Good evening. It is now 6:37 and I call this regular meeting of the Victoria City Council to order. It is our tradition to begin with the pledge of allegiance. So if you are able, we invite you to join us 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 is announcements. Uh we have a few announcements this evening. On Monday, July 14th at 5:30 during our city council workshop, our city engineer will be presenting an update on the Highway 5 improvements. All meetings of the city council, including 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. Another announcement, city offices will be closed on Friday, July 4th in observance of the holiday. With that, there are no further announcements, but we do have a proclamation um a proclamation to designate July as park and recreation month. Whereas park and recreation programs are an integral part of communities throughout this country. And whereas our parks, recreational areas, water access locations, and natural amenities is why Victoria is known as the city of lakes and parks. And our parks and recreation programs are vitally important to establishing and maintaining the quality of life in our communities, ensuring the health of all citizens, and contributing to the economic and environmental well-being of a community and region. And whereas park and recreation programs build healthy, active communities that aid in the prevention of chronic disease, provide therapeutic recreation services for those who are mentally or physically disabled, and improve the mental and emotional health of all citizens. And whereas parks and recreation programs increase a community's economic prosperity through increased property values, expansion of the local tax base, increased tourism, the attraction and retention of businesses and crime reduction. And whereas park and recreation n parks and natural recreation areas improve water quality product protect groundwater, prevent flooding, improve the quality of the air we breathe, provide vegetative buffers to development and produce habitat for wildlife. And whereas our parks and natural recreation areas ensure the ecological beauty of our community and provide a place for our children and adults to connect with nature and re and recreate outdoors. And whereas the city of Victoria recognizes the benefits derived from parks and recreation resources. Now therefore, I, Andy Refe, the city of Victoria, do hereby proclaim July 2025 to be observed as Parks and Recreation Month. The city of Victoria invites all citizens to celebrate Parks and Recreation Month and supports the efforts to promote promote parks and recreation programs in all areas of the community. All right, our next order of businesses is to adopt the final agenda. Council, is there a motion to adopt the final agenda? I'll make a motion to adopt the final agenda for this evening's meeting. Is there a second? Second. All right. All in favor? I opposed. Motion carries. Okay, we'll move to our next item, which is the open forum. Open forum is the opportunity for anyone to address the council on an item that is not on the agenda and not in 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. No one is registered to speak tonight, but is there anyone in the audience who would like 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? Anyone? Okay, seeing no one, we will now move on to the next item on our agenda, the consent agenda. Items on the consent agenda are routine administrative, do not require deliberation or housekeeping items required by law. Cons consent agenda items are approved with one vote unless someone requests an item to be considered separately. Miss Hardy, does anybody from staff wish to pull an item? None from staff, acting mayor. Thank you. Uh, councel for me, acting mayor. Okay. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to pull um an item for a separate discussion and vote? Okay. Okay. Can I get a motion for um our consent agenda? Move to approve the consent agenda. Can I get a second? Second. All in favor? I opposed. Motion carries. Okay. Now on to our first agenda item which is item 6.1 which is a variance request for 6407 Virginia Drive. Presenting this evening is associate city planner Travis Briley. Mr. Brierley, welcome. Thank you uh acting mayor and councel. Uh tonight is a variance request that has been submitted um for an allowance to go above the 25% impervious cover within the shoreland district. This is due to a rightaway easement that is going through the property that was submitted by Davis Thomas who is in the audience tonight. Just a quick background on it. The application was considered complete back in May 16th which means our 60-day rule ends on July 15th. And we did do a proper public notice in the paper as well as a mailing. When we're looking at any type of variance, uh we have to look at a couple things. One is the practical difficulties. Um which when we're looking to grant the variance, it has to be for a reasonable manner. There has to be applied to the landowner. That is due to circumstances not created by the land owner. In addition, if it's granted, it won't alter the essential character of locality. Another contributing factor that we can look at is economic considerations, but economic considerations alone do not create a practical difficulty. Another thing we look at is with our city code. Um, strict enforcement interpretation of the city code, especially uh anything that would result in practical difficulties. There's exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions that exist. And then if we do grant a variance that it won't create an adverse effect, excuse me, adverse effect upon the public. And then the other thing to look at is that granting the variance or the purpose behind it still would align with a permitted use within the zoning code. In this specific case, the re uh the request at 6407 Virginia Drive is to have a single family home built on the property. However, due to a city project back in 2010, Thornberry Curve when it was connected to Virginia Drive uh went through the property through a rightaway easement. On the left, the blackout area is the part of the property where the easement sits and then on the right is just a quick aerial view of where that road goes through to connect. The purpose of the variance is based on a building permit application that was submitted by the property owner to build a single family home which is consistent in design and size. as the adjacent properties in the neighborhood as a whole. However, to build that type of home on there, it would exceed the 25%. So, what the overall request is is that where that easement is, any hard cover that's in that easement area is not included in the overall property population. However, the square footage would still of the property would still include that. So when we do take a look at the request and the practical difficulties, we're looking at uh is it a reasonable manner building the single family home? This is an R1 zoning. That's the intent of R1 zoning. Uh the plight of the land owner uh being circumstances that they did not create. It was a previous owner which had been asked by the city um to have this rightaway ement go through to connect the road. So it was a city project. It was city-led. the road wasn't there because of the property owner directly. If the variance is granted, it wouldn't change the essential character of the community because it is a single family home that's in similar design size as the adjacent and surrounding properties. The economic considerations in here that it's still a single family home. If we did limit or included the easement area against the hard cover percentage, then the property owner would need to build a much smaller home, which would be out of place with the character of the neighborhood. With all that being said, we have to think if a varian should be granted, if there's exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, and if there's any ad adverse effects that allowing the variance to be done would create. Um and then if it's approved, if there's any other reasonable conditions for approval. But um another thing to consider in here is that the property owner upon the bill still has to meet all other city code regulations, all other building regulations, state regulations. So this is just on the one percentage that's there. Um, we do have a sample motion on the screen for u an adopt or to adopt or deny resolution 2025-39 which would allow that impervious cover that's within the easement to not be counted towards the overall impervious cover on the property as well as reducing the permit fee from the $250 fee with the $1,000 escrow down to a single dollar um for the entire permit fee cost. And with that, acting mayor and counsel, I stand for questions. I just have a quick question for you, Travis. Uh, we have a a proposed site layout, correct? Correct. Do we have an idea of what the percentage of imperous surface will be based on the proposed design? Uh, council member, the proposed use of the site um without including the street would work out to 22.2% of imperous cover for the entire site. The rideway that's there is about 4,900 square ft, which is about 14.5% of the entire site. Okay. So, if I understand what you're saying is that we really are going down to about 23% coverage. The council member, the proposed use is for the 20 about 22%. They would be allowed to be up to the 25% because when we would do the calculation on the site, we wouldn't include any of the road into that calculation. Okay. So I guess then um so that I better understand what we're saying is that we're going to slice out this piece that is the road and then we're going to apply the impervious surface calculation to the remaining to piece of the parcel. Yep. Council member to it would be to the entire parcel as a whole as if the road wasn't there is what we' use for the calculation. Okay. So, do we have an idea of what that might be in terms of are we talking that we're at 60% impervious surface? Are we um if we were to take out the roughly 4,900 square feet that exist where the easement is and you remove that from the total property size, then you'd be you'd be somewhere around the neighborhood of about 28% to 29% impervious for the entire site just because you'd be shrinking that much out of the size of the property. Okay. Thank you. Can you just explain uh why we did the road easement or I mean and maybe we don't know like but like why it was a road easement versus rightaway in the past like was there a good reason that we did that in the past and why we're changing it now. I guess council member I'm sure there's a good reason for it. Uh unfortunately through my research I wasn't able to find a very specific reason. I do know that the road was sh the road that's in the rightway. So if you look at the aerial photo, you'll see that there is right away, which still exists. But right about here, there's a dedicated wetland that's been designed. So to do the connection, it's either you shift a wetland, which is expensive to do, or you can go through an adjacent parcel with an easement. And that's what the city had chosen at that time. Thank