they have to be 20,000 or more. >> Yeah, correct. So everything east of this blue line and everything west of this blue line uh that are encompassed by larger than 50% of the lot within shoreland have to meet the shoreland standards. So you'll see lots 6, 1, 14, and 15 all meet the 20,000 square foot minimum as well as lot two. Any other questions on this slide? >> I was going to ask why seven didn't wasn't 20,000 square feet, but you just told me so. Thank you. >> Anticipated my question. >> Do what I can. Uh looking at landscaping and tree preservation, the uh future submitts will have to include boulevard trees if they decide to move forward. Per our code, those have to be spaced every 35 to 45 ft uh but placed 20 ft away from intersections for site clearance. They will also need to plant three trees per lot and have a minimum development open space of 50%. Uh there are some trees on the site. It's not a heavily wooded parcel, but any tree preservation uh requirements will be evaluated uh at preliminary plan. If they're proposing removals, uh they're allowed to remove 20% of the trees on site without replacement, but if they're removing more than that, they have to add more trees throughout the development to make up for it. Looking at the shoreland overlay district, as I mentioned a few times, now it's within 1,000 ft of a couple of our lakes. There's also a protected stream to the west, but in this instance, it's not really relevant because uh this property is 300 ft over 300 ft away uh from this creek bed. So, for the single family homes, what shoreland standards do they have to meet? They have to have a maximum 25% impervious, that minimum 20,000 ft lot size and 125 ft lot width. All the homes have to be placed at least 150 ft from the ordinary high water line. Each of these are 800 plus feet away. So that's not an issue here. Uh but there is also limited grading or vegetation removal activities allowed within steep slopes and bluff land. So that's something the applicant should be aware of if they decide to move forward with preliminary submitts. Looking at park dedication, what these 15 homes come out to per our code is about.7 acres or $73,500 for cash in lie of land. Uh they are not proposing any parks or trails with this development. Uh mention of that Lake Mitankka regional trail to the west uh was brought up earlier. That is not feasible because it would involve cutting through arboritum property uh which they have stayed previously. They would not want a trail running through their research area. And then there's also a private uh property owner separating this development and the arboritum land. So they would have to work with two private entities to make that work. Additionally, there are some steep slopes out there which I just mentioned with the shoreland. There's limited grading or cutting out there. uh it would go against the DNR's standards to make any sort of trail possible through that area. So the parks and recreation committee did review this at their meeting on June 16th. They were supportive of cash fee in lie of land as opposed to requiring any parks or trails with this development. Looking at grading and storm water management, this is within the Minihaha Creek wershed district. So, their rules come into play, including any wetland impacts. Um, as I mentioned before, it's pretty dry land, so there aren't any out there. Uh, but they will still review any potential applications. Also, any wetlands uh should be within buffers on outlots deed to the city. And then the storm water pond shown at the beginning should have an access uh provide within an outlet, an outlot that cannot encroach onto private property. For the site utilities, they are proposed to be extended west from the termination of interlockin here that I'm highlighting in the image on the top. Uh there is an existing 50 foot wide drainage and utility easement shown in yellow on the image on the bottom. This was coordinated with that land swap that occurred with the Minnesota landscape arburedum back in March. Um the reasoning for the exact pathway here is based on the elevations out there. This was reviewed by an engineer and determined to be the best path uh for utilities to go. An additional note is that utilities would be bored underground. There would be minimal if any surface damage to trees or existing landscaping out there. Um, part of this to get the utilities there would also involve getting additional easements from that adjacent property owner to the west. Uh, as I understand it, the applicant is currently working with the homeowner on that to facilitate getting the utilities to this area. And as part of this development, a lift station would also be necessary, which can be seen in the green on the right here towards Kings Road. that's necessary uh to get utility access to the site to make sure we can get everything up and down where it needs to go. So, I highlighted this in my presentation uh but we've received some significant feedback from the neighborhood uh over the last year regarding this development. So, the plane commission and city council only review sketchplat uh applications once they're made. So, we've had conversations with this developer since last year, a year and a half ago about. Um, and with that, the city council has not had a Sketch Plat application brought forward to them until now because that's not our standard process. We will review any proposed development multiple times with the developer before we bring it to plan commissioner, city council. We try to have the best product available for you guys uh before you have to make any determinations on them. With that, they were previously exploring Chanhassen utilities. So, back in August of 2024, uh that was brought forward to the Chanhassen City Council. They tabled it asking for some further communications with the neighborhood out in this area. So Norton Homes held a neighborhood meeting um and the neighborhood was very opposed to it. There were probably about 30 individuals there. It was brought back to the city council and they decided not to act on the utility extensions. So that left Norton Homes having to explore Victoria utilities. We informed them that there weren't any utilities there. It would likely be a while before anything occurred. Um but we recognized that need when the land swap discussion with the arburedom came up not just for development but for uh any potential groundwater contamination out in this area. All the homes off of Kings Road in Victoria area are septic and well because Chanhassen utilities were not extended to this area with previous developments. So that's why you see a lot of those larger lots. The shoreland requirement for septic and well properties is 2 acres. So that's why each of those homes is as large as they are and on private streets they didn't have utilities available to them. And I just with the land swap with the arburitum too. Um I mean in reality