I will now call this meeting to order. Our first agenda item this evening is open forum. Open forum is an opportunity for anyone to address the commission on an item that is not on the agenda and not in application form be coming before the commission at a future date. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address the planning commission on an item not on the agenda and not in application that will be coming before the commission at a future date? Seeing that there are, we'll move on to adopting the final agenda. Commissioners, our next item on the is to adopt the final agenda. May I have a motion to adopt the final agenda? So moved. >> Second. >> Get a second. >> All right. So Otter Stadder and Kleinter provided the motions. All those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. Our first item uh our first regular item is 4.1 approving planning commission meeting minutes of the August 5th, 2026 meeting. May I have a motion to approve those minutes? >> So moved. >> So I got I think I got two here. So uh Shower and Quad provided those. So um all those in favor? >> I >> I any opposed? Not hearing any. We'll move on. Our first discussion item tonight is item 4.2. consider a preliminary plat and associated application for Atoria Victoria. After a staff presentation, I'll open it up for a public hearing for those in the chamber this evening that wish to speak on on request. Anyone who wishes to speak be will be allowed three minutes and I'll kindly ask you uh to move to the next individual to speak until everyone has had their opportunity. Then I'll ask for the planning commission for a motion to close the public hearing. Please note that the planning commission and the city staff do not engage in back and forth discussions during this public hearing. I'll now turn it over to the city planner, Brian McCann, for the staff presentation. >> Thank you, chair and plane commissioners. I'm going to look over to our AV window to see if we can get our presentation up on the screen. Oh, sure. >> There we go. Thank you. Sorry about that, everyone. >> No, thank you. >> Yeah, thank you Josh. Uh so the request in front of you tonight is for Atoria Victoria. Uh we are in the preliminary plat stage which is the second stage of the uh development process. This is where we look at the more detailed applications uh and focus on all of their reviews, zoning, grading, uh utilities and then also where we grant the major entitlements. So you usually won't just get [clears throat] a preliminary plat application at this stage. you'll get uh any conditional use permits, comprehensive plan amendments, anything like that. So, those are the entitlements being considered tonight. Uh and then next, if they receive approvals from the city council, which is planned to go to their meeting on Monday, August 24th, they would proceed with preparing a final plat for review, which would not go to the plan commission, only to the city council. So, tonight we have four requests related to this application. We have the preliminary plat as I mentioned. They are also requesting a comprehensive plan amendment as well as a preliminary planned unit development reszoning and then a site plan and building materials application which is required for any new uh commercial or uh highdensity residential developments in town. So for the location and existing conditions, it's located at 2285 Arburidum Boulevard. That property does consist of four parcels. The larger one here and three uh smaller parcels noted on the screen in the image on the left. The site currently consists of two existing single family homes. There's one here at the end of Sky Drive and then another one central to the site down towards the wetlands. Uh the southern two parcels here, this long stretch of corridor, actually have an easement over them with the city uh for future dedication for the Lake Mitankka Regional Trail Corridor. They currently have a full access to Highway 5 here on the north. Um and then also a full access to Sky Drive here. There is also significant wetland coverage as you can see in the image on the left uh with a stream that connects Auburn Lake to the north to Carl Cray Lake down to the southwest offscreen. This site was also part of the former Amira project which you may recall was a 147 unit senior living facility. Um they weren't able to make that project pan out. So that is why we have the request from Ebenezer Development in front of us tonight. So here is their proposed preliminary plat. They are showing three lots uh with one large outlot here that would be dedicated to the city for wetlands um and buffer preservation. Their project though uh mostly consists on lot one that would consist of a 76 unit cooperative senior housing apartment condo building and then two single family lots here shown as lots two and three. With the cooperative site, they are planning to do 140 parking stalls. You may recall at Sketch Plat, they were originally planning to do 167, but there were some concerns about impervious surface. So, um, and the need for that much parking for a senior living facility um or a elderly living scenario. So they requested or they actually reduced their parking requirement by 27 stalls with this new proposal that you're seeing tonight. 40 of those stalls are in the parking lot above ground. And then the remaining 100 stalls are all within the building located underground. And then with that they are not proposing any direct access to Highway 5. Everything would be funneled through Sky Drive which would then come up Lakes Parkway and connect to Highway 5. So, one of their requests was for a reasonzoning to planned unit development with underlying um R4 is what is anticipated. This project or this property previously received uh planned unit development approval with underlying central business district for their project. The reason they're not use or utilizing that zoning is because they are proposing about half the number of units that the previous project had. So they aren't able to make the density uh for the central business district that is required between 24 and 75 units per acre. Their project is about 17 units per acre. So that's why they are requesting the resoning with their application. As you know, the planned unit development process is used to allow innovative, creative, and flexible development. Uh, input is provided at sketchplat, which the plan commission, city council did. And then here is where we finalize some of the details at preliminary plat with a final ordinance being considered at final plat to formally reszone it to planned unit development. So with that in the case and on the screen for you this evening, I broke it down between the three types of products that they are proposing with their application. The single family uh units are proposing a rear setback reduction from 30 ft to 10 ft. You might recall during sketch plat that uh city staff