you. Any further discussion? I I mean to me this is kind of an easy one based on the fact that this property would be below 25% if this street wasn't thrown here long ago. Um I watched the planning commission meeting. It was 22% if we don't have the road there and then it was 28 and a half or something like that with the road there. So, it's not like the home and everything that's going in there is abusing the situation. They're at the mercy of a street being put through their yard because it was easier than going through and relocating a wetland all things considered. It's probably the best option for everybody. Um I mean I think this is a classic case of when a variance should be should be offered allowed granted. All right. Seeing no more council discussion I'll ask for a motion. Motion to approve resolution number 2025-39 for a variance request of Victoria Zoning Code section 22-8D2A permitting the property at 6407 Virginia Drive, Victoria, Minnesota, 55331 to exceed the maximum of per impervious service by surface by 5,000 square feet with conditions. Is there a second? Second. All in favor? I I opposed. Motion carries. All right, moving on. Item 6.2 is to review and consider two variances for St. Victoria Catholic Church. Presenting for this evening is our city planner, Brian McCann. Mr. McCann, welcome. Thank you, acting mayor and council members. Yes, tonight we are considering two requests for variances from St. Victoria Catholic Church. uh the first one being a reduction in the front setback from 30 feet to five feet to allow additional burial plots on a property and the second variance it would be to allow an additional access for a proposed colarium from Victoria Circle. So starting out with the location and area it's seven parcels in total consisting of approximately 26 1/2 acres. They do have three existing access points from Victoria Drive or County Road 11. Um there are existing residential properties to the north and south of these sites. Church Lake is also to the west as you can see in the image on the right and Lions Park is just to the east. All of these properties are zoned and guided R1 residential which includes places of worship including cemeteries and memorial gardens as a permitted principal use. Looking at the existing conditions of the site, they do have steep slopes throughout the property. There are also some heavily wooded areas present. Uh there are some wetlands present as you can see in the colored portions in the image on the right. The existing church building does have a existing parking lot with 234 spaces as well as some additional on street parking allowed on Victoria Drive. Now all these properties because they are so close to Church Lake are within our shoreland overlay district which restricts uh the amount of tree clearing or vegetation management or grading that is allowed within bluff areas or steep slopes. And there are existing grave sites and an existing colarium on the east side of the property uh just about where my cursor is in the image. So looking at their first request for the access and the central columbarium is located here um which is about 26 ft wide. In total, from one edge of the parking circle all the way to the opposite edge, it's about 100 ft. Uh the parking on this circle would allow for up to 17 vehicles to safely get in, park, and leave the site. With this, they are also proposing an additional 250 grave sites, and they are working through a lot combination to combine those seven lots that I mentioned earlier. So for that driveway um they are proposing that single access that I mentioned highlighted in red there. And then a majority of uh funeral service users would come from the church parking lot near the actual church building and would utilize a trail which I've highlighted in blue on the southeast corner. Uh the reason for this variance request is because they have to meet ADA requirements. Um due to the slopes of the site, it's difficult to achieve a trail that would be compliant with a 5% maximum ADA compliant grade to get down to the site. So they need an additional access uh for funeral attendees who aren't able to get downstairs as shown in the image here. So looking at the practical difficulties for this access, they propose to use it in a reasonable manner. A single access on Victoria Circle is a reasonable use to an otherwise limited access area. There are also many other driveways on Victoria Circle currently for the residential homeowners out there. Then the landowner's problem is due to circumstances unique to the property, not caused by the land owner. So access spacing limitations on County Road 11 mean they can't get any additional access points there. And their access down to this area is extremely limited already based on the grades of the site. And then the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. As I mentioned, driveways already exist on Victoria Circle and they need access to meet ADA requirements for this area for construction. Looking at their second variance request for their setback, they are proposing to reduce the front setback of the principal use from 30 ft to 5T. Um, the 30foot area I've noted in red on the image on the right affects approximately 40 burial spaces. And this is 40 ft measured from the front property line. This isn't 40 or um 30 feet measured from the front property line, not 30 feet measured from the edge of the curb. So in relation to the curb, the closest var burial site if it was approved would be about 20 plus feet at the closest point from the street. Um and then no other improvements would be possible within this setback as I mentioned to some of those shoreland requirements like steep slopes, limited grading and vegetative clearing as well as some easements that exist on the property. So looking at the practical difficulties for that is it proposed to be used in a reasonable manner. They've operated the church and cemetery for over 100 years and is also a permitted use in our R1 district. Uh the circumstances are unique to the property. There are steep slopes and presence of heavily wooded areas that I mentioned within the shoreland district which limit their usable area for these improvements. And then lastly, it will not alter the essential character of the locality. As I mentioned, there are existing burial plots on the property already um within 10 ft of Victoria Drive on the east side of the site. And then lastly, uh there is an active sewer stub located on the property. So, our public works team did go out and scope this area. They discovered that there were five stubs, but the one stub that's highlighted in red shown on the image on the right does not actually connect to any existing services out there. Uh so if the city council does choose to approve the variances tonight, we have included a condition uh to coordinate removal of that sewer main from the church property. And then a public hearing was properly noticed in the newspaper, mailed to property owners, and displayed on the city website and at city hall. We did receive a lot of correspondence on this one, which was provided in the packet for you this evening. Uh plan commission initially held the public hearing and closed it and then tabled the request for further explanation until their next meeting which occurred on June 17th. And then they ended up making a recommendation to approve the access variance but deny the setback variance uh due to not meeting the unique property characteristic test since the church would still be able to construct 210 burial spaces without the variance. And then just some additional context for the council to consider. Back in 2016 an apartment was considered for this site. St. Victoria took feedback at that time from staff and incorporated it into their current design. Uh, as I mentioned, it was constructed in coordination with city staff members. Um, none who are currently present as far as I'm aware. Um, and I did meet with the neighborhood on site for a neighborhood meeting a few weeks ago, and based on the feedback that I gathered there, the neighborhood does not support any additional access uh or on-site parking for the church site. Uh, they do not want any additional traffic in their neighborhood, as I'm sure you've noticed in the uh comments that were submitted to the council this evening. and that lastly there hasn't really been any communication between the church and the neighborhood on the matter. And so what the planning commission tabled the item for to look at was the possibility of an ADA ramp. So uh a little bit of math here. The current slope of the site is about 15% which is fairly steep. We're talking about a nearly 40ft drop over 250 ft. Uh the ADA maximum slope requirement is 5%. To achieve that, there would need to be significant grading, retaining walls, and a winding path. And even then, it might not still meet the 5% ADA requirement. And then again, I mentioned that neighborhood meeting on June 10th. They're opposed to the uh access and parking for the 17 vehicles, but there was support from that meeting for a two to three designated spaces on site with an access. And then um there was also overall support for designated ADA maintenance spaces for the church on Victoria Drive. And this is a new slide that was not in the report. Uh when looking at Victoria's Circle and the potential of what could happen if both variances were denied, I measured the available parking area because parking is restricted to one side on Victoria Circle. If both variances are denied, the church could utilize that available public one side of the street parking on Victoria Circle. What that comes out to be is over,300 feet of available space, which could accommodate up to 70 vehicles um for our average parking stall length of 19 ft. So 70 vehicles on the street compared to 17 vehicles contained to the site with an access is important information that should be considered. And lastly, um based on the street width out there and on street parking, that could present challenges for our fire department as well, uh due to the width of the fire trucks. So, a few options to consider this evening. Option one being no variances. As I mentioned, uh, the church could comply with standard zoning, which would mean on street parking for Victoria Circle and, um, the closest burial sites would be within 46 ft of the curb. Option two is approving the access variance, but no setback variances as recommended by the planning commission. um that would allow their current design but their burial plots would need to be pulled back to that 46 foot mark or the alternative um approving the setback variance but not the access variance. So, uh, they would have to figure out a way to do their maintenance or their services down there, likely utilizing the parking on Victoria Circle, and then they would get that um, burial space about 21 ft from the curb. Or an option presented in your case as well is approving both both variances as proposed. I will note that with that there are conditions in place to limit parking on street on Victoria Circle for funeral services and um the removal of that sewer main that I mentioned in a previous slide. And then looking at the 