right like that wasn't that I mean that wasn't part of the plan right like we didn't intend that initially and then because of the highway 5 project and the rusty patch bumblebee part of that right like this became a necessity and so if it wasn't for those necessities right like utilities would never have been available so it's it's the grander scheme of the highway way five project needing space for I would get say DNR type thing right like uh uh and so because of that right so even though this was always designed as residential we didn't anticipate utilities coming until the need for this swap because of the highway 5 project mayor and council member Roberts that's correct I I want to go back a slide and highlight this kind of winding curve here uh that I'm highlighting with my cursor. So, this was planned to be a road with this development. Now, the developer at that time couldn't make the financing work to follow through with the project. Uh so, as part of the land swap with the arburitum, we had to vacate this right ofway. This was established right ofway. It's no longer there. that was our shot to get utilities to this area uh either for development or to prevent that groundwater contamination that I mentioned. So through that that was the main driver for connecting or getting that 50 foot wide drainage and utility easement. I did note in my presentation at that March 10th meeting that this could be used for development if anyone came forward, but one of the main purposes was for that water extension to those who would eventually need it. >> As long as we're talking about these utilities, I want to ask another question. So from the Chan Hassan side, it's obviously, you know, that little green area of utilities is is pretty short and um so it it it's much It's a much shorter run to get utilities from the Chan side than it is from the Victoria side. Who's paying for th who's paying for those? >> Uh, mayor, all of the infrastructure and utility improvements that are proposed with this development would fall on the applicant. Norton Homes in this case. >> Thank you. Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. So with that, as I mentioned, there was one neighborhood meeting that was conducted in Chanhassen last August. About 30 attendees came. They stated opposition uh because they were previously told that the land would be preserved open space and would never develop. There were also some concerns regarding the current status of the streets not being able to support additional traffic as well as uh these residents using their parks. But they were also opposed to Chanhassen utilities aiding Victoria development. They didn't want their tax dollars going towards uh utility improvements or Victoria vice versa. Uh then a subsequent meeting was held in Victoria at the rec center this past June. Uh approximately four attendees came. uh some of the same concerns existed such as the inadequate infrastructure in the streets and parks. Uh they also expressed some distrust in the transparency with the arboritum land swap and that utility easement. So that is why I wanted to bring that up this evening to clear some of the air on that. So the plan commission did review this at their meeting about two weeks ago. They had some questions regarding uh same questions you had regarding the timing of the utility corridor and the land swap with the arburetum. Uh they also wanted some more information on the location of the utility pathway and the viability of getting utilities to this site. They also had questions about plowing the streets during the winter. Uh if making it a private street and having an HOA maintain the uh snow plowing out in this area would be better. And then just overall they didn't seem to have any significant heartburn over this proposal. They were generally accepting of it. So with that, as I mentioned at the beginning, there's no action required tonight, but I did pose some questions for the city council to consider to drive the discussion. With that, I can answer any questions, and a representative of the application is in the audience tonight as well. >> Very good. Thank you so much, Brian. Um, does the applicant want to address the council on any issues? Please welcome and state your name for the record, please. >> Good evening, Madame Mayor and council members. My name is Pat Hiller. I'm one of the partners at Norton Homes. Um, I don't have anything more to add. Brian Brian did an excellent presentation, so I won't I'll leave that be available here to answer any questions. I also have John Molinero from Pioneer Engineering who will be the engineer for this project. He's here to answer any engineering related questions should you have any. >> Right. Thank you so much. All right. With that, council questions, comments? Um, you can see in the screen in front of us, we those are the things that we're looking to address here this evening. >> I just had a council >> member, I think a clarification question on the um Lake Minnotonka Regional Trail. You said it's just not again feasible cutting through property and with the terrain anyway. That's the main I know that's been in question. though. >> Yes. Uh, Mayor and Council Member Refe, uh, due to the elevations out there, it's a pretty significant slope. Uh, so I got it on the screen here. Here is the property that we're discussing tonight. Uh, what the neighborhood has previously requested and what the parks and recreation committee when they met last month was if a trail is viable or possible uh, to get down to the Lake Minnotonka Regional Trail. what we're talking about here. You can see the thousand foot elevation that will be uh the top of the line all the way down to 960 which is the creek bed. We're talking about a 40ft drop and then a 30 foot rise over roughly 500 600 ft. Within that as well is all shoreland overlay district area which doesn't allow any tree clearing uh very limited vegetation removal and no grading activity. So to make an engineered wall work that would be compliant with our standards while not impacting shoreland area is nearly impossible. >> Appreciate the clarification. Thank you. >> And she also say the arboritum said no to any sort of trail clearing like that through their property. >> Correct. Yep. As well as the two private property owners who likely would not want a public trail running through their yards. Okay. >> So I So I mean this this is a unique situation, right? Like so um you know I think we need to be cognizant of that, right? Like I in the four and a half years I've been doing that, I don't think we've had a situation where there's a development that you have to go through one city to get into. And I don't know if there's really many if we have any out there other like that kind of meet this situation. Um For me, it falls into kind of two buckets. There's the the houses and the lot size and then there's the Chanhassen side. And for me, you know, at I'll be honest, like