actually requested or played a part in this proposal uh proposed deviation because of the wetland buffer impacts. there just wasn't enough room in the rear yards. So, they're requesting a reduction in that setback from 30 feet to 10 ft. They're also requesting a minimum lot size reduction from 20,000 square ft, which is a shoreland requirement, down to 13,000 square ft for the single family homes and then an increase in the impervious from 25% to 35% partly due to that reduction in the minimum lot size. And just as a side note, I think I'll cover this later in the presentation, but we did forward this application to our DNR area hydraologists. They did not provide any comments within their 30-day review timeline. So, um I've reached out to them a couple times. We don't have any comments from them. Um but they did review it during the sketch plat and stated that they did not have any concerns at that time. Okay. And then for the town homes, they're proposing a small reduction in the front setback from 25 ft to 24. Side setback uh specifically to the lot line for the closest unit of that town home to the shared property line with one of the single family homes is 9 ft and the requirements 15 ft for building separation. And then for rear setback, a similar scenario. It's 25 ft to right ofway, but in this case, uh they are proposing 20 feet to the lot line, which is not adjacent to right away, but it's a deviation that should be noted within the planned unit development. And then lastly, for the highdensity apartment condo building, they are proposing a deviation in the maximum 25% impervious of the Shoreland district up to 50%. You may recall that our shoreland ordinance says any central business district project can go up to 80%. So the change in zoning is what's triggering this to go from 80% to 25%. The applicant is requesting a halfway point roughly at 50%. And then the maximum building height they are proposing uh 60 feet. That's a certain measurement between the highest uh ground floor elevation and the actual um peak of the roof here. So 60 ft is their proposed measurement there and I have some renderings of the building later where I can highlight that 60 ft. So um as part of this they are also requesting a comprehensive plan amendment. It's currently guided in our 2040 comprehensive plan as a mix of downtown mixeduse, open space, and park. That was from the previous Amira proposal. As I mentioned, their project is at about 17 units per acre right now. So, that actually requires them to get a comprehensive plan amendment to allow a lower density than what they could be doing out here. uh with that the residential uses that they are proposing comply with the R4 district and the highdensity residential district in our comp plan. Then here's uh that piece on the shoreland overlay district. They are within a th00and ft of six mile creek and Auburn Lake. So that requires the DNR's review which they did not provide comments for. Uh with this and the planned unit development requests, they are they will require a residential shoreland planned unit development for those deviations from our shoreland requirements that 20,000 square ft for the single family and the 50% uh maximum impervious for the cooperative site. They did provide a tier analysis and they are showing uh a maximum density of 84 units per the RSPUD requirements which is exactly the number of units that they are proposing with their project. Then moving on to building materials, lighting and signage. These are some renderings of the proposed uh cooperative building and town homes that are proposed with the project. their exterior materials exceed our minimum requirements for residential districts. Once again, this is outside of our central business district. So, uh they're not subject to those elevated design standards, but they've incorporated a lot of them within their designs for these buildings. And then they are providing sufficient street lighting for the public culde-sac. They have one shown at the end of the culde-sac uh in their plans. And then there is not any monument signage proposed currently as far as we can tell. in their plans, but they do have a small uh wall sign here proposed adjacent to the entrance for their building. So, that would require a building permit in the future, but that would uh meet our minimum requirements as well for signage. Then, regarding landscaping and tree preservation, generally they're meeting all of our requirements. They're providing uh approximately 50% open space for the development as well as the minimum number of plantings. They're showing foundation plantings around the town homes and the cooperative building. Uh buffers was a difficult one for this site. With our buffers, we require an 8ft tall burm which coincides with about roughly 50 ft of width to achieve that. So doing that between a R1 uh lowdensity single family house and the town home units as required would be difficult to achieve. So, they've incorporated some plantings here to help buffer those lots. And then they ran into the same issue with Highway 5 on the north end of the site here. So, they're providing a lot of trees on the north end, but then they also have some shrubs adjacent to the parking lot as well to help screen any vehicles. Um, and then for boulevard trees, they're providing those every 45 ft along the public culdesac noted here in the image on the left. And then off- streetet parking areas. They don't have any trees within their islands within their parking lot, but that's because they have utilities running through those areas. So, we don't want trees on top of utility lines. We don't want those uh root systems to impact our water and sewer services. So, we are comfortable with that deviation as well. And then their replacement obligation comes out to 333 in of um replacements from their total removal of existing trees on site. They are providing 129 trees in place of that and our minimum requirement is 2 and 12 in per tree. So they're exceeding that standard with all of their replacements as well. Then looking at the streets and parking, as I mentioned, they have the public culde-sac here, which is highlighted in blue, as well as their private development entrance and parking lot, as well as their entrance down to their parking garage highlighted in red. In the image on the left, our code requires uh senior housing parking requires one space per dwelling unit and one additional space for every five units. So with their 76 unit building that they're proposing, they are required to have 92 spaces for their project. As I mentioned earlier, they're providing 140. So they're well above their minimum requirements there as well. And then the single family homes and the town homes are each anticipated to have sufficient driveway length and two stall garages to meet the minimum parking requirements for those units as well. Then looking at pedestrian connections, they