60-day requirement, it was submitted on April 25th. The 60-day deadline falls on today. So, a decision must be made by the city council this evening in compliance with the 60-day review. Otherwise, the requests are automatically approved. With that, here is a list of suggested conditions of approval that were included with the case this evening. And I have three potential motions for you on the screen. Um, and I can walk through each of these if the city council would find that helpful. Otherwise, staff can stand for questions and representatives of the application are in the audience this evening. Thank you, Mr. McCann. Uh, council, and I'll open the floor for discussion around this. So, it feels like the big reason for the additional access is so that they can have ADA, so that they can get up higher, right? you drive up to the parking lot and so I mean from reading all the emails we got right so we so people know right we read the emails we got um it feels like there's a little bit of disconnect between the church and the neighborhood um because my understanding from some of the reading is that the church wants to have the parking lot, we'll call it, um, of the 17 spaces to try and appease the neighborhood, but from the sounds of it, the neighborhood would prefer that on street parking is used instead. Um, and again, my understanding from from reading all of this information is is that, you know, most of the time for these burials, not a lot of people attend, right? and it maybe takes 20 minutes or so to take up. Um, which isn't a lot of time and a lot of cars. But I think the concern that I'm hearing from residents is that that lot is going to get used for other things. Whether it be, you know, for Sunday services, for Saturday night services, for, you know, the Lions, uh, you know, we see lots of cars out for the Lions softball tournament. So, are people going to park down there for the softball tournament? Um, the car show. Uh, I I am understand the issue to make sure they're ADA compliant. Um, but it does feel like there is a lot of opportun more opportunity to for that lot to be used than just the burial services. And I guess I I hear so I the residents concerns that that road is now going to be much more used and that in the it might be better for them if it is just on street parking because it's not going to get you right. People aren't going to go necessarily go down there because they can park other places for on street parking. So, why walk up a hill um where if there's an actual parking lot, people are going to maybe want to use that for other for other uh uses. And I guess I have some concerns for the residents with that as well. Um I guess those are my initial thoughts. I probably have some more coming up, but I guess if anyone else wants to jump in, I guess um I've watched all the uh planning commission meetings, read through everything, did my own research on ADA compliance for uh cemeteries. Um, just to be blunt, I don't know if I've ever approved or allowed or went through and had a variance with this much disconnect. Um, every variance I've ever gone with in the past has been some level of support from everybody. I think ADA requirements can be met with a sidewalk to the columbarium. I don't think you need to have a street with 17 cars for parking around it. Um, I do think this changes the the nature of the of the uh neighborhood. Um, you're basically building a culde-sac off of the street itself. I know we can do that in other areas, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me in this neighborhood. Um, is there a reason why the path from the other parking lot can't be ADA compliant? Um, are there other tools to be used to make things ADA compliant? And is ADA compliancy a situation that is a uniqueness of the land? Um to me I don't think it grants or it falls into the variance aspect. I think you know the uniqueness test is not satisfied. I think that um for the colarium go ahead and build it have a cemetery all of that. I'm even okay going with the uh setback moving from 30 feet to five feet. Um I'm not in support of having a essentially a 17 car parking lot with a calarium in the middle of it um attached to the street. Those are my thoughts. Can you show I don't Maybe on the uh I don't know if there's like a a better map like you can pull up like J Exactly. because I drove back there today, right? And it I mean the hill is significant. Can you kind of show on a real world like where it's hard to tell when you're showing it on the uh in kind of this format? Yes, council member and acting mayor. I will pull up a Google Maps image of the area to show the slope. And so that's right like going up that hill there would be where the road the the driveway would go. And about how far up would the parking structure or the for a better term parking lot I guess? Um council member I I don't believe I measured that. If I had to guess, it would probably be close to 80 to 100 ft out based on the looks of it because this is 100 ft wide. Uh it's probably relatively close to that distance. Um so imagine basically just past this electric pole here. This would be the location of the columbarium. You said 80 to 100 ft out. Yeah. Yeah, to me I I agree with Council Member Patterson. I I I I agree. I don't think I I do think it changes the street, the neighborhood. um you know that didn't look that it's hard to tell obviously on an image but it did seem like there'd be ways where if you're parking on the street that you might be able to get you know have ADA compliance going from the bottom versus the top top obviously we're not engineers we don't know but um I I I'm leaning with Council Member Patterson on on the parking structure uh in uh access uh part of it. I guess I would disagree on the uh the easement for or sorry the not easement the um request to change the setback from 30 to to 5t. Um they're already adding how many is it 200 and some burial sites they have the ability to um I would guess I would I would side with what planning commission determined, right, was, you know, maybe that's something better to come back at a later date um when it's needed because it does not seem like if you have a potential for 200 and some burial sites now that that's not something that's going to be needed for a while. So why make that decision now? Is there anything within that setback other than the stubs that we need to worry about? Uh there is a 10-foot drainage and utility easement in the front yard. So uh those would have to be vacated as it gets closer to that area. But other than that, no. Could we approve a smaller setback? Instead of five, maybe it's 15 or is that within our power or not? I don't know. I'm gonna as far as I understand that is a possibility. you wanted to change the setback from 30 feet to 15 feet. Yeah. So, acting mayor, um, council members, you you know, you're doing a good job, I think, of applying the facts as you understand them from the planning commission. Obviously, a lot of input you've seen through the planning commission. You're applying those to the legal standard for a variance. So, you're you're you're doing well. uh and yes the answer is that you can grant a variance that is less than more than I don't know how to say that but different than the requested variance if you find that a smaller for example a smaller setback variance is justified by the facts but the full requested variance isn't justified by the facts you can grant the smaller you know the 15t setback instead of only five feet you can you can do that yeah to avoid utility easement issues down the road or whatever happens. Um, the path, how does the path get from the parking lot to the columbarium? I mean, I'll say this to council. I mean, this almost to me feels like a rough draft. It's like this feels like a sketch plat to me, to use a planning commission term. It feels like this is a good start and it feels like we need to add input and come up with different things to to go through this and I know staff has worked with them on it but I just feel like adding this and granting all of the you know two variances right off the bat for something that doesn't feel complete um would be a challenge for me. Anyway, back to the path. How does this work? I mean sure. Um, acting mayor and council members. So, here is a overall sketch of their proposed improvements. So, here's the parking circle, the colarium. Here's the path starting with steps uh going all the way up weaving through property to connect to the existing church property. I can pull up Ariel approximately here to connect to their existing walking path behind the the church. Okay. I thought there was an establishment of a different path, but okay. Sorry. Thank you for clarifying that. Council, any other comments, questions? Yeah, I'll I'll jump in. I share council member Ederson's view that what um we've seen after reviewing both the public input the uh tableabling of the planning commission the planning commission review what we have here. Um this this does feel as though this is not uh as succinct as this could be in terms of bringing forth the um justification for the variance as proposed. The the the church is definitely has a cemetery if we want to be a little bit blunt about it. they're in the business of providing burial services and plots and things like that. And um I don't feel like we have the information in front of us to determine um if we're starting to wiggle around what was applied for in terms of setbacks um and in terms of like you know for for lack of a better expression business loss of what does it mean to remove 40 grave sites? uh of the 250 that were proposed removing 40 represent 16% of what the proposal was. I don't think we have a good view on how much that economically means and does that economics test that we would use as a finding effect to say that we've we've satisfied this. Um you know there's there's other things to take into consideration. For instance, if we look at the overall size that property has for a cemetery, is this significant? Is it not? So, uh on the other hand, the um this is private property, so the concerns about people inappropriately parking there can be dealt with. um the you know beyond signage I think that we've heard that there is a reticence to do anything like a gate and I I understand that reticence of maintaining it and keeping people out. Uh I also understand that you know that there's been brought up that you know the neighborhood likes to see people biking through there in in some respects this could be um hey maybe I want to bike in here and then the next thing you know we have an intrusion into um bereavement services that would be fi. So, um I I feel as though we've got a little bit more homework to do on this from um where we what's put before us today. Miss Hardy, any comments on your end? I don't have any comments. Thank you, acting mayor. You know, before I ask for a motion on this, um, I'd like to note for public record that I am a member of, uh, St. Victoria Catholic Church, and while legally I'm not required to recuse myself from this vote, I will be recusing myself, um, for transparency reasons. Um, with that, council, if there was no further