Good evening. It's now 6:32 and I call this regular meeting of the Victoria City Council to order. Please join us in the pledge of >> 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. First, uh, the city council will review and adopt the proposed maximum property tax levy during its regular meeting on September 14th at 6:30 p.m. As a reminder, all city council meetings and workshops are open to the public and held in council chambers at city hall unless otherwise posted. If you plan to attend in person, we encourage you to contact the city clerk in advance. In other announcements, the city offices will be closed Monday, September 7th in observance of Labor Day and will resume normal business hours the following day. Most importantly, please join us for the community open house at the New Victoria Fire Station on Monday, September 21st from 5:30 to 8:00 p.m. and bring the whole family to tour our brand new fire station. Meet the team and enjoy a variety of free and fun activities. The next item on our agenda is to adopt the final agenda. Council, can I get a motion to adopt the final agenda? >> Motion 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. Moving on to the next item is our open forum. This is an opportunity for members of the public to address the council on items that are not on tonight's agenda or not part of an active application that will be coming to the council at a future date. No one has registered in advance to speak, but is there anyone in the audience who would like to address the council at this time? Seeing none, we will now move on to our 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 agenda items for separate discussion and vote this evening? >> None from staff. Madame Mayor, >> is uh council, is there anyone would like to pull an item from consent or a member of the audience that would like to pull in member uh item from consent agenda? Seeing none, we will uh um entertain a motion for 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. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. Moving on to our regular agenda. Uh the first item on our reg our our regular agenda this evening is item 6.1 which is a request for conditional use permit for Hotel Victoria. This item does contain a public hearing. But before we do that, I will ask city planner Brian McCann to present his agenda report. Mr. McCann, welcome. >> Thank you, mayor and council members. Uh tonight we will be uh considering a conditional use permit amendment for the Hotel Victoria project. Uh just a quick highlight of the project for those in the audience who may not be aware of the project or uh just to refresh your memory. The hotel proposed uh consists of a 46 unit boutique hotel with various amenities as well as a covered parking garage with 41 stalls. Uh they were previously proposing on street parking modifications to Stiger Lake Lane and Ry's Way. Overall, the project at the tallest point uh facing Stiger Lake Lane is five stories approximately 57 feet in height uh with the grade closer to the backside of the Winchester and Ry building being approximately 48 ft in height. So, uh the previous proposal that the applicant had requested is shown in the image on the left. They showed two parking stalls along the south side of Stiger Lake Lane compared to the six that are existing there now. and they also had the parking modifications on Ry's way as shown here. The uh site plan that was approved by the city council after tableabling the item at one of their regular meetings included some modifications to the north side of Stiger Lake Lane to gain an additional four stalls here as well as an additional three parallel stalls on the south side of Stiger Lake Lane here and one additional stall in front of the building entrance on Ry's way. After that was approved by the city council, the applicant explored the possibility of completing those improvements further. They reached out to the MCWD who notified them that the project was now over an acre in size. Uh which means they had additional storm water mitigation requirements which just aren't feasible for the project due to the site area and proximity uh to downtown improvements. And then Carver County uh also had not fully agreed to the extent of the improvements within their property boundaries yet. And then lastly, the retaining wall and parking improvements that were proposed had a significant cost for the applicant, roughly $100,000 per space for those four gain stalls. So, uh, with that being said, if, uh, the CUP amendment as requested by the applicant does not move forward tonight, the project overall does result in a net parking loss of four parking stalls. So with that, uh, the proposed amendment for the conditional use permit is to remove condition number 11 highlighted on the screen here, but adding condition 13, which would allow the applicant to provide a fee of $5,000 per parking space uh, with a total of $20,000 for those four spaces to go towards the city's parking fund uh, to evaluate the parking demand of Hotel Victoria after one of business operations. So with that, uh, you do need to hold a public hearing this evening. It was properly advertised in the Wakonia Patriot and mailed to property owners as well as posted online and at city hall. Uh, at the time of preparing this presentation, we had received two written comments expressing concerns about less parking downtown and development of the downtown open space. With that, I have a sample motion for consideration. staff can stand for questions and the applicant is in the audience this evening as well. >> Thank you very much, Brian. Again, this is this item does contain a public hearing for a conditional use permit amendment for Hotel Victoria. I will now open the public hearing. If there is anyone who wishes to speak to this item, please make your way to the podium. Anyone in anyone in the audience wishing to speak to this item? And last call. Seeing no one, I will now close the public hearing. Council comments, questions on this item. If you want my opinion on it, I don't think we should lose this project based on four parking spots. We've got a bunch of different things that we're doing right now for parking in the city. Um, we've expanded parking on Stiger and I think we should have this project go forward. It's good for the city. It's good for everybody and I don't want to lose it based on four parking spots. >> Okay, council. Any other questions, comments? >> Well, there's a couple comments. member Evans. >> I I I share P Council Member Patterson's uh belief that we should do what we can to not lose this project. It's a good project. Um the project itself though is underparked by five spaces. That's clear. We're losing four. That's clear. The math is a total of nine. So, we're down. um and it's adding parking problems that our residents are saying we're having and they want us to do something about it. So the um we're also a little bit light on details as the the amendment of you know figuring out additional parking demands in a year. Where are we going to who's going to renumerate the city? Who's going to figure out what is adequate parking at that time? I I think we needed a little bit more clarity on that. Um we've seen comments from community members that the 5,000 per parking space up to 20,000 is light and frankly um you know if we were had a commitment to have parking those four spaces built out we should have something that's commensurate with that. And then lastly the um in between our preliminary plat and final plat. There was an outlot that was going to be part of the survey that has been taken away and the applicant has said that those are going to be labeled as private parking spaces. I think that that outlet should probably be something that would come back if we're going to u move forward with lightening up by four spaces. Okay. >> Thank you. Okay. Okay. It is my understanding that those two spaces will come back into the public parking. Cool. Anybody confirm or deny that for me? >> Mayor and council members, I can address that question. [clears throat] Um, council member of Anansky is correct that between preliminary and final plat uh the intent of those parking stalls adjacent to the Winchester and Rye building within this uh small square as shown on the screen. Uh it's like a a stall and a half basically is what it aligns out to on the plat that is proposed to be retained privately and signed privately by the Winchester and Ry building. >> Okay. Okay. I think those should come back into the public parking. Um I would I would say that that could be a a condition of approval. Is there anyone in the audience that'd like to speak to that? >> [clears throat] >> Good evening. Welcome. Please state your name for the record. >> Pavocite group. Yeah, we're okay with that. That's been in discussions back and forth and I think it's a preference of the management of those stalls. So, if the preference is that they be public uh ownership is okay with that, >> right? Thank you. So to be clear, we're going to have that outlot that was originally proposed become deed to the city. Correct. >> Correct. >> Thank you. >> Very good. >> Um, please state your name for the >> Mary Madison. Just to be clear, we have always said that we would do those two lots. We just wanted to get credit for them. They're privately owned. And so that was the only condition was that we get credit for those two spots. That was all we asked for. >> I don't understand. Get credit. >> They're privately owned and if I'm short two spots and we give you two, then we're not short any spots. I >> I think the issue is that it was counted towards Winchester and Rise parking requirements. And so how can we double dip >> those those two spots were retained privately. They weren't part of the parking plan. So it there there were our own private spots and we've always offered those back to the city for the public and we just said when we offer those back for public parking we give the land back to you then we get credit for two spots. So that was what was so we're in complete agreement to do that. Thank you, council. Other questions, comments? >> Mayor, >> yes. >> If I may, I just have a question. Probably a very technical question, I think, for for Brian for staff. >> Um, so the the mechanically what we're doing here is we're taking out a condition related to the county needing to approve some parking spaces on the north side of Stiger. taking that out, replacing it with uh an obligation, as I understand it, to pay for up to four parking spaces at five grand each if we discover after a year of operations that that's warranted. I I think that's all clear from your report. Is is the determination I'm not clear about how that determination will get made. Is that is it the intent of this language that the city decides uh whether that additional parking is warranted? Is that does that require a negotiation with the hotel owner? Does is that the hotel owner's decision to make? Whose decision is it to make whether the additional parking is needed after a year of operations? >> Thank you, Mr. McCannm, please. >> Yes, city attorney v. That's a good question. My understanding is that it would be these city's obligation to uh do further analysis to determine if the Hotel Victoria is the one responsible for any uh parking complications after one year of business operations. >> Right. And then mayor, if I could just follow up. So the the one year I take it from this language is sort of um not one year from tonight. It's one year from some level of operations initiating. >> Correct. >> Right. Okay. Good. Thank you. And then I guess last thing and I'll be quiet. Um I take it there is a site plan that reflected the parking improvement [clears throat] the development agreement the the 2B finalized development agreement and they will be on hand. They are on hand now or they will be on hand at some point here soon. >> Correct. They will be on hand at some point. We don't have a final development agreement yet for this project. So we still have time to incorporate that in the set of approved plans. >> Got it. Thank you. Thank you, mayor. >> Okay. Very good. So just to be clear, from one year of the opening of Hotel Victoria, the