do have a section of uh public sidewalk noted in the green here along Sky Drive. It's anticipated that as soon as you enter the cooperative site, everything else will be private after that. uh will be up to the cooperative residents uh if they would allow any public visitors to walk through their sites or to utilize uh this private trail that's being shown in blue down to the future Lake Manitonka Regional Trail whenever that occurs in the future. Then for Parkland dedication, speaking about the Lake Minnitonka Regional Trail, this would satisfy their obligation for parkland dedication. uh senior housing gets a 50% credit. So they ha only have to provide less than an acre of dedication. They're providing seven with this area. So they're going well above and beyond what is required. Um and then the questions have come up if they are able to purchase additional properties along this corridor from private property owners or if they would construct the trail. uh statute is pretty clear that they only need to give the land and not actually construct the improvements that will be on city, county, um anyone else who has an interest in developing this trail. So, moving on to wetland storm water management and site utilities. It's subject to the MCWD's rules and regulations. They are platting uh the outlots uh containing the wetlands and buffers. This area in blue is that area that I mentioned that was impacting the previous lot lines for those single family homes. They were originally showing them going all the way back uh into this uh dashed buffer area. We are required by code to obtain wetlands and buffers within outlot. So that's why uh they're giving this area to us within that outlot and requesting that 10-ft rear setback reduction. And then they also have a proposed underground storm water system highlighted in green with the remainder of their water and sewer services coming off of Highway 5 and Sky Drive and going throughout the site uh east to west. So with that uh you do need to hold a public hearing this evening. It was posted in the August 6th edition of the Wakonia Patriot. We also did provide mailed notice to people within 350 ft of the property's boundaries. was posted online and at city hall. Uh I forgot to update this slide earlier, but we actually received two public comments uh in opposition of another highdensity project in the city. I provide printed copies for you. I also emailed those to you as well, and they will be part of the city council packet for the meeting on Monday the 24th. And then I mentioned this already, uh but this will be going to council on Monday, August 24th, if the planning commission makes a recommendation tonight. So, if anyone is interested watching from home or in council chambers this evening, uh be aware that you might want to attend or watch the meeting on the 24th as well. Uh you're welcome to attend, but they will likely not be taking any public comments. So, this is really your time as a resident uh to get up and speak and provide comments to our planning commission, which will then get forwarded to the city council for consideration. So, with that, I have some proposed conditions of approval on the screen for consideration by the planning commission this evening. None of these are um atypical from what you would normally see. Um just generally resoning approvals and compliance with staff review memos, all the other uh boilerplate conditions that you guys usually see. But with that, uh I have a sample motion for you on the screen if you decide to approve. I also have two subp parts here either with staff conditions or with any additional conditions that you'd like to do. Uh with that I can stand for any questions and a representative of the application is in the audience tonight as well. >> All right. Thank you. Uh does the applicant wish to speak tonight? My name is Scott. >> Would you >> uh Yeah, please come forward and state your name. And >> Scott Jensen and I'm the architect with this project. I work with Cosson Architects and yeah, open any questions that you may have otherwise I have no public statement. >> Okay. Um I think does anyone have a question for him at this time? I have one quick question, Mr. Jensen. Has there been a comprehensive environmental assessment? >> Not as of yet. Yeah, we're doing a geotechnical report and all everything seems fine on that regards in regards to uh you know what the soil conditions are or any water tables. So, but >> Brian mentioned that we have not heard anything from the DNR hydraologist, but I think it'd be good to have an overall assessment uh of the environmental impact given the proximity to the wetlands. That's my only input. Uh I appreciate the fact that the this is one of those rare cases in which we're actually arguing for less parking. Uh typically we're going the other way but uh we felt that the at the initial uh stage that there was too much parking allotted. So I'm glad that that change is made but I I for one would feel more comfortable if there was a comprehensive environmental impact assessment. >> Okay. Noted. Yeah. Thank you. >> All right. If nothing else then um well thank you. if um we'll have our discussion later. But um so now I'd like to take the opportunity to open it up to the public hearing. So is there anyone in the chambers this evening who wishes to comment on this particular item tonight? If you'll come up, state your name and your address. [snorts] And um I think Yeah. >> All right. Good. Uh so my name is Bill Steinman. Uh I live at 2415 Heron Lane in Lakeridge development. So just around the corner from what's proposed. I've been there for 13 years. Um just speaking tonight because I've got three concerns that I wanted to share and I I sent in some previous remarks. So Brian, I'm not sure if my my emails from last month made it forward or not, but so three things I wanted to share of concern. So first is just the traffic planning. Um, you know, traffic planning for five was discussed both in this meeting and uh the previous city council meeting in terms of what are the traffic impacts and still not having uh an answer from mind around that or clarity about what's going on with all the development other impacts in Carver County and and the workload that's put on Highway 5 uh both for the Lake Bridge residents as well as the Arbor Drive residents on the north side of five. just concerned about um signing up for more traffic at that intersection without having any information or guidance from INDOT around what those impacts are. So that's first concern I wanted to share. Uh the second concern that I'd like to share is just the ambiguity around the LRT access. Um, you know, there there was a a hosted meeting uh in in June with residents and I don't think it's really clear to the residents of Lake Bridge of what would be public and what would be private even if the LRT was developed and I think making sure that there is