discussion on this, I'll entertain a motion. I guess I'll make a motion. Uh, I will make a motion to deny the resolution approving two variance requests for V St. Victoria Catholic Church at 8228 Victoria Drive. Um, stating that it did not meet the uniqueness test uh due to available on street parking. Also for the setback did not meet the uniqueness test as the church can still have over 200 burial plots without the variance. Can I get a second? I'll second. All in favor? I I I opposed. Motion carries. Um, next is item 6.3, which is to consider a conditional use permit amendment and site plan and building materials review for quick trip. Uh, presenting is Mr. McCann. Uh, welcome back, Mr. McCann. Thank you, acting mayor and council members. Uh, tonight we have two requests in front of us from Quick Trip. First one being for final approval of their site plan and building materials application and then secondly being an amendment to their conditional use permit to allow dynamic display signage. As you're all aware at this point, the location and area is approximately um one parcel on the northeast corner about four acres in size. The total parcel area is about 48, but the specific area we're talking about is only 4 acres. They are proposing a 9100 square foot convenience store with gas pumps and a car wash. It's located right off of County Road 11, uh, north of County Road 10, but also south of the Railroad and the Victoria Ridge development. The existing site conditions for those four acres, it is vacant farm fields. Uh you may have seen some grading going on out in the area. They did receive preliminary grading approval. So they're getting started on the work out there in preparation for the quick trip site. There were not any trees on this parcel prior to grading. Um, and then there is a 125- ft wide power line easement, which I'm sure you remember from past meetings that a portion of the road will go through this easement, but the structure in the parking lot for the quick trip will not on Ridge View Boulevard here and another on Crossings Parkway. They would also be able to get into the site from County Road 11 with a full access here. Uh they have 10 gas pumps proposed and a single lane car wash on the north side of the building. Looking at their parking, they do meet the minimum requirements based on our code for retail stores and service establishments. That would require 33 parking spaces. They're proposing 63 for the entire site. Uh all of those drive aisles and spacing requirements for those parking stalls meet our minimum standards as well. Looking at pedestrian connections, they are proposing sidewalks along Ridge View Boulevard and Crossings Parkway highlighted in blue. Uh they also have a sidewalk connection from Ridge View Boulevard to get to the gas station building um highlighted in red. And then a future trail will also be constructed as part of County Road 11 improvements highlight in green on the right side of the screen. They did provide architectural renderings of what the structure will look like. It's your typical quick trip and quick trip gas station canopy. All of the materials that would be constructing for the building do meet our minimum design requirements for our commercial district. And then looking at lighting, they are proposing street lights, building lights, and gas station pump lights. They also provide a rendering on the image on the screen showing how the entire site will be illuminated while providing minimal impacts to adjacent traffic or uh residents of the apartment building that will be constructed just to the north. Looking at their signage, also pretty standard for Quick Trip. They're proposing two wall signs shown in the image at the top. They will also have an LED stripe with the QuickTrip logo on their gas station canopy as well as some directional signage and parking signage. Then lastly, they are proposing a um freestanding sign here displaying their gas prices as well as some of their promotional materials. This is what requires the conditional use permit amendment for our code. Any illuminated signage for commercial uses requires a conditional use permit. That was not uh discussed when we went through the gas station or gas pump and car wash accessory uses for conditional uses. Um so they are applying for that now this evening to include it with their already approved conditional use permit. based on the renderings that were provided, it does meet all of our sign regulations um except for requiring that conditional use permit and also complies with our general conditional use permit standards. So, our plan commission did hold a public hearing at their meeting on June 17th, which was properly noticed. The city did not receive any comments on the application. Uh the plane commission just had some general questions about the height and intent of the signage and they did recommend unanimous approval of the requests. So here are some conditions that were incorporated in the resolution that you will be considering this evening. Uh these resol or these conditions are in addition to the conditional use standards that were already approved with the gas pumps and the car wash. And then lastly, here are two motions for the city council to consider this evening. The first one being for the site plan request and the second for the conditional use permit amendment. With that, staff can stand for questions and a representative of the application is in the audience tonight. Thank you, Mr. McCann. Council, I will now open up for uh discussion and comment. I just have one quick question just with our sign ordinance. Is there any sort of like lumen display limits that we have and I'm assuming with this conditional use permit they're hitting that or below. I I I know we were going through new sign signage um ordinances. So is am I assuming everything correctly? Council member correct. Yes. Good. I just had a question on the lighting in general. Um, I think you brought up minimal impact to the neighborhood and the highway and things like that. Can you describe that a little further? Thank you. Good evening, Councilman and uh, mayor or interim mayor, I guess. Um, the lighting is all LED on our site. So, and the other part of that LED is that it sits up in the canopy or in the fascia. So, when you're looking directly at the building, you're not going to see a light bulb. It's going to be up and in both canopies. So, that is why we can have minimal impact is because it actually sits up and in. And it's LED. So, it's not a typical fluorescent. And it does we follow um very closely the lead standards for lighting and so um we technically meet that requirement and always try and meet whatever the city code is. Excellent. Thank you. I have a quick question for you on the dynamic display. Yes. So I'm drawing particular attention to where it says Karuba coffee. Correct. Um that part will frequently refresh. It might be Karuba coffee one moment, the next might be um three tacos for 35 cents. Wishful thinking, right? 29 cents a pound for bananas. Okay. So, and in an area where you're going to have sight lines along the street um and there there might be James other similarly situated businesses, grocery stores, etc. um that dynamic display is probably not something that is controversial. However, on the other side of the property to the north will be an apartment building. Uh that is we four columns are would quickrip be amendable to having the dynamic display sort of frozen after a certain time of night. So, yes, you could advertise Kura coffee from 10:00 at night till 6:00 in the morning and that would be fixed, but then at 6:00 a.m. you could be bananas, tacos, the you know the the rolling thringers that just bake for 17 hours straight. Um, can can we bring that to Yes, I would bring that I would bring that forward. Um, Brian, is there a standard on dynamic displays of how many seconds? Um, they typically also do or don't change. I believe it's eight. 8 seconds. But we would be I know we would be opening open to leaving it static from 1000 p.m. to 5 or 6 a.m. when traffic starts to roll again. Great. Thank you for that. Absolutely. Thank you. Question. Thank you. Any comments, questions? Seeing no more discussion, this item requires two separate motions. Council, is there a motion? Move to adopt the resolution approving a site plan building materials request for quick trip. Second. All in favor? I opposed. Council, can I get a motion? Motion to adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit amendment for Quick Trip. Do Do we need to say anything about Yeah, I I would right now as we stand on on your motion, I would not. I I would propose that we amend and make a condition of this that the dynamic display would be frozen. Conditions discussed at the meeting. Yeah. Or do I have to be specific? Yeah, acting mayor counsel, I think it's pretty typical for staff to sort of write that for you. We I think we get the concept that you're talking about. So, if you want to make a motion incorporating that discussion, staff will write it up. Motion to adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit amendment for Quick Trip with conditions discussed at today's meeting. Can I get a second? Second. All in favor? I opposed. Motion carries. Our next item is item 6.4, four, which is to consider a prel pre preliminary P plat, excuse me, annexation comprehensive plan amendment and preliminary PUD resoning for West Creek Village Residential Development. Returning is uh Brian McCann. Mr. McCann. Thank you, acting mayor and council members. Uh we have four requests this evening from LAR for the West Creek Village residential development. Uh we are at the preliminary plat phase where all the detailed applications and more of the focus city review is conducted also where their major entitlements are granted such as any conditional use permits or variances if those were part of their application requests. So looking at this uh this project has gone through two different sketch plat reviews. The first one being in July and August of last year. That first proposal, if you recall, was for 148 town homes and 13 single family homes. Uh their revised sketch plat has a bit more of the mix of product types, including single family, twin homes, and town homes. That one was reviewed more recently, just this past March, by the council. So, their four applications this evening include their preliminary plat, a comprehensive plan amendment to change the future land use designation areas uh located on the two parcels for consideration as well as preliminary PUD reszoning and an annexation request. Looking at the location and area, as I mentioned, it's two parcels about 89 acres in size located near our south growth area. It is just north of County Road 10, Angler Boulevard. It's west of the existing Marsh Hollow development and it is south of the Marsh Lake Hunting Club. So with this, they are proposing 50 single family, 56 town homes. The existing conditions of the site, it is a generally flat vacant uh farmland. There are some wetlands noted on the screen there throughout the site and a portion of the West Chesca Creek runs through the north side of the