city will re-evaluate the parking and at that time determine whether they need to pay into a parking fund. At >> is it after one year? Are we saying after they will pay into a fund at that point in time? >> Okay. I just have a couple >> council member Roberts, please. >> I mean, I guess I would echo uh Council Member Person and Council Member Vansky, right? Like I I think we all want this project to move forward. It'll be great for our downtown. It'll be great for our businesses. Uh it's a needed amenity. Um I agree with Council Member Aansky, right, that we, you know, I think reasonable people can debate whether there is a parking problem downtown. I don't think there's much debate though about the issues. to be the proximity, right? And obviously the spots we're losing are prime spots in the heart of our downtown. Um uh so I just had a couple questions. Um to Council Member Bansk's point that we've gotten some emails about, you know, 20,000 seems a little light, the 5,000. Um the developer, you know, you guys were willing to pay a certain amount, right? I know the the uh change in the parking that we uh the change in the parking ended up being much more expensive than anticipated and obviously we have um uh the watershed district issues with that. But I'm just wondering like you are obviously willing to pay a certain amount to change that parking and this I guess is a question for attorney Bose is that you know could we could we say I mean are we handicapped by the 5,000 per parking spot or could we say we want a different amount of money to go towards that so that if an opportunity arises to create more parking you know we have more in our balance. to uh put towards it. >> Yeah. Mayor and Council, um my recollection is I'm looking looking over at Brian is that the 5,000 per parking space is a supported by study number. Now, that study, I think, is not current. It's not particularly new. So, whether that's reflects current approximate value of of downtown parking, I can't speak to. But, I mean, I think that number isn't sort of just pulled out of the air. that is connected to some work that the city has done in the past. And so I'm not going to tell you you couldn't pick a different number, but certainly that's the most obvious number to pick. And I think it's been used on some other developments. And so it's it's probably the safest ground for the city to be on. >> I guess my only point was that, you know, they were willing to pay a certain amount to fix the parking to add those four spots that we were missing previously. So would they be willing to put that amount of money towards you know in the f if we determine and like it could be the year thing again right like so that's kind of what I was >> yeah I think mayor and council I think maybe the point you're making is that the cost of the proposed improvements the north side parking spaces likely exceeds the 20 grand. I think that may be the point you're making and >> uh I don't know those facts but that sounds right to me. So yeah. >> Um and then the last thing is just I'm just curious um And this may be a question for Mary. Uh uh I'm just wondering if there's an opportunity that you know I obviously we hope the hotel is very successful and is full to the gills every night, right? But I'm sure there will be times uh where it's not and I don't know how this would work from a management standpoint, but like whether in the morning you're like, "Okay, you know, we're not going to be full. I don't know if reservations will ask, you know, are you bringing a car?" type thing. But if there's spaces in the uh underground parking spot, I'm wondering if there's an opportunity to say the valet would be potentially open for public use. Again, I don't know how that would work from a management standpoint, but I'm just trying to think outside the box of finding more parking. >> Thank you, Council Member Chad. Um, I think one of the things, uh, the hotel are we're actually paying for all of this underground, so we're not getting any tax increment financing. I think one of the things that will happen with the expanded tax increment financing district is that this hotel project will bring property taxes that will be in the district that is dedicated towards parking. >> Yeah. And so, um, that is going to go to the city to be able to hopefully improve the parking lot at the Gant behind the Ganon site and be able to move forward um, with the tax increment financing that's being provided by the hotel. So, if we give two spots that we're giving that we privately own, we're two spots short at that point. And so I certainly would hope that the city council would see it wise uh to for a group that did not ask for any tax increment financing to know that this is going to help by probably somewhere in the neighborhood of $3.5 million um that we are providing for parking. >> Sure. And so >> so but no our the piece underneath the private piece we're not we that will go for the hotel and the hotel is looked to be you know you're absolutely correct it's not going to be full all the time all the projections are done at 65% the max projections are done at 70% for occupancy but that is tied to the whole funding of the hotel that those spaces will be available so there's other pieces that go with this >> thank you >> uh and then I Yes. I mean I just to her point right like my last comment was going to be you know it's not necessarily the reason to uh okay this but you know yes I mean if the hotel doesn't get built um you know that increment that we're hoping to get from the expanded tiff district uh is not going to be what we expected which then obviously reduces the money that is available to help parking. So, [clears throat] >> okay. Anything? >> And let's let's be careful not to council >> member, >> let's be careful not to conflate the property taxes that will be paid terms of tiff. There's been nothing that has been authorized to recapture that. So, um we can't sit around and count money towards parking that doesn't exist yet. That said, the where we stand is we're losing four spots. We are going to have to pay to have the study to figure out if we have a parking problem. And then if we have a parking problem, the the the proposal here is a renumeration of a max of $20,000. So again, we would like this project to move forward, but as it stands, I don't think we have a fair deal for the city of Victoria with respect to this. And the spots are there today so that the two get deeded in an outlaw was something that was contemplated with this project for its onset, later taken off, and we found it acceptable to do that because we knew we were getting a a buildout on Stiger Lake Lane. So, I I think that we need to be good stewards and make the the best deal possible for the residents of Victoria and for the um and for the project that's in front of us. >> Very good. All right. Any other comments, questions? Seeing none, I will now entertain a motion. Make a motion to adopt the resolution amending the conditional use permit for Hotel Victoria. >> I have a motion. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> Uh motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Opposed. >> Motion carries. Moving on to item 6.2 is also a public hearing for an easement vacation for Enclave at Huntersbrook. Presenting on that item this evening is city planner Brian McCann. Mr. McCann, back to you. >> Thank you, mayor and council members. Tonight, we are considering an easement vacation for the Enclave at Huntersburg development. You may recall that was a 13 home single lot or single family uh development as part of the West Creek Village project. Uh with that they are proposing to develop on a portion of outlot A from West Creek Village First Edition. That outlot had drainage and utility easement over it that wasn't vacated as part of the development approvals for Enclave at Hunters Brook. So uh that would need to be vacated for them to develop on the site and then easements are planned to be reestablished when the Enclave at Hunters Brook plat is recorded. So, uh, it's a very, uh, basic formality here, um, is outlot A shown on the screen, the area highlighting the easement that would be vacated, uh, if the city council chooses to do so tonight. And then outlot D in the Enclave at Huntersbrook Final Plat would reestablish those easements over applicable uh, wetlands and storm water ponds. So, with that, I do this does require a public hearing. It was noticed in two consecutive editions of the Wakoneia Patriot as required by state statute. It was also mailed to property owners and published on the city's website and at city hall. We have not received any comments regarding this item. And lastly, I have a sample motion for you on the screen. The applicant wasn't able to make it to the meeting tonight, but I can stand for any questions you may have. >> Thank you, Mr. McCann. This is a public hearing. I will now open up this public hearing. If anyone in the audience wishes to speak to this item, please step forward. Again, if there's anyone in the audience wishing to speak to this item, please step forward. And last call. Seeing no one, I will now close the public hearing and open it up for council discussion. Council, any discussion on this item this evening? Seeing none, I will now entertain a motion. Motion to adopt the resolution vacating a drainage and utility easement on outlot A in West Creek Village. >> 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. >> Next item on our agenda, item 6.3, a resolution accepting bids and awarding a contract for the Duck Trail Rehabilitation Project. Presenting on that item this evening is our assistant city engineer, Amanda Meyer. Miss Meyer, we'll let you get organized there and then once you do, welcome. Good evening, mayor, members of the council. Okay. So, as mentioned, next item before you on the agenda is the uh proposed bid award for the duck trail rehabilitation project. This is not something that was uh previously in your CIP, which is why you see it on your regular agenda instead of consent agenda. Location of this project is between the Ambergate and Watermark South development. There's actually two pieces. So, there's the boardwalk, which is highlighted in the pink rectangle, and then the green line is the the trail piece. Um my nice squiggly green line, if you will. Um so ultimately connecting like I said Ambergate and Watermark South. So a little bit of background in uh 2025 Minihog Creek wershed district began their East Auburn wetland uh project which included reconstructing the boardwalk connecting these two neighborhoods. The previous boardwalk was 10 feet wide, no railing um and quite a bit of vegetation below the boardwalk. What exists today is an 8 foot wide boardwalk, no railing. And as you can see, as that vegetation was removed, staff really noticed the steep drop off of the edge of the boardwalk down to uh the ground below and identified the need to add a railing. Um so we did look at a change order with this project for a proposed railing. It ultimately didn't feel like the right branding uh that the city is going for. Um, so we did pull that out of the uh MCWD's project and decided to include it with the duct trail rehabilitation project. Um, duck trail has been identified previously by public works as needing some maintenance. You can see the picture on the screen on the right hand side. Those are roots, willow roots popping out in the trail. There's a lot of cracking, some raveling. The pavement's really reached the end of its useful life. Um and this trail was being utilized as the access for the boardwalk project. So trail was identified as needing work but really wanted to wait until the boardwalk project was completed contractor was done mobing in and then take care of uh replace excuse me replacing the trail. So, as we look at the proposed improvements, um this is the uh sort of custom railing that was uh designed for this project to allow for more of some City of Victoria branding. You can see the grass or uh cattail type design that you see out of city hall uh behind us and then the ores kind of helping bring in more City of Victoria. This uh boardwalk railing encompasses both wood and metal elements to try and