some clarity there of what is that public benefit if things are to be extended and that opportunity. I know the Lake Bridge neighborhood has been craving that for decades now um and being able to address that. Um and then my third concern are just and the question already being asked of just you know a lot of deviations very close to wetland in an area that's being highly developed with everything with the extension of downtown and just really understanding what is the impact to our lakes and parks um with this development. So um those are my three concerns I wanted to share. I think I'm under my three minutes. So I'll thank you for your time and I look forward to hear your discussion. >> Right. Thank you. Um, is there anyone else in the audience? If you'll come up as well, say your name and your address. And good evening. My name is Larry Marty. Uh, 2080 Kelzer Pond Drive. So, just to the south of this development. Um, I had sent uh some comments to Brian my uh as well today. So, I think that's what he was referencing is being shared with you um in your packets. Um I guess the um biggest concern I have is around the wetlands setbacks. Um um all of the uh variances seem pretty significant for the town homes, the single family homes. Um as well as um you know when you look at the imperous uh area that we've set uh I'm looking at putting in a pool in my own yard and to play with the 25% uh I'm I'm very limited on what I can do uh after you factor in my shingles and my driveway etc. And then when I see a 50% uh [clears throat] you know variance here for um this wetland area uh it it's somewhat uh disconcerting anyway to see that um you know I also looked at um the trails and as I sat here tonight the um I think of walkability as a senior complex you'd like to have the ability as a senior uh to be able to walk to downtown and there isn't a way to do that. Uh, I understand the the trail that's potentially uh coming off to the south, but without the LRT development, which sounds like uh the chance [clears throat] of that happening, I would say, is rather slim, without some significant changes or costs to reroute um uh and work with existing um uh commercial properties to make a an exception around the uh land where the people have the uh um I guess assessments uh of those where the trail originally ran. Um so I guess that's um the the biggest concern I have beyond uh uh just the uh uh the the water and the uh permeability of the property. >> Well, thank you for sharing those thoughts. Um I'll ask you again. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to come forward to discuss this topic? Not seeing anyone or hearing anyone. Um then I'm going to make a motion um or ask for the commissioners to make a motion to close the public hearing. >> Move we close the public hearing. >> Second. >> Second. So I've got a um Kleinfelter it motioned and Aud seconded that. Can we get a a motion on that? All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> No opposed. Um, so that is going to move us on to the next topic. Um well, commissioners, uh now that we've done that, I guess I'm sorry, commissioners. Um hearing no more, can we have a motion um to recommend to the Wait, >> I'm sorry. There's one more section where we're supposed to be able to talk. >> Sure. Yes. Um if you have any questions for staff or the applicant, feel free to ask ask those questions now and we'll do our best to answer them. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, that's what I'd like to ask, I guess. I'm sorry about that, guys. I'm being thrown off on this. Um, I will open the floor for discussion from the planning commission to discuss the topic. My apologies. Um, so any thoughts on this for the staff or for our own? >> I got a few. Um, so just kicking off, uh, there was a comment in one of the, um, items that we got in the packet of 55 plus, I believe, of like how many apartments we've had in general. And one question I had is, um, how many apartments that have been built recently are specifically 55 plus and meant for um, that group of residents. >> Sure, Chair and Commissioner Shower, that's a great question. And this would be the first a age restricted um concept in the city. Uh and I will note the Amira project previously was 55 plus. I believe this project is actually 62 plus just for clarification. >> I I think that's really important. I think that's a piece that is missing from the city. You know, I want to make sure that we are making space for those residents that maybe want to be done with their house but still live in the area maybe a little bit better rate than your general apartment. Um, but I definitely agree in that like walkability is important. I know we had talked about that last time this came to planning commission and seeing if there was a way we could get a sidewalk to the brand new downtown west. I don't know if any further discussion has been had with like mindot or any of that. >> Um chair and commissioner shower again uh we did provide these plans to mind as soon as we received them. One of the comments that we had heard from the plan commission and city council during the sketch plat was uh wanting to know if Mandot would grant any sort of trail extension or access. I sent them three separate emails and left a voicemail and did not get a response even post 30 days of their review period. So I unfortunately do not have comments from them either on that and we have to process this request within our 60-day statutory timeline which ends on Monday. So we were tight on time unfortunately. I don't if you have other comments, Mallerie, go ahead. >> Um, I think the only other thing I had was uh parking and that I am glad that we reduced the parking in there, but my only other concern is I only counted four handicap in the garage stalls and then two on the outside. And I just want to make sure that that's going to be adequate space for handicap so people are able to move in and out. >> That's good catch. That's good. I have a related comment to your traffic question. Um I don't know if there's been a traffic impact study. Uh but I'm very concerned about the neighborhoods because all of a sudden we're going to be introducing a huge additional traffic flow through the neighborhoods out to Highway 5. It would seem more sensible to me to have some point of access directly to Highway 5 if if that's at all doable uh to minimize to minimize traffic impact through that neighborhood. Chair and Commissioner Otter Setter. I know that was one thing that the planning commission was hoping to hear back from Mandot on and that was one thing I specifically asked clarification on because we they haven't been showing any proposed access to five. So, we wanted to know if that was a potential option. Um, I just want to give a little context here on Lakes Parkway. This road has always intended to be a residential collector road. So, it's always been intended to handle