property. Here's the preliminary plat that was submitted and included in your packet this evening. Uh the area in yellow is the area mostly impacted by the Shoreland Overlay District with that uh creek running through the north side. In the red are the proposed 56- foot wide single family homes. And then in the green areas where the medium density products are with the proposed 56 town homes and 18 twin homes. Looking at our comprehensive plan, it's currently guided for a blend of lowdensity and medium density residential with some areas of open space and a very very small pocket of commercial down at the south side of the site across the railroad tracks. Um, a comprehensive plan amendment is required and there is a resolution for consideration in your packet this evening. It's worth noting that that would require a supermajority vote. Since we only have four council members, we would need four votes to approve that resolution this evening. What that resolution would do is alter the low and medium density areas on our future land use map while also changing a portion for those 13 single family homes to comply with our conservation residential district, allowing a lower density area. And then just changing this portion of commercial to open space because it's impacted by wetlands. It's not really usable commercial area. Looking at our density for the site, our existing citywide density right now is just under three and a half units per acre. With these proposed density adjustments, staff calculated it out to be um a.11 reduction in our overall density for the city. As you may recall, right now our 2040 requirement is three units per acre. So, we're still safe there. uh with our 2050 requirement, this would get us a little bit further away from that threshold, but we do have a lot of medium density guided areas throughout the city um that could be incorporated with future developments to get that number back up. Looking at the actual density breakdown of the product types for that conservation residential district, that would allow uh half a unit per acre up to two and a quarter. they would fall within that guidance at 1.1 units per acre. For the remaining single family areas, uh allowing two and a quarter to six units per acre, they'd be at 4.71. And then for the twin homes and town homes, the range being 6 to 12 units per acre, they would be at 7.14 for those units. So what that actually looks like when you're adjusting the map, I tried to prepare an exhibit here included in the resolution to show that a small portion of low density would be guided to medium here. Uh the east side adjacent to the wetlands would be guided to low density and then that conservation residential pocket up on the north side uh adjacent to that creek. Looking at annexation and reszoning. It's currently within Lake Township, so it does not have a current zoning designation. When an annexation occurs, it automatically becomes agricultural zoned. Uh the township did approve the annexation request. So now it's just up to the city council. There's another resolution in your packet this evening to uh consider the annexation request. Um after that, we go off to the state for final approval. looking at their proposed reszoning from agriculture though they'd be looking at PUD with underlying R1 for the single family and then PUD with underlying R3 for the twin homes and town homes. Uh resonings are required for all of those that I just mentioned uh which are discretionary items. And then included in this slide as always uh our planned unit development process. Just a reminder that's to allow development that is sensitive to environmental, cultural and economic considerations. Uh and at preliminary plat is where we really start to look at and consider the details of this development moving forward. So looking at the deviations that they are proposing for the R1 single family, it's worth noting that these are just minimum requirements. These will not apply to every single lot. I think the minimum lot area proposed for 5,672 square feet actually only applies to a couple of the lots proposed. I think the average is more so around 7,800 square ft. Um, looking at the other requirements, um, they're also asking for reductions in lot width, depth, as well as our front and rear setbacks. Notably, the rear setback for those lots adjacent to the wetlands on the east side. Um, we want to allow improvements in rear yards without impacting homeowners. We don't want a bunch of deck variances coming in requesting that setback. We want to try to get ahead of the game on that and incorporate a slightly reduced setback here so that people can have improvements to their home in the future. Then looking at a reduction in side setbacks and an increase for those lots outside of shoreland up to 55% for maximum impervious. And then the non-shoreland areas will meet the minimum shoreland requirements which I'll cover later. And then for the R3 twin home proposal, they're requesting a reduction in the minimum lot area and the minimum lot width which you can see there. And then town homes would meet all of the requirements except they are proposing to increase the impervious in our R3 district for town homes from 75% to 80%. So not a large increase there, but also a deviation that should be noted. So, looking at how this compares to other recently approved developments in the city, looking at Marsh Hollow and Hunterbrook specifically, two of our recent developments within the last few years here, you can see a lot of deviations were also approved for those. Some of them are the same, such as the front and rear setbacks. Some of them are actually more like the side setbacks and impervious surfacing. Um, and then some of them aren't as big, but still deviations such as the minimum lot area. Then looking at twin homes. So, there weren't any existing or recent twin home products to look at to compare these two deviations. So, that table remains unchanged. But looking at town homes, uh specifically the Marsh Hollow development town homes and the Victoria Ridge development town homes, both of those were approved at 95%. So that 80% uh proposal in comparison is relatively minimal. So some considerations for the city council tonight. Reszonings and PVDs are discretional. As I mentioned, the applicant is also proposing a trail connection to the Marsh Hollow neighborhood to the east as well as sidewalks on both sides within the town home area. Their proposed development also prop provides various housing products that the city council last desired when they were reviewing the sketch plat with 10 different single family product types, twin homes and town homes. um meeting that 6 to 12 unit per acre density without falling below that threshold. And then looking at their proposed PUB standards, as I mentioned, they won't apply to every lot. Only three of those single family lots are proposed less than 7,000 square ft. Um some additional guest parking is also proposed within the town home area and they incorporate some or most of these standards in some of our recent developments such as Marsh Hollow and Huntersbrook. So looking at some of the single family architectural renderings that were provided, these would meet all of our minimum design requirements in our zoning code. And then for reference on what the actual product type would look on the ground in a neighborhood, Lenard did provide some images of some of their existing neighborhoods and how finished neighborhoods look with some of these products. Moving on to the acreage lots. Those are those shoreland lots. Um there are some renderings provided here to show what those would look like. These would also meet our requirements. And then there is a public culdeac on the north side of Creekide Lane proposed with this development. Uh that would be these products seen in the right here. Then here is a rendering of what the twin homes would look like. And again for reference just what a neighborhood would look like if these twin homes were developed uh similar to how the applicant is proposing this evening. Then moving on to the town homes. These are the different architectural elevations that were provided to show some of their different designs for their row town homes and how these would look in a neighborhood as well. Looking at lighting and signage, they are proposing various street lights highlighted in red on the image on the right at various intersections as long as as well as along pedestrian connections, sidewalks, trails, things like that uh to provide visibility. And then they also are proposing a monument sign for the southwest corner of Creekide Lane and Street D. Uh we will take a closer look at that at the building permit phase to make sure it's outside of easements. It meets height, illumination, all our signage requirements. Then looking at parking, our minimum code standards say two enclosed spaces per unit for single family products and two spaces with at least two enclosed for half of the units and one enclosed space for the remainder. So that comes out to about one and a half enclosed spaces for every two town homes. Based on the renderings that were just shown, they should be meeting all those requirements. Every single one of those products had at least two garage stalls. Uh they are also uh showing parking limited to one side highlighted in the blue along street D and street E here. But with that they are also proposing 31 guest parking stalls highlighted in red in the mi image on the right. That's a additional incorporation by the applicant that is not a requirement that we currently have in our code. Based on all that, all of our minimum parking standards should be met. Looking at pedestrian connections, they are proposing a 8-ft trail highlighted in green along the south side of Creekide Lane. They're also proposing a 6 foot wide sidewalk connection between one of the private drives and the public culdesac. They're also showing six-foot sidewalks throughout the remainder of the development, including those sidewalks on both sides in the town home area, kind of wrapping around uh the storm water ponds, the proposed park area, and some of the town homes and guest parking stalls. Looking at their landscaping, all the requirements are generally met, including our boulevard spacing requirements, the number of plantings per R1 lot and per R3 standards. uh they are not required to incorporate any buffers so none are proposed but they did provide additional plantings in some of those heavily traffked areas uh such as along Creek Side Lane for the backside of some town homes. Um they are also meeting the minimum 50% open space requirement for the R1 and the 25% for the R3. and they did indicate on the plans that foundation plantings will be incorporated for the town home and twin home products. Looking at tree preservation, they would need to comply with our um removal threshold of 20% without replacement or if they exceed that, which they're proposing to do in this case, they have to make up those lost inches with additional plantings on the development. So, they're proposing 789 in of replacement trees, which comes out to be about 316 trees meeting our minimum size