uh bring some uniqueness. This, I believe, would be the first railing on a boardwalk in our community. So, kind of a unique opportunity. As it relates to the proposed trail improvements, the red section would be a full reconstruction of that trail and also looking at adding in a root barrier to try and help mitigate those willow roots popping into the subgrade of the trail and popping up into the pavement. And then the green section is just a pavement replacement. uh we haven't noticed any of those willow roots out in that area. So really just uh managing the the pavement of that section of trail. Um we did receive bids about a week and a half ago. Um the lowest responsible bidder is Husky Construction. You can see their bid on the screen before you. Engineers estimate was about 212,000. So as I mentioned, this was not in the CIP. Um, back in April, council did um approve a reallocation of about $175,000 to be put towards this project um and is added into the 60,000 of trail maintenance that is generally uh set aside annually for trail maintenance. So, that's what's being proposed to help fund this project. So, with that, there is a recommend recommended motion for you on the screen. And if you have any questions, I'm here. Um, >> Miss Meyer, thank you. Um, I have been on this boardwalk and it is very nerve-wracking that there's not a railing on it >> without a railing. Yeah, >> it it makes me very nervous, so I'm excited to see this and it's a lovely railing besides. All right, with that, any questions, council? All right, seeing no questions, I will entertain a motion. I'll make a motion to adopt a resolution accepting bids and awarding a contract for the Duck Trail Rehabilitation Product. >> We 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. >> Thank you. We are now moving on to item 6.4, which is a preliminary plat review for Atoria. Atoria Victoria. Did I see Is that real? Atoria Victoria. It rhymes. Presenting this evening is city planner Brian McCann. I've seen that name a number of times and I can't believe I didn't realize that till right now. All right, Mr. McCann now that I have become fully aware. >> Thank you, mayor and council members. Yes. Uh probably adding to the confusion is that at Sketch Plat it was histori. >> Okay. >> So, uh we Ebenezer. Yes. >> Yes. >> From Ebenezer Development. You are correct. Got it. >> Um we are in the middle phase here of the development process. The preliminary plot. This is where uh the applicant provides detailed plans and applications and we do all of our in-depth uh analysis and research and then where they get their major entitlements if they're asking for those such as PUDS uh cups or variances. Uh we have four requests in front of us this evening from the applicant for preliminary plat a comprehensive plan amendment. A preliminary planned unit development resoning. Uh the final PUD resoning would come with the final plat if city council agrees with the proposed deviations tonight and then the site plan and building materials request as their final application this evening. So, regarding the location and existing conditions, the property is at 2285 Arburedum Boulevard. The property consists of four parcels. Uh, this is the main large one here, about 48 acres, I think, and then between the other three parcels outlined here is another um 10 or so acres. There are two existing single family homes currently. There's one shown here at the end of Sky Drive and then there's another one uh down in the woods here with that access to Highway 5 as shown. Uh that is proposed to go away with this project. There is also significant woodland and wetland coverage on the site with u a six mile creek that connects to Lake Auburn to the north and Carl Cray Lake down to the southwest offscreen here. This is also the site of the former Amira project. If you're familiar with that, uh that was a previous 147 unit proposal for uh senior apartments age restricted 55 plus. The proposed prelim uh preliminary plat in front of you this evening consists of a 76 unit cooperative senior housing apartment building. Uh so about half the size of what was previously approved with the Amira project. They're also showing six town home units that would be part of the cooperative and then two single family homes that would be uh not age restricted just market rate um single family homes [clears throat] and then with that they are proposing 140 parking stalls with the project at preliminary plat. At SketchPlat, they were proposing 167, but plane commission had requested some reductions in parking because senior housing doesn't need as much parking as a typical apartment building. And then they also were looking for creative ways to try to reduce the impervious out on this project. Uh, and then with that, they have the main access being from Sky Drive. Uh, MDOT was contacted regarding this and Cara is going to highlight some of those comments that came back from MDOT. uh later. Moving on to the zoning and reszoning request. It's currently zoned plan unit development with underlying central business district. That's from the Amira proposal. They received reszoning approvals at the time of their preliminary plat. So we would be reszoning it to planned unit development, a different planned unit development with underlying R4 highdensity residential. Um the reason for doing that is partly because of the density which I'll get into with the comprehensive plan amendment piece. But with the plan unit development process as you're well aware input is provided at sketch plat and then we approve more of the details at preliminary plat and then the final ordinance comes with final plat. And the purpose of the PUD is to allow innovative, creative, and flexible uh development that is sensitive to environmental factors such as the one seen in this project this evening. So with that, they are proposing some deviations for each of the three products that they have with this project. Uh for the single family homes, they are requesting to reduce the rear setback from 30 ft to 10 ft. That's because we require wetlands and wetland buffers to be plaid within outlots that are deeded to the city. So you'll see a larger reduction here compared to some of the other standards because we are retaining more of the backyard with the single family homes with this buffer than we typically would see with a single family home. So that's the reason for that reduction. Um and then also just some of our shoreland requirements. We have a 20,000 square foot lot size and a 25% maximum impervious. Uh based on the reduced backyard for those homes, they're requesting 13,000 square ft minimum lot size and 35% impervious, which is our standard R1 anyway. And then moving on to the town homes, they're requesting a slight reduction the front setback from 25 to 24 feet and then a reduction side setbacks um for building separation is what's required in code but we evaluate lot line as well. So 15 ft is the standard in code but uh they're requesting 9 ft to the closest lot line. And then for the rear setback, a similar scenario, it's 25 feet, but they would need 20 feet for the town homes as proposed. And then the deviations for the high density project, a maximum impervious of 50% instead of 25% as outlined in the shoreland overlay district. You may recall that the central business district is allowed up to 80% impervious in shoreland. With that resoning from central business district to R4, all other residential projects have to meet 25% regardless of if it's a single family home or an apartment building. So, uh, we figured this was a good halfway in between point from what was previously approved with the Amir project to, uh, a slightly less dense project here. And then additionally, uh, the R4 district allows a maximum building height of 55 ft. They are proposing to go up to 60 feet, uh, as measured from the lowest grade up to the midpoint of the peak of the project. With a lot of high density projects, you'll get um the flat roof. The project, as you'll see in a few slides here, has more of a peaked roof. So, we have to measure higher. So, um overall looks higher, but it's still just a fourstory structure, which I'll get into that more later. And then the comprehensive plan amendment, it's currently guided in our 2040 plan as a mix of downtown mixeduse, open space, and park. That was also from the previous Amira proposal. uh they are requesting to change that downtown mixeduse area to highdensity residential as shown in the image on the left. And then all of the residential uses that they are proposing with this project comply with our comp plan and the allowed uses of the high density district. Then for the shoreland overlay district, it's when within a thousand feet of Six Mile Creek and Auburn Lake, uh, a residential shoreland PUD was evaluated for this project, uh, in case they needed to apply for that as part of their reasonzoning, uh, which they will for the shoreland components that I highlighted a few slides ago, the deviations for shoreland requirements. uh but they are generally compliant with the 100 foot building setback, the 50% open space and they are meeting the exact number of maximum allowed units with their project that they could do based on the tier analysis that was conducted. So they are subject to that 25% maximum impervious that I highlighted. They're proposing 50% for the main cooperative lot and 35% for the single family homes requiring that RSPUD. We did provide the plans to our DNR area hydraologists, but they did not provide any comments for consideration by the plan commissioner, city council. >> So, does that mean they won't have any or could they still come back with comments? >> They are subject to 30 days from receiving the comments. They did not reply within that timeline. I've had other correspondents with our DNR area hydraologists, so they just chose not to comment on that request. >> So, here are some renderings of the structure. As I mentioned, our typical highdensity projects, you'll see more of this uh flat roof as shown in the middle here. They have some end posts, I guess you could call them, with that peak design where we have to measure a little bit higher than typical. So that's where that 60 foot height requirement comes in. And then generally the exterior materials that they're proposing meet our residential requirements for the highdensity project and the town homes. There's also sufficient street light being provided on the public culde-sac. And there we didn't note any plans um within the plans for a monument sign. uh only one wall sign which is located near the entrance uh highlighted with my cursor on the screen. So if in case they did have any plans, we would evaluate those with separate building permits um for any additional building or monument signage. Then looking at landscaping and tree preservation, generally they're meeting a lot of our requirements for open space, minimum plantings, foundation plantings. Um the two pieces that we took a closer look at are regarding buffers. We typically require them between separate zoning districts. So if you got your R1 low density, your typical single family, and you've got a R4 uh higher density, an apartment building, town homes, we would typically require a buffer between there with a 8ft tall burm at a 3 to one slope, which takes up a pretty good chunk of land. Um, so you would see that here as shown in the image on the left. Uh, there just isn't sufficient space for the applicant to do that. So, they're requesting to include additional plantings without doing the burm itself. Uh and then on highway five is another area where we would typically see our largest style of BM just to help separate um the traffic from the high density project here uh for noise uh sites, things like that. There are utilities within this area and they are trying to line this area with as many trees and shrubs as possible to help mitigate some of those concerns. But that is another deviation that city council should consider tonight. Other than that, they're providing the uh appropriate types and locations of boulevard trees along the public culde-sac and they are meeting their minimum replacement obligations per our tree preservation ordinance. Then for streets and parking, as I mentioned, they're extending a small portion for public culde-sac for Sky Drive, which the two single family homes would access, and then a private driveway extending from that culde-sac for the remainder of the cooperative site. Our code requires one parking space for every dwelling unit plus one space for every five dwelling units for senior housing projects. That would result in about 92 parking spaces for this project. They're proposing 140, so they're exceeding that minimum requirement. 