I, you know, we started getting emails from residents, right? And we obviously review those carefully and and take them into consideration. And I got some of these before I started diving into the package and watching the um planning commission meeting. And I'm reading these emails and I'm thinking these lots have to be small. Like they they must be small. And then I watch the planning commission meeting and I start looking at the packet and I'm like they're they're above what we our minimums are, right? And they meet the standards that the Chanhassen neighborhoods, right, like have to meet. So, I was a little confused by that. So, when I look at the lot size, the houses, I mean, they're beautiful houses. They're unique. I I don't see any problems with that. I mean, they meet all of our requirements. I like I I don't see how we can have an issue with that. Where I do, you know, and I empathize with residents, right? Like I I I get you don't want to deal with construction. you don't want to deal with um you know more traffic. Um and so I I do and I I don't know if there's any answers, but I'm like you know I I I do think you know yes, we represent Victoria residents, but I do think we want to be good neighbors as well. Um I don't know what that means necessarily. Um, I'm wondering if you can go to the slide that shows uh the the the proposed spot and then it it showed I think kind of the road that kind of goes through the existing neighborhood. >> Yeah. Um, so the road would Right. So they'd use is it Mil Creek? is that they'd come through Mil Creek and into into the neighborhood. Correct. >> Correct. >> Is there any Well, I see that's just a roundabout. I'm like, there's no other road that could be designed or figured out that that would alleviate, I guess, some of those. I mean, I don't I'm just seeing here now like that doesn't look like that, but there's not a um Okay. Um, you know, I again I can empathize. Um, but it's hard, right, because we live in Carver County, the fastest growing county in the state. Um, you know, I we hear from people sometimes, right, that live in a a new development, and now there's a new development coming next to it. And it's like part of me is like if you know I I don't want to sound crass but like if you have a house next to an open field or a corn field or whatever at some point that's probably going to develop right and I know you know you said that you know you're not against development you just want to see it it done right. I lotwise I think it's being done right. I and I want to be a good neighbor and I think you know whether it's can the money in lie of park be used you know somewhere that you know would benefit because you know when we're building developments people here might not like it in Victoria and they may say well you know I have to deal with construction but ultimately they are getting a benefit right because we're bringing in more residents that's more tax revenue that's hopefully eventually you know, helping with people paying taxes here. You're getting all the negative more traffic coming through all this other stuff, but they're in Chanhassen and so the residents tax revenue isn't benefiting them, right? So, I I like the development. I like the houses. And again, I don't know if I like I don't have a good answer, but I'm like I do want to be cognizant a little bit of trying to be good neighbors. And I guess the uh the lift house I I mean, I know that's been brought up a few times in a few emails. I I can understand that being in a that's in a crappy location if I was being honest with I get like it's probably I don't know how far you are and stuff but like it might have to go there for engineering purposes but I could also see like is there any way we could put it at the opposite end so the existing neighborhood doesn't have to see a lift station. Um I mean those are just some of the thoughts I have. Again I like the development a lot. I think the houses look great. They're not small lots. Um, but can we be a good neighbor? Are there some little tweaks that we can do like the where the lift station is and such that can maybe ease some of the concerns of residents at Sure. >> Yeah, please. >> Madame Mayor, Council Member Roberts, um, you put the chart back up again that the pond and the lift station are at the low point in the development. So, um, what's happening is that >> the sewage is gravity draining to the east into the lift station and getting forced under pressure back over to the west. >> So, it it has to be there since that's the low spot. Unfortunately, that's that's kind of what the geography dictates. >> Yeah. Engineering. >> Any more questions on >> um >> I think that's all I have right now. >> Okay. Thank you, Council Member Roberts. Um, I think this this sketch plat meets the vision for what this how this land is guided. Um, again, it council member Roberts said it, so I won't belabor it, but beautiful buildings, large lots, very much in in character with the rest of the neighborhood. Um, you know, we do have some questions to answer as we get on further down the road with, you know, as far as um how the trails and sidewalks can work. Obviously, we aren't going to be able to connect to the regional trail, but there are some other way things that we might be able to do. Um, and then, you know, that fire fire question is a good one. Uh, you know, that's that's stuff that will I'll have to go through our fire department should this move forward. But, you know, on first blush, this is this is honestly better than what we dreamed of for this parcel. So, um, it's it meets all the requirements. They're bigger lots. They're beautiful homes. And um you know, I echo council member Robertson. We want to be a good neighbor and do everything that we can to um make sure that that happens. But um yeah, I this meets every requirement we have. >> We have I know right now, right, this is 15 homes. There's been some indication that potentially there could be up to 40 potentially I think more homes. I think 55 total. Is there I mean I do get a little concerned because that is a pretty isolated neighborhood, right? Like a that's I mean 15 isn't a ton of houses, but then now you're getting up to 50 or 55. Um what is our protocol or you know when we're talking about traffic studies and like can the roads that are currently there sustain you know really hold up to the to the that much more extra traffic. >> Mayor and council member Roberts, that's a great question. I don't think I have the answer to that. Unfortunately, I'm not a traffic engineer. uh 15 lots isn't that big from a traffic perspective. If we were talking about 150 or more, that might be a different story. I don't know what the exact threshold is. Um it's something that we internally will have to discuss with our engineers and see what's necessary. >> And I'm assuming that would also like again back to the fire thing, right? like if you have one way in and