standard. Looking at the shoreland overlay, as I mentioned, some of those lots are within 300 ft of West Chesca Creek. So, those standards, they have to meet a minimum 75- ft lot width. All the images high or all the lots highlighted in yellow do meet that minimum width requirement for lots adjacent to tributaries and each of those lots will also have a 25% maximum impervious. There was a exhibit included in the submitts that showed an averaging of the entire wetland area or shoreland area and 25% of that that's that's not how it works. It's been communicated to the developers. So, they'll have to incorporate that with future submills. That's 25 per lot, not a 25% average of the area. Looking at park dedication, uh their requirement, they would need to dedicate about 4.3 acres or a cash fee in lie of about 452,000. They are proposing some segments of 8-foot trails along Creekide Lane and that connection to Marsh Hollow that I mentioned as well as a quarter acre park. Um most if not all of those areas would be allowed to be a reduction in their required parkland dedication. It wouldn't satisfy the amount fully uh but it would certainly help with their maximum contribution amounts. And the parks and recreation committee did review this development uh twice. In both cases, they were supportive of the cash fee in lie of land. I will pass it over to Cara for a little bit. Gar. Good evening, acting mayor, members of the city council. I don't know why I always want to use that instead. Um, so I'm going to um touch base on streets, utilities, and storm water management. um primarily focusing on streets since this was a topic we covered quite a bit um when this came through twice I think for sketch plat review. So um shown on the graphic here is where the applicant landed um through many discussions with city staff related to public streets versus private streets. So the um blueish purple blue streets are all public. So, Creekide Lane, which is um a neighborhood collector through our south growth area um that runs through Marsh Hollow, would continue through the site. And that because it's a collector, no um driveways are allowed on that roadway. That will eventually connect into what will be Red Fox Drive, which will extend from Marsh Lake Road down to kind of road 10. Um and then one private culdesac to the north and then two public culdesac to the north and then two private streets um serving these lots up here and then um the area that we had discussed quite a lot was um this area over here. So they are proposing a private street um in this location and I would describe where we landed to be similar to what is proposed and being constructed in the Victoria Ridge neighborhood. So, um, just south of the tracks. So, this is proposed as a private street with a similar footprint, a 24 foot wide street. We went that route. If you recall from the discussion we had with the council at the sketch plat phase, um, this results in a street that will have a different look and feel than the rest of the public streets. Um the development agreement language that was adopted and included in the Victoria Ridge development has been provided to the applicant um to be included in the development agreement for this project. Um that includes language about their them being responsible for um uh in addition to snow removal and the typical things that they would be responsible for. they would be responsible for the sanitary sewer and water services from the unit out to the main. Um, that was an area we had talked about where we were running into some of the issues in our other private street situations where we'd have a leak at the curb stop and you're trying to make repairs to a curb stop um in an area that you're starting to get into people's front yard that was creating some challenges in the Whispering Hills neighborhood. So, that's how we resolved it in the Victoria Ridge neighborhood. And then the development agreement includes language about um them needing to provide information about them planning for the replacement for that private street maintenance and replacement of the pavement itself over time. So that language has been provided to LAR and did not raise any concerns. Um, additionally then with the Red Street area, um, the their association will provide for the snow removal, which eliminates that circumstance that we were concerned about with the type of units here where you'll have what where you would have a the city plow truck coming through at a different time than the contractor who's doing the snow removal for the driveway is creating that challenge for the folks who live there trying to get out uh for work in the morning. So we staff does do feel like um in this particular circumstance this is consistent with what was done in Victoria Ridge and so um the preliminary plat that was submitted does did show this as a private street. So did want to highlight that in particular for the city council since we had talked about it quite a bit. Um okay moving on from there access to Highway 10. We did talk about this previously um back over here. So on the south end of this culde-sac, they are um showing an emergency gated access only to County Road 10 um because we don't have a full access to County Road 10 yet. Um we aren't allowed to have one in this location because we're too close to the railroad tracks. Um but the county has agreed to allow this um connection here for emergency access. Once we have development continue to the west and we have access, this emergency connection will go away. Um but this will be gated and um the people who will have access to it will be emergency services only. So we won't have you know residents trying to drive in and out through here. And then gradient and storm water management typical need to meet uh Carver County WMO rules in this case and wetlands wetland buffers and storm water facilities um are on outlots deed to the city which is our typical practice. Utilities are being extended from Creekide Lane. We have our usual comment on well number six. The well is complete. We're still working through permitting with the DNR. Um if it keeps raining that helps our case. So, but now it's hot. So, we'll see. Um we did note this previously as a future search area for an additional water treatment plant. We did conclude that we don't want to locate it on this particular property. Um, if the city council and the city starts to consider development to the west of here, if this preliminary plaque gets approved, the parcel to the west of here is outside of our 2030 boundary. You saw a sketch plaque for that parcel some number of months ago. But if this project moves forward and we start to consider development west of here, we are going to have to um start to pin down a location for that treatment plant before we um proceed within beyond our 2030 boundary. So with that, here are some considerations to help guide discussion this evening if need be. These questions were incorporated with your council packet just for you to consider beforehand. These questions can also be available to ask staff or the applicant. Uh looking at the public hearing and planning commission meeting that occurred last week, it was properly noticed. We did have one individual that showed up that had some general questions about how this development could impact their property regarding uh that emergency gated access because they're adjacent to that area. Um, and then the planning commission did discuss the proposed density and product types of the development as well as future traffic impacts and drainage impacts that are potential. Um, they did end up recommending unanimous approval of the requests with that. If the city council does decide to follow uh planning commission's recommendation and approve all the applications, there are some suggested conditions on the screen that were included in your packet. Um with that, I do have some sample motions for you on the screen. We will need three separate motions. The first one being for the preliminary plat and preliminary PUD, the second for the annexation, and the third for the comprehensive plan amendment. And remember that requires a approving vote from all four of you. And with that, staff can stand for questions. And a representative from LAR is in the audience this evening. Thank you, Miss Mr. McCann and Miss Garren. Appreciate that. Um, council, I'll open it up for discussion. I'd only make one comment and that um with respect to the the 60 homes that are on the wetland, um that's a lot of homes that have no sidewalk on that side. And so for anybody who wants to get anywhere and be a walkable part of this neighborhood, they're going to have to cross the street and use the sidewalk on the other side, which is shared by, you know, an equally large number of homes as well. Um, I would be supportive of having the developer put sidewalk along what looks like street D. Uh, to So to have a continuous sidewalk through that side. So somebody so they could be along creek side and be able to use their property to exit the neighborhood without having to go across the street through traffic and across the street again across the street again. So that would be a recommendation that I would continue. Can you put your cursor over street D again? I just want to make sure. Yep. Okay. Yeah. So this picture is flipped. The north is Yeah. Thank you. The uh so I see here it says community park. So but then we talked earlier about uh money in lie of a park. Is this just like meant for the is that just like a small little area for those town homes? Council member, yes, this would be an area for the residents of that community. It's only about a/4 acre in size. So, uh, those 4.3 acres of dedication that are necessary, this would only subtract out a quarter acre. That will still need them to provide at least 4 acres of park dedication in the amount of fee to replace that. And can you remind me just because there's a lot of where the closest park would be for the like if they want to get there the closest park for this community. Yes. Uh not quite sure what I'm doing here with the screen. Bear with me. Yes. Um I can pull up our GIS for reference. The closest park would be the Marsh Hollow Park, which is the development just to the east. So, here is Creekide Lane where that would extend. Here is the Marsh Hollow development. And this property right here is the Marsh Hollow Park. I believe it's about a quarter mile if that from this development. So, it's a relatively short walk to access the closest public park. And there would be sidewalks or trails that would lead there. Right. Correct. Okay. I mean otherwise I would just say, you know, I think the developer did a nice job taking our feedback and planning commission's feedback and um really trying to uh you know have have some adder I guess I would say right with the different uh types of homes that you're offering and such. So, um I'm I'm pleased with the the changes that were made. Yeah, I would I would concur with that. I think the product types the changes are some excellent movement for initial discussions. I also think parking I I think I heard of a a bonus parking comment of 31 spaces. So, that's always a