100 of those stalls will be underground and then 40 of them would be within the surface parking lot as shown on the images on the left. >> Is there any reason why they want to exceed that parking requirement? >> Mayor and council members, uh, that's a good question. I'm sure there's some sort of market analysis that the applicant might be willing to get into later. Yeah, >> perfect. And then looking at the pedestrian connections, they have a uh public sidewalk along Sky Drive as required. They are also showing pedestrian uh sidewalks throughout the entire site, noted in the red and blue in the images on the left. Uh we are assuming both of those would be private. from what we've heard from the applicant will likely be up to the cooperative owners if they want to allow any residents uh public residents to walk through their site, especially if the Lake Manitka Regional Trail develops in the future and this might be a quicker route for some of those residents in the Lake Bridge neighborhood to the west. Um so we're assuming it's private right now, but there's the possibility that the cooperative owners would allow public access on these sidewalks. Then regarding parkland dedication that Lake Mitankka Regional Trail Corridor that I mentioned, Atoria for their project is required just under an acre of parkland dedication, but they are proposing to dedicate about 7 acres of parkland to the city. This entire stretch of the LMRT corridor, uh, which greatly exceeds their minimum requirement. And that's just worth noting the city isn't asking them to develop the uh trail section at this time or to acquire other properties outside of the scope of their project. It's not something uh that we can do per state statute. So we are just limited to accepting the land in this case. And with that, I will pass it over to Cara for a few minutes. >> Miss Garen, welcome. Good evening, mayor, members of the city council. I I guess we're happy to report that we [snorts] did receive comments from MDOT between the planning commission meeting and today. So that I guess was progress from being able to actually speak to MDOT comments compared to at the planning commission meeting where we just had to say we had no comments. Um but uh first relating to access to Highway 5, the comments did um continue to state that additional access to Highway 5 would not be supported by uh Mandot and that Lakes Parkway. So using Sky Drive to access Lakes Parkway to access this parcel um is sufficient for the project which is consistent with with what they said at the time of the Amir project as well. Um what we wanted to talk about in a little bit more detail relative to their comments is they did note that sufficient rightaway in their initial review. Um sufficient rightaway would be available for a trail on the south side of Highway 5. So I did just want to speak to that relative to a little bit of history relating to trails along Highway 5. So, um, for quite some time, dating back a while ago, um, the city decided to prioritize the Lake Minnetonka regional trail connection for Lake Bridge as being the primary means for connecting the Lake Bridge neighborhood to Highway 5. So, even with the Historia project, uh, there wasn't an emphasis on planning for a trail on the south side of Highway 5. Um the north side of Highway 5 was a question some number of years ago. Uh the Auburn neighborhood had asked the question about how do we get a trail along Highway 5. So I can speak specifically to the north side as an area that we did look at a little bit more closely. Um and then just with the questions being raised recently, I have looked at the corridor briefly relative to the southside. And while the rightaway is a bit wide through there, what I can tell you is that from a constructibility perspective, at least just with a brief look on the south side and from what we looked at on the north side, it would be likely fairly expensive to construct a trail along Highway 5. So, if you pay attention at all when you drive west past the roundabout, there's guardrail on both sides of the road. The reason that guardrail exists is because there's steep slopes and wetlands on either side. And then um we also have six mile creek. So the way trails work in mind rightway, the city could pursue constructing a trail along Highway 5 or require the developer to pursue constructing a trail along Highway 5, but that does come um as a city expense. So not something that um we would just ask mindot to out of the kindness of their h hearts go build. So long range plans for highway 5 do show a trail on the north side of highway 5. We anticipate that will continue to exist in the comprehensive plan. Um, in terms of plans to widen Highway 5 in the 2040 comprehensive plan, we weren't seeing the need for the fourlane to continue past the roundabout. That'll get revisited with the 2050 comprehensive plan to see if the traffic projections call for that. Uh, we do see a lot of traffic drop off at 11 north and 11 south. That's why we weren't in the 2040 plan seeing the need for the fourlane. So there isn't a plan to expand or reconstruct five beyond the roundabout. It's a very long way of saying I don't know at what point we would see that reconstructed. Um so lake the Lake Mitona regional trail has been communicated to me for the last 20 some years as the priority for the trail corridor. So um that's what we've been continued to work on. If the council wanted us to take a look at the south side of Highway 5 just to confirm what my driveby thoughts were about the ability to fit a trail along that corridor. Uh certainly it would be within the council's authority to suggest a condition be included that um we ask the applicant's engineer to take a look at uh the south side of the road to confirm what the challenges might be to construct a trail along the south side of the corridor. >> So even if there were room and the ability, we don't have the funding to construct a trail at this point. that would be the next piece of the puzzle that we would need to work through. And then how that fits into the other trail prioritization that we have in the city. Um just another thing worth noting is that um the assistant city manager in charge of parks and trails and I do have a meeting coming up with Carver County Parks staff next week I think it might be. And uh we are also going to chat with them. We're comparing trail prioritization between the city and the county and we want to see where the extension of the Lake Minnetonka regional trail corridor fits in their tri trail prioritization. I also chatted with Brian a bit about as we move into the comprehensive plan process. We probably need to be talking about what the next steps are to move that forward. We've talked about the fact that we don't have control over all of the property. Um, but with obtaining this piece, it's maybe time to understand what it how much property do we actually need to build a trail. Is there an opportunity to put a boardwalk in to the north of the property that we don't own through the wetland pro, you know, through the wetland that just exists north of the land that we don't own. Certainly, this has been a priority for the park and recck committee forever, councils forever, and the neighbors forever. Maybe we should be thinking about what the next steps need to be in order to move that closer to reality. What assuming this development moves forward and we get actual control over the land associated with Historia. >> And I'm going to just check. Did I miss anything? I I would think that those would be reasonable next steps to take. Um you know the right now the Lake Minnetonka Regional Trail kind of terminates right here because we don't have control of any land to further it but it is a an incredible regional asset and it would behoove us to find out what that would take to continue on with that trail. So I think all that information is good and we'll probably undertake that when we do the 2050 plan or would that be a separate exercise? I our thought was to first chat with the county about what their thoughts are as a next step and then um the 2050 comprehensive plan is underway. So that gives us a great opportunity to have that conversation. >> Perfect. And then just to touch on wetland, storm water management and site utilities. So, uh, sanitary sewer and water is available right adjacent to the property. So, those utilities were extended adjacent to this parcel in easements that were actually granted by the property owner uh at the time of the lake bridge development. So, uh those will be connected to serve all of these uh properties. And then from a storm water management perspective, this property is subject to Minia Creek Wershed District rules. And so uh once they have um preliminary plat approval in hand, assuming that approval comes forward, the developer will be working with Mina Creek Wershed District to obtain all the necessary permits. They are proposing a underground storm water management system like we've been seeing on the downtown west project. In the case of this um development, because uh this is a private street, dissimilar from what we typically see in a single family residential neighborhood, this system will be privately maintained. Uh so that will require a maintenance agreement that um the watershed district will require, but we'll also be making sure that that happens so that we can ensure that it gets properly maintained over time. There were some questions about uh some of these things at the planning commission just with the proximity of this development to the wetlands and to Sixmile Creek. Of course, this is a um part of the Min Creek wershed district's focal geography area. So, they will be applying their rules as they always do, but it is a part of the system that the district's very familiar with. So, uh that will go through that process to have all those protections put in place. So, a public hearing was held with the planning commission at their regular meeting last Tuesday. We did receive two written comments ahead of time which were included with the council case this evening uh stating opposition of another highdensity development project in Victoria while also raising concerns about increased traffic on Lakes Parkway and potential wetland impacts. We also did receive one additional comment. Um, this was long before the public hearing uh or even before we received preliminary PLA plans that uh one of our plan commissioners had requested be included with the packet since it came from them. So that was also provided to you this evening. And then we also did receive one additional comment after the public hearing was held this Tuesday or this past Tuesday. Um, but just to highlight all correspondence has been provided to the city council for your consideration this evening. And then also we did have two individuals that spoke during the public hearing at the planning commission meeting. The planning commission ended up asking questions about the previous traffic study that was conducted with the Amir project as well as the MCWD review process. Uh, also highlighting potential trail locations as Cara just discussed. and then asking if Mandot had provided comments at that point, which they had not, but we have them now. And then also asking questions about the increase in the building height and the other proposed PUD deviations. They did end up recommending approval with a 50-0 vote with one abstension by that uh plan commissioner who had submitted comments for your consideration. With that, I have some proposed conditions of approval for your consideration that were included with the resolution in your packet this evening. And I have two sample motions for you. I will note