now you have that many more houses and again we're talking about the future right now 15 are in front of us so um you know that kind of will play itself out I guess so >> correct >> good anything else council member Robert >> I don't think so >> all right >> council member Person >> I'm going to try to skip over a few of these things and some of them I'm think I'm gonna have to go with Bob can you tell me more about the quarter acre easement along the eastern border That's Victoria property that's being donated or what is the story with that? >> Uh, Council Member Patterson, that is a good question. I just wanted to pull up a good image for that one. Uh, so this is that quarter acre area. Uh, our GIS actually does not have a specified designation, so we don't know if this is owned by the city. It's something that's going to have to be flushed out by the applicant as they do title work to make their project viable. Uh we're under the assumption that this is right ofway. Uh portions of that would need to be vacated if they planned on incorporating them into these lots like they're shown. Um notably this one since the storm water would be here and would already have an easement over it already. And then this portion would stay for the right of way for the culde-sac. But this uh if it does turn out to be right ofway that is owned by the city of Victoria, you would likely see an easement vacation application come forward here. >> Okay. Um some questions came up regarding sewer and the connectivity of it and the requirements within city code and ordinances. Is there do they have to join that or is that something that we can grandfather a clause in where they wouldn't have to join it? It's within 100 ft or something like that. >> Yeah, Marin Council, I I hadn't anticipated that concern, but I heard it uh in the opening comments and so I quickly looked at your code. Uh my my takeaway and Brian may have some additional info about it, but my takeaway on it is that um with respect to water service, you don't have a trigger, a requirement for connecting to water. That's not all that atypical. Uh obviously, if you're going to have a sewer connection, you have to have water, a good water supply. And so, typically those those go hand in hand. Sorry, lose my voice. Um you do have a sewer connection uh requirement in your code. And what it says as I read it um is that within one year of public facilities becoming available, properties have to connect to a newly provided sewer main. Uh where that line is about when it's available, is it available to a property or not? The the typical standard is if the sewer line is in front of you know connected to in the right ofway to a home that means the sewer is available even though the home may be set back quite a distance from the road or from the sewer line. Are you required though? Gosh, sorry. Are you required to connect if your property is not adjoining the sewer line? No. I mean the general standard is no. you're not required to seek easements from another property owner to get a connection from your property to the to the city facility. Uh and then just last point I would make is that I'm I have to confess I'm not clear again I hadn't anticipated the concern but I'm not clear about which properties we're talking about. Uh it you know the 15 lots that will be constructed will obviously all be connected to sewer as those homes are constructed. So, and I take it the existing home uh through which the sewer line will pass. That property is one that falls into that. You're now passed by a sewer you have to connect within a year. I see that that home is is impacted. I'm not sure what other homes we're talking about though if that's the only one. >> Yeah, the only Fox Hollow Drive is a private road technically in Victoria and I was curious as to if that would be forcing the I think there's two or three homes to the north of where the easement or where the sewer line would go and if that would impact them. But I would guess they're probably more than 100 ft away just using my eyeballs from >> 2,000 ft away and and photographs. But again, I'm not sure on that. >> Yeah. No, it's it's a good question. And it's, you know, this is I just say more than I have to. I mean, the fact of the matter is when you have homes that have existing septic systems that are in good shape, plenty of cities out there will make some accommodation for those homes. wait a bit until the septic is a bit older than brand new before making a a resident connect for for obvious reasons. They've made an investment in the septic system. So, cities have some latitude there and that's not uh uncommon. Of course, the state of Minnesota is pressing counties to press cities to have these kind of properties connect um you know for for reasons that are environmental and and other. So, >> thank you. So, this is sketch plat. Is am I allowed to like make a few diff different suggestions or anything like that or do I have to wait till preliminary plat? >> Council member Person, this is probably the best time to do that. >> All right. So, since council member Iansky is not here, council member Ivansky loves sidewalks on both sides of the road. So, I would maybe recommend that if you can pull that off. Um and then you know the the pond and the lift station just proper or better screening. I don't know if engineering you can do anything but if it is the low point and it's the best point. Let's try to come up with a way that it's not being it's not going to be too big of an eyesore for everybody else. Let's try to figure out a way so headlights aren't beaming into people's homes and things of that nature. And then I mean it comes down to for me the biggest concerns that fire situation. I mean we've had two developments that we've had to have temporary access points built into just in the last couple months. Um is there 36 homes within Kings Road and now we're adding 15? What is that? Do we have 51 homes now that are being serviced by one road? Is that something that we're willing to do with the city of Victoria? Do we need to communicate with Chanhassen for that? I don't know. But >> mayor, mayor and council on that one. That was the other the one that caught my ear um in the opening comments. And that you're exactly right, council member. I mean, we're just going to have to take a look at that with fire uh department, fire chief, and with uh with the building official. Um and I think you're right. There's going to need to be some comm communication with Chan Hass about that. I don't know the answer off the top of my head. I have not memorized the state building code or the state fire code. So >> yeah, >> I'd have to look at that. >> I mean, my only thoughts on it if we have to create a second road would be somehow to annex or not. That's the wrong term. I'm sorry. Purchase Box Hollow Drive and create a road that goes all the way up to Highway 7. We're talking about a massive massive situation for