higher traffic volumes and this Sky Drive was specifically intended to service this site. Um, Cara can probably speak a little bit more to it, but past men comments have always been that they won't allow any access on five. So, this has always been intended to be their primary point of access. And, um, I I don't think it's very likely that people are going to go left down to the collector road. and um weave through any future development to the west to get to five when the access point is. >> I see. I see. I didn't realize it was quite as close. >> Um and then secondly, with the Amira proposal that was done a few years ago, they actually did do a traffic study and at 147 senior units, it was only generating an additional 30 trips during the AM and PM peak hours. So, um seniors just don't drive vehicles as much. um >> especially that time of day. >> Yeah. >> So, traffic volumes are are typically lower with that type of use. >> Okay, that's fair. I didn't realize that they had a close access to Highway 5. I thought they would have to drive all the way down sky and then into the neighborhood. That's good. Um and then last question, why 60 feet? I mean, uh is that deviation really required for the for the height building height? We've >> worked hard to keep Victoria having a smaller feel to it. And every project that comes in the downtown area, we always ask the question, you know, can you stay within the maximum building height? >> Yeah. Uh chair and commissioners, I might look to the architect on this question, but I wanted to highlight uh the 60 foot just for reference. Uh this is still a four-story building. Um the 60 ft is measured from the ground floor here you're seeing uh near the main entrance but it's up to the midpoint between the uh roof line and the actual peak of the building. So 60 ft is about here. I don't know if there's any possible to reduce the peaks on these two sections of the building here to comply with 55 ft, but uh that's always been noted to the developer for this project as a 55 ft requirement. >> Mr. Jensen, did you want to speak to that? >> No, thanks for that question. I think it ends up being a valid point. And some of the reason behind uh the architectural reason behind it is we're kind of going for more of a modern Nordic with maybe a touch of say Americana craftsmanship if I was going to get into some nomenclature here. But the main building just ends up being, you know, it's a four-story building. We see these all over the place. And so then working with the owner on this is that how can we kind of break the box, so to speak. And in doing so, we end up having these very high pitch Nordic gables that we have at the ends and in the center there. And that ends up being kind of, you know, where we're breaking kind of the rules a little bit. But the main thing is um you know just to kind of once again not have a standard uh development that you see for this kind of uh application you know just to make this a little bit more um interesting, a little bit more articulation than the norm. So that's helpful. Thanks. >> I'd say my comment on that is I actually really appreciate that it's not a standard, you know, just flat roof, plain like we see those all over the country, like not even just Minnesota. Like that's everywhere. So I actually really appreciate the higher pitch roof. And >> yeah, >> I'd like to ask the city staff. Um, well, I appreciate that we reached out to DNR hydraologists and we did not receive comment back within that 30-day time frame. Um, how did city staff independently verify the zoning compliance on the on tiers? >> Sure. Uh, great question. So, um, I can actually pull up the tier exhibit. It was included in your uh packet this evening, but the uh process of evaluating and doing a tier analysis is actually set in our city code. Uh once you know how to do it, it's actually a fairly simple process. Um what it does is it measures every 250 ft from the ordinary high water line uh of the lake and then you take that total area within that tier that that branch outward from the lake and you divide that by the square footage allowed for a lot within the shoreland district which is that 20,000 square feet. Um and you repeat that process for tiers two, three, four. Um, and each tier gets a special allowance. The first tier you get a 50% density bonus. The next one you get 100%, then 200, 200, uh, for the four tiers. Sorry, I'm scrolling through and trying to explain this at the same time. Um, but basically, they have the table here highlighting what is done and required in our code. And at the end of the day, that's what gets you to your final maximum allowable density. It's a little blurry, but that number is 84. uh which is the exact number of units that they're proposing with the 76 unit cooperative building, the six town homes and the two single family homes. >> I note that [clears throat] this is marked preliminary and I believe in the formal statement there are um uh you know additional details will be provided with future submitts. So, is this how how close to final would you believe that this is or how much could it could we expect it to change? >> Chair and commissioners, since we're potentially giving land use entitlements on a 84 unit project on Monday evening, I would hope these are pretty close to final. If they're planning to go above 84 units, they would have to come back and go through the process again and get reapprovals. Just for clarification, that 84 is is what this number is. That's their maximum allowed number of units. If they wanted to exceed that, they'd have to get a variance to do so, which they did not request. >> Is there any possibility of um putting a uh a path along Highway 5 or does that go back to the MDOT thing that you were talking about? >> It does, unfortunately. Yeah, I I didn't get comments from them, but that was my question. Access trail, would they allow anything whatsoever? And I just didn't hear back. >> Yeah. And we can't just throw one in, unfortunately. >> Can you throw the picture back up that shows the outline of the building and the site where the trail is supposed to go? >> Uh, yeah. Let me actually just go back to the case. That's probably easier. Um, would this one work or would you like a different >> What's Can you get to the What's to the right there of the proposed building? Right. Yeah, right here. So, the roundabout that's just finished construction. Can you put your is located here? >> Yes. So there's substantial wetland between the proposed building and the roundabout. >> Correct. >> Yeah. So any trail is highly unlikely possible there would involve um potentially severe wetland impacts, but we did ask mindot just in case they would allow something like that. >> Thank you. We did ask many of these [clears throat] same similar questions with the first proposed site is my recollection when you mentioned the 30 you know the 30 cars a lot of that