that number two does need a super majority because that is a comprehensive plan amendment. With that, I can stand for any questions and there is a representative of the application in the audience tonight. >> Very good. Thank you, Mr. McCann. Council, questions for Mr. McCann first. I have a question for you, Mr. McCann. On >> the Lake Bridge subdivision, >> is there Burming between that subdivision and Highway 5? >> Correct. There is. >> There is. >> Yes. I can work on getting something pulled up in the background to show you and I can take other questions in the meantime, too. >> Okay. Any other questions? Oh, I got a bunch. >> Council member Patterson, let's hear him. >> So, as I'm watching the planning commission meeting, this seems to me like a hybrid between an R4 and a CBD district. From my viewpoint and my understanding, if this maintains CBD level, we wouldn't be worrying about any of the PUD requests regarding um impermeable surface and and things like that. Correct. or am I wrong, >> Mayor and Council Member Patterson? That's correct. With our central business district, we have um almost no setback requirements. We have a higher imperous surface allowance. So, um when the Amir project came in with a similar design and similar requests, they did not have as many deviations proposed. So, we're moving it to an R4 basically as an administrative piece to satisfy the Met Council's requirements. I know that's being pretty blunt, but that was kind of my feel on it. Mayor and council member. Basically, um we're talking about a reduction in about half the units that was previously approved with the air project, which is forcing that resoning, which is forcing us to evaluate it differently than how it was previously approved. Um so, yeah, it it all has to go back to that density requirement. They couldn't meet the project's minimum requirement of 24 units per acre. They're at about 17 units per acre right now. So that's driving the R4 reszoning. >> Okay, that's what I thought. Um, as far as the BMS are concerned, I do like burming within the city and especially along a highway like that. Is there any chance to drop the 8 foot requirement and have them be like five feet or is there is there still just not enough space for something of that size? Mayor and council members, I'm going to look to the only engineer I see in the audience to see if he has any insight on that possibly. >> No. >> No. Unfortunately. >> Well, I mean, this is preliminary plat. So, it's like, you know, we've gone from the napkin sketch to, okay, this is now kind of serious. We're at 50% here. Give me some ideas and some things that we might be able to do. Um, I was also looking at the peaks being 60 feet. Can we drop those a few feet or is that not possible? Um, if we're constructing a burm along Highway 5 at any height with trees, is there any even room to build a public sidewalk there? I was like, I don't think so. And then obviously there's a lot of there's a ground swell of support for the LRT. So, I'm glad to hear that we're meeting with Carver County and I think we should get the Miniha Creek wershed district in. They build all those beautiful um um pathways around all the water features. So, if we can get something moving with them, I think it's imperative to do that. Um my other question was the reason that one person abstained was due to the fact that he had provided public comment. Is that right, >> Mayor and Council Member Parson? Yes, that's correct. >> Okay. I just wanted to make sure I got that right. Um, that's it for me for now anyway. >> Okay. Do you want to talk about the picture you have in front of us? >> Yes. Uh, so this is an example of the Burm adjacent to the Lake Bridge neighborhood right now. Uh, along principal arterial roadways per our plan. Uh, so our higher designated roads, Highway 5, Highway 7 in town. That's where we require our largest berm. Uh largest meaning in terms of the number of plantings they have to provide. The size of the burm generally remains the same per our code. They're required to do 8 ft tall at 3:1 slope. Now what that means is that every 1 ft that you go up, you need to go 3 feet out. So when you're talking about a 8ft burm, it's more like a a 50- foot wide area with that burm in between with a certain number of plantings on top. Um, so this is that highest level of the burm that we would require. If we were going to require it for this project, it would still be a 50- foot tall burm. It would just or yes, wide. Thank you. 50 foot wide burm. it would just be heavily planted because it happens to be along a state highway. Um, I don't know if that answers your question if there's significant or sufficient room for um a sidewalk to be incorporated still with that or how drastically that could affect the proposal. I would guess it would eat up um a significant portion of the parking lot that they're showing in their plan. Uh, but I do not have exact measurements on hand unfortunately. >> So, Brian, did you say that there's more parking that's being proposed than >> required >> necessary? Mayor and council members, that's correct. So, their requirement is 92 spaces. They're showing 140 um 100 underground, 40 on the surface. So, if they only did the underground, they would still be meeting their requirements, but I'm sure they would want some surface level parking for various reasons. >> Okay. Um, I know we have a developer here who can speak to that. So, would you please come on up? Let's let's talk. >> Um, please state your name for the record. >> You got Josh Common with Leap Development and Historia Cooperatives. Um, I will clarify just to confuse things further since there's so many so many things we're discussing. It is intended to be a story of Lake Town to avoid the Amelia Bedilia situation [laughter] that you pointed out earlier. So, it it is a story of Lake Town. I wanted to clarify that. Um, a couple of other points to clarify and then we can uh get into some some more questions. So, um, on the Birming, we're obviously not opposed to Birming. We will have residents living in in the building. Uh, the issue is it's just space. As odd as it is to say when you've got a 48 acre parcel, uh that birming would would significantly reduce the ability to build uh the project. And so our intention of of responding to that is by doing some heavy landscaping to provide screening from the highway for the cooperative owner uh occupants. So um that uh you know has been considered uh by civil site group and and we continue to to look at different ways of screening and beautifying the site. Um to uh to council members uh Peterson's question, um basically we weren't dense enough to stick with the existing zoning that was in place for the Amir project. And because it's a forale project, we wanted it to be successful. And so we had no choice but to reduce the number of units that we were proposing um because we know had we been able to keep it, a lot of the things that we're requesting tonight would not have been required. Uh but as it is a for sale product, we wanted it to be successful and the market demands were such for uh 76 unit uh as well as the six villa units that we're proposing as well. >> Um other questions I know there's things I >> uh parking talk. >> Great. So we actually did reduce parking from when we were in front of you for sketch plat. >> Um I think that was uh self-guided. I felt like we were overparked. I still feel like maybe we could afford to reduce some spaces. Uh what we did in this plan, I think it's reflected, Brian, was got rid of almost all of our head-in parking that parks towards uh the units themselves on first floor. Um so we were I mean I think we reduced 30ome spaces perhaps uh because that was a d that was double loaded originally and so we've got some more green space buffer which which um reduced some of that impervious request of ours. Um I think we would be open to reducing a bit further. Um again cooperatives by their nature uh don't have a lot of employees, full-time equivalents. Generally there's about three. Uh and so those spaces are for those folks that don't have uh a second parking stall underneath the building. So 76 units within the building. There's 100 underground. Every shareholder will get a parking space plus there will be some on a first come first-s serve. basis, they pay a monthly carrying charge to have that extra space. Some folks don't want to pay that extra cover charge, but still need a place for a second vehicle. And so that's where those 40 exterior stalls come in. >> So I trust that you've done some math on on how this works in other places and found you probably need that many. >> Um I think we could [clears throat] uh I think we could do it reduce further actually based on our sort of counts for what we typically see. So if of I mean unfortunately we can't move them. If I could pick up four spaces and move them to your downtown then we'd all be happy. >> I would love it if you could do that. [laughter] I >> but you would be a hero to a lot of people. >> I do think a reduction of five additional spaces would not hurt our programming. Um if that was the direction that >> I'm wondering if that type of reduction would help us overall though or if we're thinking more of a sizable reduction to really move the needle if you will. >> Sure. >> I don't know. Uh, you know, I think from my perspective, I I worry about the impervious thing. This is such a unique property and it isn't buildable on all of those acres. There's only a few acres on this big property that is buildable. And so, um, you know, I I don't know that the five spaces or whatever is, to your point, move the needle. >> Yeah. um on anything. But you know, I again, you guys are have done this before and kind of know what that co-op looks like and how that's different from other maybe rental projects products or homeowner products. >> Yeah. Typically, typically a project of this size in other um communities we've worked in would require more than the 90. Is it 96 or 92? >> 92. >> 192. >> Um and so I do think that your codes are are pretty well in line for senior housing. And oftent times we're met with two parking spaces per uh unit or a parking space per bedroom and that can become you know that looks like a mall and and so that's certainly not what we're after. We want as much green space as possible and so I threw out five more as a juaposition of the discussion with the downtown. I think um >> we could we could talk with Brian and see that if a further reduction was possible we would certainly be open to it. >> Helps our impervious uh reduces cost. Um, just want to make sure that we aren't going so far as to not provide the parking that the future owners would would need. >> Well, future owners and then are you thinking visitors parking in those spots? >> Absolutely. Those are visitor spots as well. >> Okay, got it. >> Yep. >> And I think we're getting a fair amount of um push back from other members of the community about the uh compromising of the wetlands in this area. So, I mean, I think it's it is fair to pay difference to the impervious like like we're talking about and and um I'll give you by way of a little bit of reference that uh I I do sort of bring maybe bias isn't the right word, but I'm I'm familiar with the co-op product. Uh my mother, bless her heart, just uh lived in one up until recently. And so the um seeing the traffic that actually happens in real life is a good experience for me with respect to this because the the and certainly the units in in her complex are much greater than what you're putting here and I have been there at all hours of the day from early morning coffee to sleepy time at night and there is not the amount of traffic in these developments that you would think to The seemingly thing cognizant of with respect to this is that we may very well have an ambulance there every single day of the week because somebody could have some medical emergency and something like that. So with respect to if we shrink parking, we would want to make sure that there's enough turnaround for them to get in and out and position themselves because they will be there. >> Yeah, absolutely. And we actually considered that not only emergency vehicles but fire as