that. And I don't know if that's possible. Um, but those are just some of my thoughts and I'm not going to repeat the things that um, Council Person Roberts and and you sub mayor. So, >> okay. Thank you. All right. Council member Reefe, anything additional from you? >> I think it's all pretty much been said at this point. I think it it fits into the vision. Um, the uniqueness of Victoria that we want. It's just what we can do to be good neighbors. I think we all have to think about. >> Yeah. Very good. All right. This was an item for discussion and feedback purposes only. And so staff, do you need anything else further from council on this item? >> Nothing from me, Madame Mayor. >> All right. Very good. Then moving on to item 6.2. It's a sketch plat for the shores of Marsh Lake, second edition. Uh, this is another residential development. And again, uh, city planner Brian McCann, this item is yours. >> Thank you, mayor and council members. Yes, looking at another sketch plat here for the Shores of Marsh Lake second edition. This is another uh proposed residential development uh sketch plat submittal. So again, no approvals or actions taken this evening. Uh this is just to give the developer feedback as they move forward with any subsequent applications. So for the location and area, it consists of four total parcels about 42 acres in size. Uh the project area noted in blue though is only about 6 acres in size. It consists of two outlots, one unplatted large lot within Lake Township as well as one existing platted lot. You can see here with my cursor in the shores of Marsh Lake development. Uh the property, the large one, is intersected by County Road 43. It's south of or north of sorry, excuse me, south of Marsh Lake Road, but north of Marsh Lake and then west of the existing shores of Marsh Lake development. So with this, they are proposing five new platted single family homes and they're adjusting the lot line uh for this one existing single family home here. For the existing conditions, it is vacant land with some steep slopes. There are wetlands present close to Marsh Lake. There are also not any current access uh onto County Road 43 or Marsh Lake Road from this property. Uh they do have street and utilities stubbed at the end of Lakeside Drive here for or from the shores of Marsh Lake Plat and it is also in very close proximity to Marsh Lake. So, here's the sketch plat that was submitted. Uh, you can see lots one through four on the bottom here and lot one. These would be the five new lots. And then that existing lot just gets a little slimmer uh to fit in this lot one here. So, with that, they are slightly extending Lakeside Drive with a culde-sac at the very end. They also have a sidewalk shown on the north side. Uh some areas of open space are present. I'll note that outlot B here is anticipated for future rightway for County Road 43. In purple, you can see the existing right ofway. At some point, a roundabout at Marsh Lake Road and County for Road 43 is anticipated. So, outlap B uh would be some additional rightway dedication for that. Looking at our comprehensive plan, it's guided for lowdensity residential. as I highlighted before that allows 2 and a/4 to six units per acre. Uh they also have a small portion of open space in our comprehensive plan along the shoreline of Marsh Lake. With this project, they're proposing a density of 1.35 units per acre. So that also kicks in that conservation residential uh comprehensive plan amendment that I talked about in the last presentation which allows density between half a unit per acre up to two and a quarter. So what that comprehensive plan amendment would look like would be shown in the image on the bottom here. Just making that overlay adjustment in our comp plan to allow a lower density for uh environmental conditions like tree preservation, wetlands, shoreland impacts. In this case, also in our comprehensive plan, this area is outside of our 2020 to 2030 development range. So, when we're looking at this, we're going to have to consider utility impacts with those five new additional lots on our infrastructure. Um, it I spoke with Cara, the city engineer. She didn't have any um heartburn over five additional homes, but it is something that we're going to have to look into further as we consider a comprehensive plan amendment with any future applications. So, as I mentioned, a portion of this property is within Lake Township. Uh, you can see the yellow properties are already zoned planned unit development with underlying R1. All the areas that aren't are still within Lake Township, meaning if they were to be annexed, they would become agricultural zoned automatically. Um, in this instance, we're only talking about the six acres here. They are not requesting to annex the rest of this only this six acres for the development. So with that they would need to be reszoned. Uh they are requesting a planned unit development with underlying R1 similar to the shores of Marsh Lake development to the east. With that they are also proposing a residential shoreland planned unit development that also occurred with the shores of Marsh Lake. Uh what that is doing is allowing deviations to our shoreland requirements that I mentioned earlier. So that 20,000 square foot lot size and the 125 foot lot width, they're proposing to adjust those numbers to match the neighborhood to the east since this is basically an extension of that neighborhood that was previously ghost platted. So our planned unit development process is for innovative, creative and flexible development that is sensitive to environmental impacts. Uh here at the sketchplat we really just want to give feedback to the developer on the possibility of using a planned unit development. So that's what should be discussed tonight and then they would come forward at preliminary plat to finalize the details with the final ordinance occurring with final plat. So with that, here are the deviations that the applicant is proposing. A 10,000q ft lot size, a 65 ft lot width, reducing the setbacks from the front uh down from 30 to 25 ft and the side setbacks from 7 1/2 ft to or down from 10 ft to 7 1/2 ft. with that. Um, they would also be looking at modifying our impervious. So, what we have here is 33% which is our standard, but I believe in the PUB for the shores of Marsh Lake, it's actually 5,000 square ft. It's a square footage instead of a percentage. They really want to mimic exactly what was previously approved to blend the neighborhood together. So, uh, that's something in my report that should have been modified, but I forgot to do so. So, my apologies for that. And then here, the shoreland deviations. These just mimic the other two that they were previously requesting. They just also apply to our shoreland standards. >> How many proposed are in that shoreland? How many of these five units are in that shoreland district? >> All five. >> All five are. So, they're they're looking at