came back uh for context in where that came from >> that's the trail access both similar >> so to the question Mr. Diamond raised. What is the plan for neighborhood access to the LRT given that they would have to trips over private land? We sure can't force that obviously. So >> yeah, that is another great question, commissioners. Um so there actually is a trail access within the Lake Bridge neighborhood uh shown here. Um this is the end of that corridor. Okay. >> The city owns this property. Um so a connection is certainly possible once we have these parcels and there are a few uh privatelyowned parcels in this area which has unfortunately been the hold out on uh providing a full trail extension but there would be a direct access to the Lake Bridge neighborhood once that trail segment is complete. >> So more to come on that depending on what private owners choose to do or not do. >> Correct. Ryan, can you go back to the PUD for uh impervious surface and is there any detail I'm sorry if I missed it on uh engineered water retention or phosphorous runoff uh mitigation um for that the for the plan development? Um, >> or is that impervious surface going to continue to empty into SixMile Creek? >> It it would go through that uh storm water treatment system that I highlighted on one of my previous slides. You I had that big green bottom to the left, I believe. Was that in the the southwest corner? >> It was uh underneath the parking lot in the front of the building here is where that storm. So it would run down through uh collect in the pavement, run through gutters, go through the system, and then disperse to Six Mile Creek. I'm not an engineer, so Cara, please chime in if I'm saying something wrong. >> So I think the runoff from the parking lot is not really going to be much nitrogen and phosphorus though, right? That's just from fertilizer for the grass, >> right? fertilizers and grass. >> So if we're concerned about the wetland, we just restrict fertilizer use on the grass here >> rather than like trying to require some setback which wouldn't do as much as taking away the fertilizer to be begin with. >> I guess I don't know about common practice of using fertilizers and landscaped areas for projects if it would be a detriment to >> so it does restrict phosphorus use already. that may be already addressed. I don't know. >> General phosphorus. Yeah. Is it used? I don't think in any of the you >> evening. >> Hi. >> Nice to see you all. >> I think most of you know who I am, but just for the record, Cara Garren, city engineer. So, Brian asked me here tonight for these two items, this one and the next one in case there's questions. But um so just a little bit high level because there were some environmental related questions to reiterate for the members of the audience and the public. This uh development is subject to regulations by the Minia Creek Wershed District. And the way the process works is Minia Creek Wershed District won't review and issue permits until the city issues preliminary plat approval. So once the applicant has preliminary plat approval, they will go through the Mini Creek Wershed District's process that requires um storm water management, wetland protection rules, um erosion control rules. They have a whole bunch of rules. Um so they will be completing a detailed review in addition to the review my by my staff to look at protection of the wetlands. So um the storm water management feature that you see highlighted in green will need to collect all of the runoff from the site and their rules provide for both water quality and volume control and rate control. So um those rules protect for both flooding as well as um water quality. So to protect the wetland um that wetland is a high priority wetland for the watershed district. they've invested a lot of money into um making improvements to Six Mile Creek and that whole wetland area. So, they have a particular interest in this area, though they um have all those requirements for all of the projects. So, by the time um we come back for final plat approval and before the city engineer, that would be me, gives the project final approval, they will need to have all of their approvals in place from the watershed district. It's a sequencing thing where the watershed district won't give approval till the local unit of government gives land use approval. >> That's helpful. Thank you. >> It's very helpful. That was a missing piece I think in the discussion. So, thank you for that. Can I ask one related question? So, in terms of the houses with the 10 foot setback, which is pretty close, >> those assumptions will go through that analysis. >> Correct. >> So, this as presented, >> correct? >> That's helpful. Thank you. Sure. >> I assume that's the reason for the setback, right? The uh the runoff as well as any utilities. So, if we reduce the setback here, it would still be fine as long as there's sufficient control of the runoff and sufficient room for the utilities. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> So, is there any more discussion? I know we've had a lot of thoughts on this. Is there anything to be wrapped up or are we ready to make a motion? >> I want to check one more thing. Um, did we have a slide on what the proposed um like the plants and everything? How close is that going to be to the building versus the wetland? >> Um, are you talking trees or foundation plantings? >> Trees. Landscaping. That's that word. >> Yep. Yeah. So, uh, this was included in your packet as well. All the little circles that you're seeing throughout the site are all the trees. They actually have more detailed plans within your packet, but I didn't want to get uh too granular with you guys on that. They are showing foundation plantings as well around all of the uh town homes and the cooperative buildings. So, uh part of our analysis when we look at landscaping is we determine if there are going to be impacts to utility lines like I talked about earlier. That's why they didn't put trees in the landscape islands because that's where the utilities are going under the parking lot as you can see here. Um, so we did take a close look at uh landscaping locations as part of our review. >> I just wanted to confirm. So that south side, the planting is quite close to the building, trying to preserve more of that wetland area. Looks like they're trying to do a little bit better on that southside. Looks like >> correct. Yep. Uh part of that is they're also adding additional trees just for aesthetics and to meet their replacement obligations as well. So they're thoughtful in where they put trees. And then um since you provide another opportunity to speak, I wanted to clarify the the final plat comment that I made in the beginning that won't come back to you guys. This is a preliminary resoning that you're considering tonight. The final resoning will actually come through with final plat. So, you'll still have one