well with the hammerhead for for their turnaround and then re also the uh the culde-sac as well. But yeah, thanks for sharing. >> I think it's worth some research on if we can lower the parking and make it at least look at a consider to just see if it's if it's possible. I think that would be a good step. I'm not too concerned about the height. I love the unit count, by the way. >> Um, the height because it's more on the point, my understanding. So, you're still four stories, right? >> Yeah. >> If you're talking the low grade and you're at the point, I'm not too concerned about the 60. >> Yeah. Council member R, I share your view that the height certainly gives me less heartburn. I think we we want a good aesthetic to come out here. We don't want to compromise their architectural quality just because we're trying to reach a number. Um that there is a lot of open space here and it it does feel like we we have some room to have some soaring features and honestly this is in this has sort of like the farm barn aesthetic to it that's you know fits in with the character of this part of the community. I think the trying to make it look too much like an urban setting is counterproductive on this site. >> Great. >> Um, one of the other things we talked about was that sidewalk allowing the public, you know, kind of to see if there would be a way to cut through there. I'm not sure how how that would work, but I would encourage you to keep that in mind as we as we continue to develop this that um you know, we talked about that Lake Minnetonka Regional Trail is just a it's a real priority for us and and uh we want to be able to continue that west if possible and I I know it gets in on your space, but uh we would love it if you would do that. >> Yeah, just to address that, um we would be allies in those discussions. Um, we've talked with Brian as well and I think that um, from our understanding, um, Minihaha Creek wershed district would also be interested or someone we should bring to the table. I know that they often have funding sources as well. So, I it is a big project. It's a big undertaking. Um, but we more than anybody with the dedication of that many acres would love to see it move forward if there's a path at all, pun intended, um, to to see that to be able to connect not only our residents but also the the Lake Bridge neighborhood as well to the downtown. >> Great. Thank you for being a willing partner in that. >> Is the I mean just from like you know seeing the red line go around the building I'm assuming because of the the wetlands and stuff like you can't move the the trail out or the side allow out a little bit farther so you could have like a fence between you know what I mean so that it was then more public than right your property. >> Yeah it is it is not fenced uh not gated. Um, but you're right, there's there's only so many places you can build on that site with the wetland delineation. And so that is that reflects that edge of that boundary of us being able to do that. The blue does reflect our plan to build to connect to the hopeful future uh regional trail. Um, and then I think there was another comment too that I just wanted to address publicly and that related to um environmental. So, as part of our financing, we do have to do environmental studies. And so, we have a draft phase one report. Um, and in fact, they are going to be out on site um starting tomorrow for I think the balance of the week to finish to kind of wrap up some cultural uh evaluations that they're finishing up there for our for our financing. And so, we do have a a phase one environmental study that's complete. They're just finishing it so they can take it out of draft form and then that would be a document that we can share as well. I know there was some express or some concern about that as well. And then also I did want to say thank you for the comments about the architecture because that's certainly intentional for us. Um it's a bit of a brand um standard to to vary the heights and not just be a straight straight box a four-story building without peaks. And so that Scandinavian modern architecture is what we're going for. So >> and remind me those town homes are also part of the co-op as well. It's just a different product than the >> Yeah, correct. which is why we felt good about reducing some of those sideyard setbacks because they're no different than any of the other units in the 76 unit building. They're part of the same co-op. >> Got it. Thank you. >> What uh >> so to be I just went I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> Um what uh what you this is a different product that being that it's you know a co-op uh what is the typical age that you see in these uh compared to you know a senior like do you see a big difference in in these? >> Yeah, there really is a big difference. So um we have also in my experience developed market rate senior housing or no not really dissimilar to the Amira project that was proposed and in our um senior living market rate rental communities. This is independent we were seeing average ages in the mid to upper 80s. Um and oftentimes with the senior cooperative ownership model we're seeing um at most recent data check it was around 71 was the average age in the co-op. Council member Vans. >> Yes. So, so but to be clear, do you plan as part of your development to construct that trail to get to these outlaws? >> Assuming we're able to figure out a path, uh yeah, our plan inside of the development is to have a portion of the trail come uh what would be plan south or actually south, correct? I'm not turned around. Um yes, that is in our development plan. >> Okay. So you you will then have to bridge the creek >> part part of the construction type will be boardwalk for ours as well. >> Okay. So I'm I'm kind of thinking a little bit maybe I don't know if this is truly outside the box, but the outlots like outlot C for instance that will become the city of Victoria in this project. Correct. >> Correct. So council, you know, one perhaps one of the things we could ask staff to consider is, hey, it's it's going to take a long time to get this turned into a regional trail. That's clear, right? There's private property that the owners don't want to give that up. However, you know, I I see an opportunity here in that perhaps we could have community gardens built in these outlaws in the interim while life works its way to that point. What would be better than to have the residents of this project be able to use that to grow fresh vegetables, etc., and even have, you know, if we have good neighbors from Lakebridge come over and use a product that is really just enormously popular within the city. >> Makes a lot of sense. >> Sure. >> Okay. Other questions, comments? >> All right. Seeing none, we do have >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you. We have a couple of sample motions on uh um up here. So with that, I will entertain a first motion. >> Motion to adopt the resolution approving the preliminary PLA preliminary planned unit development and site plan and building materials request for Atoria Victoria. >> Thank you very much. Do we need to take those individually or is that okay as one motion? >> That is okay as one. >> Okay, very good. We're going to call that Lake Town Atoria. That's a friendly amendment to avoid the Amelia Bedilia, which I really think is cute. All right, we have a motion. Can I get a second? >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. Any opposed? >> Motion carries. And with that, I will entertain the second motion. >> Move to adopt the resolution authorizing submitt of a comprehensive plan amendment to the Metropolitan Council. >> 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. Next item on our agenda this evening, item 6.5 is a preliminary plat for downtown West, fourth edition. Mr. McCann, you're earning your salary again this evening. >> Thank you, mayor and council members. Again, we are at the preliminary plat stage with the application in front of you this evening for Downtown West fourth edition where the major entitlements are granted and we do a lot of the in-depth review of their plans. So, we have three requests from them this evening. The first one being the preliminary plat, secondly being a conditional use permit request for three different conditional uses, and then lastly a site plan and building materials request. So, the location and existing conditions, it's located at 2120 Arburidum Boulevard, which is a single parcel just under an acre in size. Uh, it currently consists of the vacant former Dairy Queen building and has 37 parking stalls on the site. It's adjacent to the future downtown west master development and the daycare uh property just to the north. And then um the property has two access points right now. There's one currently on Victoria Drive, County Road 11, and then there's one on Highway 5 as well. And the site as it sits today is about 67% impervious. So this is the preliminary plat that was submitted for consideration. It shows an extension of that main street from the downtown west development to the east. They are showing two lots with this proposal, one for each building. The western lot would have the drivethru uh and is anticipated to be uh some sort of coffee drive-thru user. And then the second building uh would be within lot two here. And that is anticipated to be a grab-and-go food style uh building as well. And then both lots would have parking included in front of the building that would be within their property boundaries which would be privately maintained by those uh building owners. >> Mr. McCann, the second that lot two does not have a drive-thru, just lot one. Is that correct? Thank you. >> So here is the site plan that was provided. You can see the western building with the drive-thru. That drive-thru has capacity for up to 15 vehicles. And then the second building here located centrally uh without a drive-thru, but does have some uh on [clears throat] street parking as well. Um the western building is 1,900 square ft in size and then the central building is 2300 square feet in size. Uh outdoor dining areas are shown on both of the concepts for these buildings. And then they have 40 on street parking stalls proposed throughout the project here along that extension of Main Street. Their primary access point would be a right in right out at County Road 11 and then they would remove that existing access to Highway 5 that is there currently. For zoning and the comprehensive plan, it's currently zoned central business district and guided downtown makes use in our 2040 comprehensive plan. The commercial uses that are being proposed comply with our zoning and our comp plan. Uh the two items that require conditional use permits though are those drive-thrus and the permanent outdoor dining areas as shown um on the site plan image prior. This project is also within the shoreland overlay district because it's within 1,000 ft of Auburn Lake. Commercial uses in the shoreland district also require a conditional use permit. So those are the three uses requiring a conditional use permit for consideration this evening. They're also subject to the maximum 80% impervious of the shoreland for our central business district. Their current proposal is at about 77.8%. So they are compliant and there is no variance required for that. The conditional use permits that are being requested tonight are compliant with our general standards as outlined in our code. We also have a separate section uh requiring specialized conditional use permit requirements uh for certain uses. One of those is for drive-throughs. We evaluated the three requirements listed in code for that. They are compliant with all three. They don't have any structures or parking with any um 100 ft of a residential zoning district. They also have the minimum 150 ft of street frontage with two access points and a landscaped front yard for the project. Looking at their building materials, their proposal does comply with our elevated design standards of the central business district. They're providing uh variations of the building facades, enhanced building entries, and highquality exterior materials, including aluminum storefront, composite