nice adder as well. So, but no, the the product type is a lot of great movement there. Yeah, sure. I mean, I think the the we made comments about the quality of the product and um and this goes a long way. it I just I'm going to reiterate that for the next part being on the other side of a wetland quarter mile away that 60 plus homes not served by um safe walking path i.e the sidewalk is a weakness that we really should have overcome this. Uh Lara has put some other product and developments in throughout Victoria. Um they've done sidewalks on both sides of it. It definitely lends a community feel. Uh there's going to be for sure a lot of strollers and a lot of dogs that are going to be going through here and and keeping them out of the street across the street. sidewalk on on their side of the uh street is prudent move for us to require that. I I concur with that. I just ask is there any negative to putting a sidewalk on both sides? Um I'm a go ahead acting mayor and council members. Uh the only thing that I could anticipate is uh potential impacts with some of the the fiber issues we've been having. But if the sidewalk was relocated from this side of street D and incorporated on this side of the street, I I think that would resolve the issue. I I don't know about the possibility of sidewalks on both sides. I think there we might run into that fiber issue, but if we just relocate where that sidewalk is located on which side of the street, it it should resolve it. And I'm looking to Cara and our representative from LAR here to see if that would be a viable option. I'll just jump in first on the fiber issue. They have to go on both sides. So, it's a problem no matter what. Um we did just we did speak with LAR about um dedicating some corridors in rear yard areas in some of these town home areas to um provide access to the homes for the fiber in the um rear yard areas. So we are trying to anticipate some alternatives to that. So I forgot to note that that we are trying to explore other options but I'll leave the sidewalk question to Lenard. Can you state your name and acting mayor and members of council? Josh Menzer with LAR. Uh happy to be back tonight. Um and thank you to staff for the uh staff report and summary and uh you know we've been at this one for over a year now and um that's not always the case um with every community. Uh if we run into certain difficulties, we'll sometimes walk away. But we love Victoria. Um like being here, we've been successful here and want to continue that. Um, so we've worked very hard with our engineer and with city staff and obviously a couple times through commission and council and have uh tried to take everything uh all the input and have a plan here that we think works well for the city. Certainly will work well for us with the mix too. Um, as far as the sidewalk, um, it's pretty standard here in Victoria to have sidewalk on one side of the street. Um I know in Lake Town in single family areas there's sidewalk on only one side of the street. Um Brookmore I don't recall um one side of the street. Um so here, you know, part of the reason um we're having it on the west side is to limit the number of driveways that the sidewalk is crossing. Um it's it's actually 31 homes on that east side uh that the east side of street D. It's not 60, it's 31 that wouldn't have sidewalk. Um well, I guess if you're counting the other six or sorry, the three on street E that aren't directly on a sidewalk. Uh but as Cara mentioned, the part of the reason that we located um we did add a a sidewalk to both sides of the street in the town home area as opposed. But on the one side, you'll notice it's at the rear of the town homes. Uh again, that's to make try to make some room for uh the massive amounts of fiber apparently that's going to be coming into the city. Um so I think those are a couple of reasons um not that we we're not showing sidewalk on the east side there. And with that number of driveways across the sidewalk there, you're going to have sidewalk replacement. Um that's going to be assessments to those homeowners in the future. So those are the reasons why we're looking at one side of street. I I would also add on the side of like I completely understand uh your comments uh council member Iansky. I I don't know if it's just my neighborhood, right? So I the Woodlands I live in the Woodlands. It's an older neighborhood. So maybe, you know, we only have sidewalks on one side of the street on these street, but also I would say, and I again, I don't know if this is just my neighborhood or if this is a lot of neighborhoods, people a lot of times don't use the sidewalk anyways, even if they're there. They walk in the street. And that honestly, I think a big reason that it happens nowadays is because people who have pets have electric fences and dogs just run right up to that border, right? where it's not a fence and people are uncomfortable even though they know they're probably going to stop they're nervous and if they're walking dogs 90% of the people walk in the street in my neighborhood. Again, I don't know if that's uncommon and it's not like that in other neighborhoods, but I I people just don't seem to use sidewalks in my neighborhood. So, I'm like to for me I I don't think sidewalks on one side or not having them on both sides is a big issue. I I know we have lots of neighborhoods that have sidewalks on just one side. I stand corrected. It's 31 homes, but I still maintain that. Um I I I'm unsympathetic to the plight of putting in fiber. It's generally speaking, I know we've had a lot of complaints about it recently, the number of providers, but in the the long arc of livability and walkability, the the fiber is going to be a one to twoyear issue, um I'm not really convinced that the argument about assessment for sidewalk replacement holds water Um, I think that we have a number of homes here that that we want them out of the street. We want them to be young families. We want them safe from traffic. Chad, I think that maybe the reason that people use the street instead of the sidewalk is because it is only on one side and we we have plenty of examples in Victoria where we have sidewalks on both sides. Um, and it just uh keeps people grounded to their homes and makes Victoria more walkable to able to access the lakes and parks. The other the addition of the sidewalk though, will that make our impermeable surface requirements? I mean, it'll deepen from what you're already requested on the PUD, which is from 35% to 50. So, 55%. So, we're probably looking at having to go to 60. The sidewalk would actually be located in the rightway. Okay. That would count. Sorry, rookie question again. Sorry. Um, I'd like to see a sidewalk on that side of the street, but I could live without it. Could go with you. My question is on the parking. Could we go to that parking picture? You turn in and you have parking on the left, then you have parking on the right, then you have parking on the right, then the left, then the left all the way up. Is there a reason for that? Yes. Uh, council member, the reason for that is because you can't park in front of a driveway. If you look at how the parking is aligned along street D, you'll notice it's on this side of the street adjacent to where there is limited parking with the driveways for the 56 foot wide lots on the east side. Um, and then it flips here where the town homes start because there are a lot more driveways. So, the parking flips to the opposite end uh where it can accommodate those denser driveways. I guess I'll say I mean my only question would be why not keep it on one side of the street, but I think you can get a few more cars if you flip it on the other side. I'm just saying there might be some confusion down the road. I mean, if I pulled in, I might be parking in front of 27, 28, 29, doing it illegally, not knowing. But anyway, very small thing. And just a weird question. Um, the emergency access road, is that dirt, paved rock? What is that made out of? Council member, I I believe that would also be paved paved and gated on both sides so that uh people aren't trying to exit from the culde-sac or trying to enter from County Road 10 and then that would just be removed when development occurs further west. I don't know why I thought it was important, but any other comments, questions? Um, I guess from the sidewalk perspective, um, I see Council Member Evansky's point, I I think the majority of the neighborhoods I'm seeing do have just one sidewalk on on those roads. U, and I do see some street street walkers, etc. So, I I would be fine with one sidewalk on this personally. Um, on the street. But I think I think some strong points were made as well for the other side. Um, am I understanding that it's just not possible from your perspective? I mean, I think it's from a builder perspective, I think it's possible. I I think maybe more of a city engineering question. Um, I think for us, I mean, it's Sure, it's possible. Probably not preferred. Well, the city engineering side was more tied to fiber, right? The fiber technically needs to be in the drainage and utility easement outside of the rightway. So, not where the sidewalk is. Um, so it I just was running through the plans and didn't see any big red flags should the council vote to require it on both sides. Um, obviously it hasn't been designed yet, but just a quick review. I didn't see any obvious red flags with it. I'll just continue to belabor the point that, you know, this development is almost a race to the bottom when we look at how much we've compromised standards everywhere, impervious surfaces, lot with square footage. Um, we're shoehorning a whole lot of infrastructure into a very small narrow path. Uh, you know, I I don't think it's done on a reasonable ask to be able to get something that's going to improve safety in the neighborhood, quality of life for walkability. Let's also bring into mind that I think that the lack of two entrances to this neighborhood for fire equipment and having to salt with an emergency road and you know is is a compromise. I I think that it's a reasonable ask to while it may not be preferred by the developer and the builder. It's possible and this is the time for us to to ask for something that is going to be we don't do it now, it'll never happen. So, council members, that's that's my pitch. Well, well stated. Um, any other comments? My only thought just the sideyard setbacks at 8 ft it gets tight. Do we need to make sure that there's some level of engineering i.e. drain tiles that go in there because everything's going to flow down to that wetland and I know the su the storm sewer is going to be there. I'm not sure how that's all going to flow out, but over the course of time, trees are going to develop. There's not going to be enough sun there. That whole thing's going to start sliding away. I see it in my neighborhood, the other neighborhood um just north of us where the homes were kind of packed together. There's just rock between the homes. Now, is there anything that we can do to help mitigate any future problems with erosion and situations where the sideyards just become mush pits? I don't know. Is that a that's a