more public hearing. So, public, you will have another opportunity to speak on this request if they receive approval from the city council on Monday. Just wanted to clarify that comment for everyone. Brian, I know that back in when we reviewed the sketch plat, the planning commission and city council both were curious about, you know, MDOT's response to traffic safety and the feeder roads around Skyline and things like that. And I know you had mentioned that they had not replied back to those specific requests given the changing uh traffic and population recently in Victoria since uh or happening subsequent to the prior study. Mhm. >> Is there a plan to still request that feedback from MDOT and find out if there's uh you know any commentary or any feedback? >> Yes. >> On that can can we make sure to continue to >> ask for for that >> chair and commissioner? That's a good question. I am going to keep bothering them. I want an answer. So, you know, friendly idea, add add that as a condition to the motion that we're going to make that that's a qualifier to the, you know, the to the vote itself. >> Um, >> I mean, that means that you can reach out. It does not mean that they're going to provide the affirmative. You >> sure you can't? >> We do have um a condition in here. I just want to note number six that they would have to comply with any uh necessary permits and regul regulatory approval. So, Um if MDOT has any requirements for them as part of this request that we're seeing um tonight, they would have to comply with that. If MDOT says they would allow access or trail, I think that would probably be beneficial for the applicant to look into and maybe come back with a revised application in the future. So, I can't guarantee that. Um, like I like you all know, we're subject to the 60-day review requirement, and as I mentioned, we're running out of time. Um, but if there are any requirements from Mandot, they will have to meet those. >> Correct. And, you know, for me, kind of having that understanding that the DNR starts its process after the prelimin is kind of we can't get those answers until that happens. So, um, so is there are any other thoughts before Okay, great. Commissioners, hearing no more discussion, I'll ask for a motion. Uh, the >> I would move that we recommend the city council approval of the request for a story Victoria subject to the staff conditions shown on slide 20. >> Seconded. >> All right. So, we've got a motion by Ottersteider and a second by Claude. Uh, all those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Thank you. Motion carries. >> All right. So, our next item for discussion tonight is excuse. >> Just a quick note. I want to note that CRE abstained from that vote. >> There was a no vote and that was intentional. >> Oh, my apologies. >> Oh, that's okay. I will get that in the record. Thank you for clarifying. >> Thank you. Um, our next item for discussion tonight is item 4.3. Consider a preliminary platin associated application for Downtown West, fourth edition. After a staff presentation, I'll open it up to a public hearing for those in the chamber this evening that wish to speak on the request. The public hearing process will be similar to the last. and now turn it over to Brian uh city planner Brian McCann for staff presentation. >> Thank you chair and commissioners. You're probably going to see a lot of similar information as the last item just because these two projects are in such close proximity uh and are going through similar approvals but so we are at preliminary plat uh for this. This is where those major entitlements are granted such as conditional use permits uh which the applicant is requesting this evening. uh differences. They are coming in on straight zoning with this project. So, you likely will actually not see this one again because it doesn't require resoning approval uh with final plat if they receive approval from council on Monday evening. So, tonight we have three requests in front of you. The first being the preliminary plat, secondly the conditional use permit for three different conditional uses in our code and then also a site plan and building materials application. So, uh, the site here is located at 2120 Arboritum Boulevard. It's a little less than an acre in size. It currently has the former, uh, Dairy Queen building, and 37 parking stalls on site. It's also adjacent to the future downtown west, uh, development, this parcel just to the east in the image on the left. It also has an access onto Highway 5 right now, as well as an access onto County Road 11. and the site is about 67% impervious uh currently. So this is the preliminary plat that was submitted to the city. It provides an extension of Main Street from the downtown west development to the east um which would connect to Victoria Drive here. They're taking away the access on Highway 5. Uh and in its place they're proposing two structures. Uh, lot one here would consist of a,900 square foot building with a drive-thru with capacity to serve up to 15 vehicles. I guess I can probably go to the next slide to show you all that. Um, and then secondly, uh, lot two would consist of this other building, which would be a 2300 ft² building. Uh, it's anticipated that both of these would be restaurant style users. The western building would be uh like a drive-thru coffee uh user and then the central building would be like a grab-and-go food type operation. Uh both of these do have outdoor dining patios proposed with them and the entire site has uh about 40 parking stalls proposed for the site. Then related to zoning and the comp plan currently zone central business district and guided downtown mixed use which is our downtown district in our comp plan. Uh the commercial uses that they're proposing comply with both zoning and our comp plan. Uh but drive-throughs and permanent outdoor dining areas require those conditional use permits that I mentioned. And then the third conditional use permit is a shoreland requirement. Uh they are within a th00and feet of Auburn Lake. So they have to comply with shoreland regulations, meaning they need a conditional use permit for any commercial proposal within shoreland. And being in the central business district, they're subject to that 80% maximum impervious. The last project was um seeking R4 zoning. So that's why they were required to comply with 25%. This is 80% here. Their current proposal is just under that threshold at 77.8%. So no variance is required for that. Then looking at the conditional use permits, we evaluated them against our requirements in code. They are compliant with the general standards of conditional use permits in the city. And then we also have specific conditions for drive-throughs. Uh you may recall there was a project last year that had to evaluate these standards for it. So, we looked at uh if any structure or parking is within 100 ft of any residential zoned property, they're