about cutting this in half. essentially. Yes. Um it might help if I back up a slide here. So these were the lots that were approved with the shores of Marsh Lake. These were all approved under the same standards. Those are all within 1,000 ft of Marsh Lake. They were all approved with these deviations when this development came through a few years ago. just for reference and background for the council. >> What was our plan for that piece of property since it's not in our comprehensive plan at this point? What was our thought on that >> with that? Um I spoke with the developer after the planning commission meeting a few weeks ago. They wanted to incorporate these additional lots that are being presented this evening. Uh there were just some financing constraints at the time where they weren't able to complete that. Those have since been resolved. They were actually included as a ghost plat when the shores of Marsh Lake came through the first time. Ghost plat just shows what development potential is for the future. They're trying to copy what was on the ghost plat and previously shown to the council. Uh just formally going through the approval process here. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yep. So looking at the architecture, these are some of the models that exist in the shores of Marsh Lake neighborhood today. They would be mimicking that. Uh Charles Cud is presenting uh the same housing products that they did within the shores of Marsh Lake. As I mentioned, they're really trying to get everything to blend. So everything will look the exact same consistently throughout that neighborhood. So, for streets, parking, and pedestrian connections, they're proposing a public 28 foot wide street uh with a culde-sac, not temporary. Uh a connection to County Road 43 is not anticipated and would not be allowed, a public one anyway, because of its proximity to Marsh Lake Road. With this, an emergency access has been requested by our fire department. Um because routing through the neighborhood through Marsh Lake Road down through the existing neighborhood, it's a lot easier to get out there quickly in case of an emergency uh with a gated emergency access only to County Road 43. And then with that, our parking standards, uh two enclosed spaces per unit based on those renderings I showed you previously, those should be met as well. Then looking at landscaping and tree preservation, boulevard trees every 35 to 45 ft, 20 ft from intersections. Uh being along a county road here, buffers come into play. So a 25- ft buffer for lots with two frontages. So those that have uh their front yard along Lakeside Drive and their back along Marsh Lake Road should be considered for a landscape buffer with a burm. And then the ones adjacent to County Road 43 should also consider a 30-foot landscape buffer in accordance with our code. And then each home should have three trees planted. And there is a minimum open space of 50% for the development. And there are some trees present on the property. So we'll have to take a closer look at tree preservation when they move forward. Uh if they're exceeding those removal requirements without mitigation. If they do exceed those, they'll just have to plant some additional trees, likely in those open spaces or within the individual lots themselves. So, the shoreland overlay district, as I mentioned, it's entirely within 1,000 ft of the shores of Marsh Lake. Here are the same standards that I presented to you on a previous slide, highlighted in red. Uh there is also that 150 ordinary high water line setback. They are meeting that with every single lot that they are proposing. So no concerns there. And then there's also that limited grading or vegetation removal within steep slopes that the applicant will have to consider when they survey the property. So as part of their request is that residential shoreland planned unit development. What that means is they have to do what's called a tier analysis. You can see in the image on the right, I've highlighted the first tier and the second tier based on our code requirements. What this does is it designates the maximum number of housing units that can go in a development uh while deviating from the minimum standards. So with this, they came out to a total of 14 units. They're only proposing six here. So they're well under that requirement. So they are not anticipating having to submit a variance for that tier analysis. We did provide plans to the area hydraologists uh at this time. They actually did provide a response uh just as I mentioned previously that the applicant should be aware of any steep slopes or bluff land areas when they move forward with their development. So for parkland dedication, the five new additional homes come out to a little less than a quarter acre and then the cash inl $24,500. That sixth lot was already platted, so we cannot take parkland dedication on it. Again, they they received their number with the shores of Marsh Lake first edition. So we're only looking at those for those new five. Uh with this they are not proposing any parks or trails. There is an existing private park within the shores of Marsh Lake development and a trail will likely occur with any county road 43 reconstruction in the future. So uh requiring one at this time would likely be ripped out with any future improvements and wouldn't be a good use of resources here. The parks and recreation committee also looked at this at their June 16th meeting and were supportive of the cash fee in lie of land. Then for grading and storm water management, this one's also within the MCWD's jurisdiction. So they have to anticipate for wetland impact impact mitigation. uh they'll have to put any wetlands or buffers within outlots and deed them to the city and any storm water facilities should have access provided uh so that the city can go and maintain them and that cannot encroach onto private property. So for these site utilities, they would be extended from Lakeside Drive. As I mentioned, you can see the new uh utility facilities here um shown within the yellow. The city engineer requested in the attached staff review memo to the report that the extension go to the edge of County Road 43. That's because utilities are needed on the west side of County Road 43 for uh the township. there are some failing systems out there who directly need access to utilities. So that's something uh that could be anticipated in the future, but also uh we need utilities up to the property line in accordance with our code and these could also service future developments on the west side of County Road 43. So, as I mentioned, outlot B is anticipated for future rightway for County Road 43. Uh, we're not sure when this reconstruction will occur. Uh, I forgot to run that by carrot today, but it's not going to be anytime soon. I think the county has their hands full right now with all their transportation projects. So, um, additionally, Marsh Lake