question for all of us? I don't I think this is a perennial issue that we continually keep going over and over and over with this on sideyard setbacks. And the answer is increase and that comes at the developer's cost of having one or two less lots that they can develop and sell a home and make profits off of it. So, it it's a question of where do we hold the line on this issue? our our our bottom of this is at seven and a half ft as an example. We've brought this up before, Josh. I I respect you. Uh I I really appreciate you working with the city over the years, the the development that is over by the high school. We we went through this before where we went to wanted 10, they wanted seven and a half. We got to nine. I thought that that was a great compromise. Here we're, you know, trending back the other way back to eight. And that's the the the way you solve the problem that you propose uh council member Patterson is you have to give up land in order to get it is I also understand talking about whispering hills where they're even probably tighter than seven and a half ft. that rock is the only acceptable way to deal with that. So, um I think that at 8 feet it's better than seven and a half. It's which is, you know, been typical down in this part of uh of Victoria. Uh if if we if we want to address what you're talking about, then we just need to be very disciplined and rigid on not going below where our standards are. That make a slight compromise to it, but we're not going to get there. Uh, with what you're talking about with these lower side, I will say we're taking what was almost 20 net acres of medium seed and reducing that down to 11 and a half. We're going from what was previously proposed as 72 row town homes, 25 foot wide lots, zero setback to 37 single family homes at 56 ft wide with 8 foot side setbacks. Um Cara, I may be wrong, but I believe um slope standards have been revised in recent years to try to assist with uh drainage. Car can speak to that. slope standards. Scar. Sure. So, um, we we run back and forth between two problems in Victoria where we go back and forth between slopes that are too flat, where people have standing water and swailes that don't drain. So, we modified our minimum slopes to be a minimum of 3% after Lenar had the pleasure of running drain tile all over Lake Town first, second, third, fourth edition, those town home units, because none of those swailes were drying. Whispering Hills has a combination of areas where they have areas that are too flat that aren't draining that the HOA has drain tiled. And then conversely areas that are too steep that are backing up to wetlands. Um so it is a challenge with all of our topography between flat sto slopes and steep slopes. So we have modified on the minimum side but on the steep side it is a bit of a challenge because while we regulate at the development basis for maximum and minimum slopes when we when the lot is purchased and the home is built the homeowner the home buyer and the builder are working on their own lot grading. We aren't in a position where we as a city are running around dealing with everybody's individual lot grading between themselves as the buyer of the lot and this builder of the home. So, um that's not a service that we've provided to the community. Um it wouldn't it would be a costly service for the city to get into the business of providing that. I'm not aware of communities that have that level of engagement on a lot by lot basis as homes are getting built. Um, but it certainly is a challenge that builders who have built here have some experience with. So, you know, LAR has been here a while. Um, so I suspect on the building side they have some experience with our soils and our condition. Um, compared to situations where we've had new builders. I'm just saying if I answered your question. Well, I'm just saying I want to protect the future homeowners and I don't know what Lenar's deal is with the homeowners if something happens within three years, we'll come in and start drain tiling and fixing this for you or whatever, but protect you from some extent to make sure that anything you can do to start off with, we're doing it the best we can. So, as long as you remain under warranty, I'm not sure the exact period on this type of issue, but they are under warranty. And you know once our homes are graded we have to you know provide a as built grading plan to the city so they can ensure that it was graded the plan. Fair enough. Just note on that though we don't you know we're just looking for general conformance with the development plan. When we review a survey we aren't looking at you know how exact sideyards are graded and some of those issues that you were referring to council member Patterson. So it is that challenge for the you know buyer of the lot to work with the seller of the lot to land with an end product that as an HOA they're satisfied with or as a home buyer they're satisfied with. So um it certainly is a challenge. Thank you. I I will say overall um it's very evident that you do you guys are working to make this work your movement on the overall product type what we asked for things like that that's very well noted here so just in general any more comment question discussion seeing no More discussion. Staff is asking for three separate motions on this item. One to adopt the preliminary plat and PUD. One to adopt the resolution approving annexation and a third relating to a comprehensive plan amendment and this amendment requires a super majority I believe and the other two are simply simple majority. So I will now entertain motions. Motion to adopt the preliminary plat and preliminary PUD for West Creek Village Residential Development. And a second. Can I get a second? I'll second it. All in favor? I I opposed. I'm going to be opposed. I'll amend my proposal to uh accept if we can concur that we'll put sidewalks in on the east edge of the so we would make that a condition of the preliminary plan. Has the clerk noted the division? Yes, I have. Yep. Well, I believe this needed a simple majority though. So, the motion carries. Can I But if we're going to approve this all, right, like we need the supermajority for the third one. So if like So I feel like there's got to be some we need the supermajority for the third for the third motion. And if you don't get that right, then the rest is pointless, isn't it? Right. like I mean um attorney votes any well um mayor and council I guess I'm not positive of the timing on the third of the three motions the motion related to the comp plan amendment but uh you will at some point in the future have five members present uh and so uh so I just would make that point but no otherwise um you know whe I take it that the motion that was just made and approved would encompass the rec staff recommended conditions. There's quite a list of conditions. I understood the motion to be adopting the resolution as drafted by staff. Uh I mean if the council member wants to so that motion has been passed now. Uh so if the council member though wants to make a motion to add a condition, I don't think that's out of order. I think that'd be okay to do. Uh and then I guess you'd go forward with your other motions depending on how that one comes out. So, we could do that as timing this evening. Yep. Yeah. I mean, if the council member wanted to make a motion to amend the now approved resolution, that would be with in order. I think I don't know if it gets a second, but that would be in order. Um, and I think I've said as to the comp plan, I don't know that there's a timing issue there. Um, Brian would tell us if there was. I think he's shaking his head no. So, I don't think there's a timing issue. So, it's right that if it doesn't pass tonight because you can achieve a supermajority that can come back to the council when there are five members present. Well, council member Yep. was the comment that if the third motion is denied tonight, we can come back when there is a five member council on the comp plan on the comp plan. So if it is for some reason not super majority tonight that doesn't that doesn't preclude any of these other motions from I read something in code that says that if something is not wholly approved we cannot come back six months with that same application. Go ahead, Brian. Yeah. Um, that is correct. So, in this scenario, if we want to consider the comprehensive plan amendment item at the next meeting, I would recommend that the city council table instead of denying the request for the third motion. Correct. And you would only need three of us to table it or would you still need a super majority because it's Yeah, may mayor and council being totally transparent. We've used that word a couple of times tonight. I I I don't at the city level put a lot of uh water in the bucket of we've written into the code, we can't bring it back. The council can always reconsider actions it's taken. So, uh, I mean, if you wanted to follow Robert's rules, which we do sort of sort of, uh, at council meetings here and in the vast majority of cities around the state, I guess if you felt that the third mo if, if you were going to take action on the third motion tonight and you want to be able to bring back a motion to reconsider, you would vote against the motion because only a person who voted against a motion can technically under Robert's rules bring a motion to reconsider an action. So, you know, but now we're getting into I mean, this is not Congress, right? Uh if if four of you want to do something, my view is that there is a procedural way to do that. So, not notwithstanding the code language that Lenar and and staff is pointing out, um I understand that that's the case, but I think in the normal course, you would allow a motion to reconsider at the next meeting when you have a full council. Well, and that's that. I'll make a motion to amend the resolution we just passed to add a condition that those home sites on the east edge of street D would have sidewalks the full length from street B into street D. I'll put that motion forward and then the rest of you can vote on that. And can I get a second on that? Can I vote yes for both? I mean, covers me. I'll second it. Got a motion and a second. All in favor? I I I So, a motion to adopt the resolution approving annexation for the West Creek Village residential development. Can I get a second? Second. All in favor? I I opposed. Motion to adopt the resolution authorizing submitt of a comprehensive plan amendment to the Metropolitan Council the West Creek Village Residential Development. Second. All in favor? I opposed. Motion carries. Everything registered from clerk's perspective here. Okay. Thank you. Um council, there are no more items on our regular agenda. We will now move on to reports and emerging issues. Attorney Vos, any reports? Acting mayor? I don't. Thank you. Miss Hardy, any reports from staff? None from staff. Okay. Members of the council, any reports, emerging issues, updates? None. Okay. Um, if there are no more items to come before the body of this this meeting, may I ask for a motion to adjurnn? Move to adjurnn. Can I get a second? Second. All in favor? I opposed. We stand a journ.