wood, corrugated metal panels, and standing seam metal roofing. Uh this is the central building, the lot 2 building that was shown in previous um site plans. And then this is the lot one building with the drive-thru exit for reference. Moving on to lighting and signage, their sketch plat previously proposed a monument sign. Uh they weren't able to make that work with the reorientation of the western building, so that has since been removed. They are showing signage for the two buildings which will require building permits um with future submitts. And then um they also have not finalized the lighting plan yet that's being incorporated with the remainder of the downtown west plans. We want to make sure that there's a cohesive lighting plan for this entire area. But we anticipate that what they are providing is going to be sufficient since they are showing eight street lights in proximity to that extension of Main Street. Then looking at landscaping and tree preservation, they are showing plantings around the proximity of the site. As you can see in the image on the left, they also have extensive shrub and perennial plantings. They have a portion of native seed on the south side adjacent to Highway 5, which one of our planning commissioners was very excited about and hoping to maintain that for this project or keep that in the area for this project, not for staff to maintain, just for clarification. Um, and then the central business district is exempt from open space and minimum planting requirements. Uh the only area that uh this does not meet the uh intent of the code is for 100% of those existing trees being removed. There are four trees on the site currently that would need to be removed for this project. They're trying their uh best to include plantings, tree plantings where it makes sense, but they aren't able to meet the full obligation. Similar to the downtown west development, the intent is to uh develop a urban environment that's not oversaturated with trees. So, they're trying to be smart with the plantings uh with this project. And then looking at parking and drive aisles, they are showing a 26 foot wide drive aisle as required by code with the two proposed restaurant uh style uses. Our code requires 18 spaces per 1,000 square ft. That comes out to be a required 77 parking stalls per our code. They are proposing 40 parking stalls with this project. In our code, a 50% reduction can be granted. We think that this would be a reasonable solution for this due to the offsetting uses. Your coffee users in the western building will be primarily there from 6:00 to 10 in the morning and then you'll have your lunch and dinner uses. So these 40 stalls should could be shared between the two users and meet their uh parking capacity requirements. And then additionally, this building shown uh retail building E as part of the downtown west development was previously going to be a drive-thru that's since anticipated to be converted to a retail building which has a much less uh parking requirement. So some of the capacity from this area or even over here could accompany uh these two uses as well. Then looking at pedestrian connections, they are showing sidewalk throughout the site as seen in yellow on the screen with connections to the trail along County Road 11 and Highway 5. Um they also have those portions of the outdoor dining as well within that sidewalk area. Then looking at park dedication, any commercial project per our code that's less than an acre in size is not required to dedicate any parkland or fee in lie of land. So we do not anticipate any dedication with this phase of the downtown west development. They are providing uh the central green and the public plaza as part of the downtown west development though. So there are amenities nearby and then I will pass it over to Cara for a bit. >> Miss Garren, welcome back. >> Thank you mayor, members of the city council. Uh same as what we talked about on the last development, this development is also subject to Minia Creek wershed district rules and regulations. Um they are once again uh proposing underground storm water management for this area as well which is consistent with what has been provided with the other parts of uh the downtown west development. They will need a permit from mindot to connect to the um storm sewer system that was constructed within the highway 5 project. Otherwise, uh water is being extended from the existing water system that is in uh the area and then sanitary sewer is being provided by the sanitary sewer stub that thankfully we put in in the right location and right elevation during the construction of the highway 5 and 11 project that thankfully Matt Pavoc was able to get information to us before we finished the sanitary sewer and paved a road. So, that was a nice change order to make sure that we had in place before tonight. Um, moving on, what I wanted to um talk a bit about was just how this site fits into transportation improvements that have been completed within the area. Uh Brian touched on it briefly that um access to the site is going to be from the new main street and then um a right in right out access on County Route 11. I was happy to be able to show what it looks like today with the completed improvements. Um I did want to at least note for the city council that we have not received official comments from Carver County on the preliminary plat. It has been communicated to me that county staff is concerned about the write in write out on County Road 11. And what that's coming from is a historical perspective from the county that in the county's vision for the corridor. Um this access would be eliminated and access to this development would be solely from within the 13 and a half acres. Um, that has been something that historically was discussed with city staff over time. I think in those previous conversations, I don't think the city staff, which would be not me, but community development staff didn't envision that we would have an opportunity for these types of uses in this location. And so from my understanding from the development team and the community development team for the types of uses that are being proposed here, this type of access is really critical for the success of the uses here. The county isn't a isn't in a position to not allow the access to exist because it exists today. So they don't have the ability to say no. Um, I have had the city, um, the traffic engineering team that worked on the highway 5 and 11 project take a look at it. They haven't flagged any sight distance concerns or any um, real safety concerns that I feel compelled to communicate to you, but I did need to at least note that concern from the county for the council's um, information. Secondly, uh the other sorry, the other piece of the puzzle that has come up that I've been trying to figure out how to communicate in English and not traffic engineering speak is that we've been carrying a comment through the sketch plat review and through the preliminary plat review about the potential need and I guess I'll go back here for the need to dedicate additional rightaway in this corner for some future use and we were waiting to see if MDOT was going to make that request in their comment letter and they did not. So MDOT hasn't specifically requested that additional rightway be dedicated for a future need on Highway 5. Where that was coming from in our comment letters is when we were working on the roundabout project. What the engineering team identified is a potential need when the corridor gets converted to fourlane would be to have a free separated right turn lane on the roundabout so that when you're going westbound and making the northbound movement that you would like have a median separating you from the traffic that's going through. So if that were to be something that the city requested, it would have a significant impact on this site. So the development wouldn't be able to proceed as has been envisioned. If you picture needing to add like a whole another right turn lane and a median in [snorts] this area, so you know, you have the trail over here. Everything would have to essentially be pushed out. What did we think, Matt? 10, 15 feet. um which again would impact the viability of the development for the developer. So this certainly wasn't something that the developer was interested in being able to accommodate. They wouldn't be able to move forward with what they have envisioned for the site. So what I was trying to figure out was how to communicate what that means. So this is the intersection of um 61 and um Creek Road that goes up the hill by 101. So you have a four lane that comes into a roundabout and you have a right turn lane going north into a two-lane situation and a two-lane situation on the other side. So when you're coming into that roundabout, you need to make a decision before you get to the roundabout which lane you need to be in. So are you going to be in the left lane going through the roundabout or are you going to be in the right lane to go north towards Minitrista? So that's the condition of what this would look like under a fourlane. So the next thing I had to do was then ask our traffic engineers to take a look at in this situation, are we going to be causing a problem for the city down the road when the fourlane comes in by not having that free right turn lane. So, we did some additional traffic analysis and basically what they concluded is in 2045 when the light turns green at Victoria Drive by Floyd's there'll be like a pack of cars that comes through and gets to this intersection and we might start to see a backup when that pack of cars has to get in their correct lane out towards the bridge. I did not identify that to be a g big concern for me. So, as I sit here today, I'm not recommending that you scratch the community development department's vision or the developers vision for this intersection and this plan development, but did want to flag it for you in case we're back here in two years talking about the fourlane and I'm saying we don't have enough room for a free right turn lane. So that comment that has been in my comment letter repeatedly as it's coming through is going to go away. Think I explained it in English. I I got it. >> Yeah, I got it. >> Okay. >> Council, my my feeling is that >> there's an ample amount of time to make that [laughter] decision and with the right amount of signage and pavement painting, um it's not like you have to make the decision before the bridge and you could. So there feels like um >> correct. They even >> there's enough space to to get that done. >> Correct. They even looked at the turn lane length that they would need in order to make that transition and concluded there was enough distance from the bridge >> people to think it through, make a choice and be in the right spot. >> Yeah. And again, the only time of day that they saw that concern was when the light turns green in the PM peak and that herd of traffic is moving through. They did not identify it a concern under normal conditions >> in 19 years. >> Correct. These are the types of things that I worry about quite frankly all the time, but >> normally I don't have to convey it to you, but I've been repeating the comment for several months now. So needed do explain it publicly. >> Got it. Okay, great. We got it. We're smart. We can learn these things. >> Perfect. Then um a public hearing was held during the plan commission meeting last Tuesday. It was properly noticed and duly held. We did not receive any comments uh either written or provided during the plan commission public hearing that evening. Uh they discussed that native grass area like I mentioned as well as the proposed restaurant uses and parking as well as main street sightelines for vehicles and pedestrians. And they also uh ended up recommending approval with a 6 vote. With that, I have some proposed conditions of approval that were included in the resolution in your packet this evening. I highlighted the first two just because those are our atypical um than our standard boilerplate conditions that we usually have. The first one is uh for those conditional use permit approvals for those three conditional uses I highlighted earlier in my presentation