Road, which you can see here, is anticipated to potentially become a county road in the future. So, with the Shores of Marsh Lake first edition, some right ofway was dedicated for that future project. Uh, that's being mimicked here in this larger area in red. So, a neighborhood meeting was held at the Victoria Recreation Center on June 26th. Five attendees uh did come and comment on the plans. They had a lot of really good questions uh regarding the emergency access, annexation, county road 43, storm water, utilities, grading, setbacks, open space. Uh I think they covered all the bases. They did a really good job. And then the planning commission review, they discussed the timing as well as the ghost plat why uh this project didn't come forward with the shores of Marsh Lake first edition. Similar to the council's questions asking about emergency access if there's a possibility of having an automatic gate versus the city standard gate to prevent public use since it should be used for emergency vehicles only in the case of an emergency. also uh screening requirements for adjacent properties with those buffers that I mentioned as well as conformity with the shores of Marsh Lake PUD uh the housing architecture and then they were generally supportive of their requests. They did not have many concerns with this one. >> What was the the housing architecture? What were their comments on that? >> Uh just asking if it would match the existing neighborhood out there, which it will. So with that, as I mentioned at the beginning, there's no action required. I have some questions on the screen to drive discussion. I can answer questions and representatives of that application are in the audience as well. >> All right. Do they application applicant want to make any comments before we discuss? Please step forward and state your name for our record, please. >> Yes. John Sonic with Charles Company. Um I just want to get the one clarification. We would have had this in the original plat. Uh but the trust in of the people that own the land, it took three years to get the land moved. So that if they undid the trust immediately to do it, they would have just paid all the money to taxes, >> you know, >> understood >> in that whole otherwise this would have been part of the original project. It just took them three years to get the trust unwound in order to get the land able to be sold. >> Very good. Thank you for that explanation. I appreciate that. Um, so typically I would not be in favor of dev a deviation this large, but considering this situation which would have come first and the blending of the other neighborhood, I I would be supportive of this. So I think this sketch plat does meet our vision. Um, I think the housing products match, which is what we want. We want a nice continuity of this u from the existing to what's going to be new. And um I think those are the only comments that I would have other council members. >> I I mean I agree. I mean we basically approved this before. So um I think there was reasons for it at the time that although it may escape us right at this moment but >> I think it was right away. I think there was a huge sacrifice of right away south of Marsh Lake Road and then 43 which condensed all the lots and then you have the lake and then trying to wedge something in there economically feasible. That's what we had to do I think. >> Yeah, I'm sure that I'm sure the land dictated what we um shaking her head. Yes, >> I do have >> Mr. Sonic, you have a comment. >> He's correct. If you look at the amount of rightaway that we gave up for the future Marsh Lake Road, it was almost a third of our property. And so if that wasn't taken, we would have had much bigger lots and >> you know, it would have allowed for not having almost we might have made it without a PUB without having to give up all that right away. >> We not only took up and gave the rightway, we also took care of all the water resource needs for Marsh Lake, the future. So we took we we built the storm water ponds for the future Marsh Lake Road. We did everything to prepare for that purpose. >> Very good. Thank you, Mr. Sonic. >> Um the only question I had and I know they talked about it during the planning commission. Um would be the is it the high water? Um I think there's a slide that you have that kind of shows right like the it's is it just four that really has the issues? Uh, Mayor and Council Member Roberts, that's correct. So, four is the closest lot. This one's probably pretty close to that 150 foot line as well. Maybe 155, 160 ft. Uh, you can see that measurement highlighted here. So, from the ordinary high water line to the very back corner of this house is right on 150 ft. So I know one of the comments planning commission made right was and we've seen this recently right like oh I want to right someone moves in they sell it right they want a pool and then we're making uh I I I mean I don't know I mean I don't know if Bobby you have suggestions on that type of thing or or if there's really anything we can do about it and you just wait and if someone eventually makes a uh wants to change the ordinance right or the a variance sorry um to uh try and get a pool. I I it's I mean is that really kind of what we're just wait for it to happen type thing? >> No, Mayor Council, good question. Yeah, I guess I would just point to the fact that um uh relative to other kinds of zoning approvals. You have a fairly high degree of discretion about whether to grant a variance or not. And it's it's an overstatement to say it's always possible to deny, but it's quite usually possible to deny a variance if the council is not in favor of it. So you have a lot of control over that. >> Thank you. >> That's all I had. >> All right. Other comments for the on the sketch plat for the staff and the builders. >> My only question is Lakeside Drive. Is there sidewalk on both sides of the road or just the north side? >> Council member Person, that's a good question. Only on the one side on the north side. >> That's our standard practice. Sidewalks on one side of the road. >> Correct. That is actually a requirement of our code. Um, two sidewalks is something that we say is recommended per our code for densities over three units an acre. Here we're talking about a development that's under three units per acre and already has existing sidewalk on only one side. >> Okay. Thank you. Wanted to clarify that there's been a lot of sidewalk talk lately. >> I'm trying to help him out because he's not here tonight. >> But again, it was over three. Can you go through that requirement again so everybody >> absolutely so this this discussion for the general audience came up during a development that was over three units per acre. So that's where the city council had more discretion to require two sidewalks. Um per our code you still can do it here. It's just not as common uh because this development is less than three units per acre. >> Got it. Thank you. And my only comment would be you've got sidewalk in front of nothing and would it make sense to go all the way down to four or not? I don't know. It's probably expensive and not worth doing, but >> there's no sidewalk on the other side. >> Yeah. >> So just >> so it just it would just end at four's driveway or something like I I don't >> pushing kids in a giant park in the middle. >> Would you please step to the Sorry >> to the microphone. >> Yeah, if you look at the development as a whole, uh the park just to the east of these lots starts in the middle and it's a giant uh twoacre oval. Yeah. And it has sidewalks all the way around. So the sidewalks aren't on the uh driveway sides, but they live on the park. >> Okay. >> And so the only reason that this one actually lives in front of houses is the park doesn't quite get that far down. So then we continued it down because in the long run, could it extend down to the trail on County Road 43? Sure. And that's and so on the there's a little stub on the very east end of our development also that's the same way. We extended a sidewalk to nowhere on the east end because somewhere down the road we could have an extension of a trail on the future Marsh Lake Road. >> Thank you. >> There you go. >> Oh, okay. Thank you. So, as a in a big context, it it looks, you know, much easier to see. >> Thank you. >> I was just going off of a couple of ideas. >> They don't have to be right. And then I know the planning commission had a lot of questions regarding the gate for the um emergency access. Aren't those things just like collapsible walls that you drive right through or >> Yeah. So, um, Mayor and Council Member Patterson, I did follow up with our fire chief after that meeting, and he's stated it's not something he's ever had an interest in. Um, basically with our gates right now, if it was a real emergency, we would just knock that gate over and replace it anyway. It's a lot more expensive to do that when there's electricity running to it. So, >> thank you. >> Good point. All right. Any other comments on this sketch plat? All right. Uh, this item again was for discussion and feedback only. As staff, I think you have everything you need from the council to continue this forward. Um, and with that, there are no more items on our regular agenda this evening. So, we're going to move on to reports and emerging issues and attorney votes. You're up first. >> I don't have anything, mayor. >> Okay. Very good. Miss Hardy, next. Just real quickly, mayor and mayor and members of the council. Um, a few staff and I did attend the government finance association officers association conference and um with that we had that was in Washington DC. Um, and we did have an opportunity to meet with um, Congressman Emmer and his staff and uh, some of the things that we were talking about during our work session this evening on funding requests. uh we were able to put a plug in for um our projects. So for the city of Victoria, Carver County and the Arbor area transportation plan projects. So um we continue to thank um Congressman Emmer for his support. Um and uh we appreciate the time that he did give us. Uh it's a busy time. It was a busy time at Capitol Hill the week of July 4th. So >> very good. >> Thank you so much for representing out there. And then council, anything from council this evening? I just had a quick question >> way I don't know I think it was when I started we discussed um >> changing our ordinances I guess like or discussing about all the signs right like uh in writeaways and such is that still on the agenda to come back at some point >> yeah Miss Hardy please >> mayor council member Roberts members of the council yes we have been having conversations about signage. Um, and we as we look at our big project, our comprehensive zoning and municipal code review, um, we decided the most efficient path was to, um, bring that along or look at that in context with everything else that we were working on. And so, uh, we did get a start on it, but that's something that we have not yet brought forward. So, um, if you I I totally understand the clutter. So, if it's something that you want us to pull out and bring out separately, we are certainly happy to do that. We would just need direction from you to do that. Otherwise, the plan is to do it um as we um continue to move forward kind of right down the the line of everything in that fuller context. >> I mean, I'm fine with that. I mean, >> I think that's it is definitely on our radar. >> Very good. Thank you. Anybody else? >> Nope. >> Anybody else? >> Car show. >> Yeah. Council member Rafe, please. >> What a what an excellent first car show due to weather. I think it was our first one this year. So well attended. I was there and the city uh booths were bustling with traffic. So that was great to see. Uh well attended though. And then Omni opened up uh had a had a event Saturday. So that was also well attended. So Yeah. Uh, look for our mobile city hall at farmers markets. Um, the car shows, all the activities, the bands in the park. Our mobile city hall is out and they've got all kinds of information of things going on in the city. So, be sure and stop by and say >> that. Reminds me of another question. Sorry. Um, I did see I think there was some chance of rain the last uh uh farmers market and so I people showed up and then there was no vendors there. Um, and I know that's not us, that's the uh Victoria Business Association I think or Inky I think or Omni takes care of that, but do we communicate so that we can try and get those out on social media? I know they apologize to people who showed up and were like, "We just didn't get it out." But um I'm just curious if we try and partner with them to make sure we're getting it out on social media too so people don't show up. >> Mayor, Council Member Roberts, members of the council, excellent question. And um we actually were the only people who showed up. So um we did not know. So that that was an unusual um situation because of the rain. Vendors just assumed that the market was not happening. And so there were several that did not show and then two others had uh family emergencies. Um so that was a perfect storm. Um we do regularly communicate. It is a private market. So um Inky used to run that. Um and with their sale to Omni, um part of the discussion um that we had with them along with the Victoria Business Association, um was should the market continue and if so, who would run that and Omni stepped up to the plate to continue that market. Um so it is privately run. um and we continue to be a a partner with them and um communicate uh what they share with us out to everybody. But great question. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. >> All right, last call. All right, with that there are no more items to come before the body this evening and I am looking for a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. We stand adjourned.