and then secondly granting that 50% parking reduction for those offsetting uses between the two buildings. And then I did include a caveat that if the uses change in the future, the conditional use permit needs to be re-evaluated again to make sure the incoming user is compliant with the parking requirements. So with that, I have one sample motion for you to consider this evening. Staff can stand for any questions you have and there are representatives of the application in the audience as well. >> Very good. Thank you, Mr. McCann and council questions, comments. I have a comment on >> council member Ivanski. Let's hear it. >> I'm not in love with the name Main Street for here. I don't think that this speaks as a main street. This does however anchor this site to the broader overall downtown west. So feel like a more appropriate name might be anchor perhaps way anchor terrace anchor something so that it just does not speak main street to me >> Mr. run. >> I think council member Iansky would like a road named after him. >> Yes, I was just going to say >> Iansky way, right? >> People people would spell it wrong. Trust me. [laughter] >> So Main Street of course uh we wanted that I think collectively all agreed on in downtown West because that really there wasn't Main Street wasn't taken and this happens to connect with Main Street with the new retail buildings surrounding it. So that's the only reason why it's at this point name main street. All right, other questions or comments? >> My only concern was the future use of the built the building to the east and if that became a pancake house or something like that, but with the conditional use permit as defined as Brian put it, I don't have any problems with it. >> The comment on the drive-thru, I understand the two two lanes in a sense. Is there anything in the middle of those lanes? >> Um, right now I can't disclose that the coffee user is doing their design work that takes what this is as a background and puts in um likely I think anyway two coffee >> telecom stations, you know, the video boards >> kind of separated. >> So be separated that way. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So there'll probably be a median in between, >> I believe. So yeah. >> So we're not all bumping up against each other. >> Yeah. So they might have slight tweaks to what exactly that is with how they queue and everything, but that's what's happening right now. >> Got it. Thank you. >> One pardon of the pun. Do you um would having a drive-thru window on the building to the east be problematic and create a quote food fight in the space? >> Yeah. So we we had to make a decision fork in the road that we had to have all the the only drive-thru would be the the west building, not the east building. We just we tried to test fit. This was the tent version of this site plan. We worked on with the city staff and uh we tried to accommodate both because there's more tenants that want drive-throughs, but we had to make a decision so we chose the coffee building as the drive-thru. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions, comments? All right, seeing none, I will entertain a motion. Motion to adopt the resolution approving the preliminary plat conditional use permit and site plan and building materials requests for downtown West fourth editions with staff conditions with additional conditions. >> 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. We are moving on. We are Item 6.6 Six is a conditional use permit request for illuminated commercial signs for Harland, a new restaurant. Presenting on that this evening is the very patient Travis Brierly. Mr. Brierly, welcome. >> Thank you, mayor and councel. Um, as pointed out, we had an application for an illuminated sign at um, Harland, which is right downtown. Um and u it it's approximately a single internal illuminated sign halo as we've seen before prior applications being about 52 square feet. Uh the application does have a 60-day deadline for council action by September 27th. Um we did all the proper notice as well as mailing to everybody within 350 ft. And we did conduct a public hearing during the planning commission on August 18th where no comments were received and there was unanimous uh recommendation from the council or from excuse me from the planning commission for approval. The location for the sign is going to be at 1715 uh Stiger Lake Lane. Uh so right next to Vixs, the sign is is going to be facing north toward Stiger Lake Lane with the building on the south. It is a si it's a a single sign uh as far as uh when we look at it from a zoning perspective and it'll simply just say Harland which will be the illuminated part and then chicken and fish will also be included with it. The proposed conditions are the same conditions which have been used uh for the prior illuminated signs that we've looked at uh including non-working lights being fixed or repaired within 30 days of notice that they've been broken to keep a uniform look. also making sure we take care of safety aspects as well as making sure that it's not another light source for illumination in the downtown area to keep light pollution low. Um, and with that, um, I have a proposed motion on the screen. >> Very good. Any questions, comments? >> So, just quick question. So, the Harland part will be eliminated. The chicken and fish will not. Is that >> council member? That is my understanding. Yes. Okay. Any other questions or comments? Seeing none, I will entertain a motion. >> Motion to adopt resolution granting conditional use permit for eliminated commercial sign for Harland at 1715 Stiger Lake Lane. >> We have a motion. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> Have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. Next up is another conditional use permit request for illuminated commercial signs for upstream financial advisors. Again, Mr. Brierly, welcome back. >> Mayor Council, the second application is for a similar sign. This is for two uh Halo illuminated commercial signs, approximately 48 square feet each. Um and it went through the same process as the Harland sign with a 60-day um uh notice to be done by September 27th. Um, in addition, it went to public hearing at last week's uh planning commission meeting where there is no comments received and there were u it was unanimous recommendation for approval by the planning commission. For the two signs, what they're looking at is taking over the Tazzy baby and child space. Uh, so the two signs are shown with the the stars on here, one facing Victoria Drive and then one facing into the privately owned parking lot on the south side of the tower building. just to kind of give an idea of what that would look like. Uh this is the the look from Victoria Drive. Uh currently there's the Tazzy sign. It's approximately the same size as what Upstream Financial Advisors is proposing. Additionally to that, the on the parking lot side, the Tazzy sign would be removed and then the upstream financial sign is placed over uh the 107 suite instead of the 108 suite which Tazzy had previously occupied. Uh there's conditions. It's the same conditions that we just discussed with the Harland Chicken and Fish sign as well as the prior ones. Um and with that, I stand I have a motion and stand for any questions. >> Very good. Thank you. Council, any questions, comments on this one? >> Similar question to council memberies on the last one. Is upstream and financial advisors are they both illuminated or not? >> Council member, this will be a full illumination for the sign. >> Full illumination. Got it. >> And that that Tazzy sign will be removed, but the upstream sign is actually going to be located right where it's shown. >> So, there's not going to be any sign above those. >> Yeah, mayor. That is my understanding. >> Very good. Thank you. Any other questions? Seeing none, I will entertain a motion. Motion to adopt a resolution granting a conditional use permit for illuminated commercial signs for upstream financial advisors at 1750 Tower Boulevard suites 107 and 108. >> We have a motion. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. There are no more items on our regular agenda this evening, council, so we're moving on to reports and emerging issues. Attorney VS, you're up first. Mayor, council, I have nothing to report. >> Miss Hardy, anything from staff? >> None from staff. Madame Mayor, >> how about anything from the council? >> Uh, I would just uh uh Miss Hardy, uh residents have probably seen or heard the work being done on the uh uh water tower. I just curious if you can give an update on the work being done and then uh uh timeline for completion. Um, I am gonna pull >> Sorry, putting you on the spot. >> I give me 30 seconds to pull some information. >> I had two people ask about it this weekend. So, I'm well verssed on going on the website and sending that on via text message midfall. >> 30 seconds here. I want to make sure I'm >> up to date on all the things. >> Okay. Um, [snorts] just bringing it up on our website. So, we do on our just for transparency purposes, we do have um some information on our website if anybody is interested in uh learning more or seeing more details on this, but um so we started that project on August 3rd. I'm looking for the timeline. Um right now our water water tower is empty and so people may be um experiencing some fluctuations with water pressure. So we just encourage people that if you're experiencing that just let us know so we can u make sure that there isn't anything additional going on. But there um the work that is being done is to remove um kind of the old coating to do the inspection of the seal to make sure that that's um intact and to make any necessary repairs. Um we'll be doing some protective coating layers that will um protect our strict water drinking standards and then when we're done with all of that um I'll call it mechanical or technical work or then what we're going to do is repaint it and then that should last another 20 or 25 years. So, um I'm not sure if we have a completion date on it, so I might have to come back um circle back with that. Um but I think I if I recall correctly, I think it's early fall. >> Awesome. Weather permitting. >> Weather permitting. >> Yeah, it's going to start raining now. >> Right. [laughter] >> I thought the water pressure was due to kids home this summer. So, >> it's not. >> Now, all the kids are going back and everybody's going to get back their water pressure. All right. Anything else from council? >> I got one thing for you. >> Yes, council member Patterson, please. >> Many of you know I'm involved with the League of Minnesota Cities and of course I raised my hand when they were talking about the data practices number eight, which is law enforcement technologies. Many of the members felt that it was too light and soft and they wanted something they wanted us to contribute and put together a more strict policy. By no means are these the city of Victoria's viewpoints. I simply went and gleaned a bunch of information off of other municipalities, put a pile of them together, sent them off for legal review and for the other folks that are within the committee. Now, where this does come to where it might affect us is that the league may be taking a stricter stance on facial recognition software and on um flock cameras or ALPRs. Um at that point in time, we may want to consider revising our policy stance on some of the law enforcement technologies, but none of that's happened yet. We haven't even voted on anything yet or recommended anything, but just wanted to make you guys aware of it. And if you want to contribute something, I'm all ears. >> Very good. Thank you. Anything else? >> I just say if people haven't been able to drive by the uh new fire station, they should because it's looking great. It was lit up the other day and it's pretty impressive at night. So excited for the open house. >> Yeah, same. All right, members of the council, there are no more items to come before the council this evening. So, I will entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> Move to adjurnn. >> We got a We got a motion. >> Second. and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries and we stand.