compliant with that. They're not um within 100 ft of any residential zone. And then a minimum 150 ft of street frontage with two access points. They're showing Main Street where you can exit either the west onto County Road 11 or the east to get to the remainder of downtown uh West and Highway 5. And then they are also showing a landscaped front yard with their proposal. So they meet all the requirements for a drive-thru conditional use permit. Then looking at the exterior building materials, they comply with the elevated design standards of the central business district which include variations of building facades, enhanced building entries, and high quality exterior materials. They uh have some listed on the images on the left here and where those locations of those materials are on the structures. Uh they have the aluminum storefront, composite wood, corugated metal panels, and standing seam metal roofing. Then for lighting and signage, um you may recall that the sketch plat previously had a monument sign approximately here right off of the highway uh frontage. They've since removed that due to site constraints and the location and layout of the western building. Uh so no monument sign is proposed at this time. They do have wall signage which you can see uh in the last slide here. Those would be subject to any building permits and staff review on those. We'll have to verify that they comply with our code requirements, but first glance they generally appear to. And then a lighting plan um is anticipated. We're still working through some of the plans for downtown west. So we want a comprehensive lighting package to understand the full lighting impacts out here. Uh but there should be sufficient uh lighting available on Main Street with the eight street lights that they are showing with this project. Then for landscaping and tree preservation, they are showing trees around the proximity of the site as well as uh perennials adjacent to the building uh and other areas of the site as well as some plantings to help screen the daycare to the north. Here uh they've included a seeding plan as well which includes uh sections of turf grass and native prairie seed. And then just a note that the central business district is exempt from open space and minimum planting requirements. This is supposed to be our urban environments where we typically don't want a lot of trees. Um and with that they're proposing to remove four existing significant trees on the site. So they're proposing 100% removal. the trees they're providing don't satisfy that requirement 100% but due to the nature of the downtown area and the location of this site um staff are comfortable with reducing their [clears throat] requirement for full mitigation for tree replacement here uh it would just be too many trees for this area [clears throat] and then looking at parking and drive aisles they are proposing a 26 foot wide drive aisle which is our requirement and And for parking restaurants per our code, as I mentioned, these are both anticipated to be restaurant style users. We don't differentiate between drive-thrus, grab and go, um, which typically have lesser parking requirements. They are proposing 40 stalls for the site, uh, but the code requires that they have 77. We actually do have u a leniency in our code for a 50% reduction uh subject to plan commission city council review. Staff feel like this would be a good example of that where it would be warranted based on the offsetting uses. We have morning users primarily with the coffee building on the west and this will be more so your lunch and evening users. So those offsetting uses should uh be able to satisfy the parking for this site. And then additionally, this building, you may recall from the downtown west plat was a uh restaurant with a drive-thru. It's since been convert converted to retail. So there may be some additional capacity here uh as part of the downtown west development for the site if anyone has concerns about parking for these two buildings. Then looking at pedestrian connections, they are showing sidewalks uh throughout the site highlighted in yellow going east to west with a crosswalk that would connect to the rest of downtown west. And there will there is a trail along Highway 5 and County Road 11 with the not future roundabout that's existing now. So uh then park dedication commercial projects less than an acre in size don't have to contribute to parkland per our code. So this site is under an acre. So we don't anticipate any dedication of land or fee in this case. Uh with that uh the downtown west project is providing um a public plaza and then also connections to the central green from the olivine uh project. So there are additional gathering park areas within this development that are planned for already. Then wetland storm water management and site utilities. Uh as Cara mentioned the process for the last item, this is subject to the MCWD's rules and regulations. Uh if there were any wetlands, they would have to plat them within outlots and deed them to the city. This is also proposing a regional storm water uh connection to Highway 5 uh specifically for this site, but another regional storm water proposal that I've highlighted in green there. And then the site utilities would come from downtown west and connect to some of the existing services that we have out in this area for sewer and water infrastructure. With that, uh, you do need to hold a public hearing on the item this evening, similar to the last one. It was also posted in the August 6th edition of the Wakoneia Patriot and mailed to property owners within 350 ft. Posted online and at city hall. And I have not received any comments on this item prior to discussion this evening. And then again, uh, this will also be going to council on Monday, August 24th for consideration. The public hearing tonight is the public's opportunity to speak since they likely won't be taking comments at the meeting on Monday. With that, I have some conditions of approval that were noted in your packet. Uh the two atypical ones I'll say are the cup approvals extending to those three uh requirements that I talked about and then the 50% parking reduction for those offsetting uses within the site. And I add a little extra to that that if the buildings convert into a different use in the future, a cup amendment might be required to evaluate uh the new user going into that building. or in that the rest of these items are your typical uh standards of conditional approval. And with that, I have a sample motion for you on the screen. I can answer any questions you have. And we have a few representatives of the project in the audience tonight as well. >> All right. Thank you. Does the applicant wish to speak? >> Not yet. >> Okay. Um well then, uh thank you. Uh, I will now open up the public hearing. Is there anyone in the chambers this evening who wishes to comment on the item? Not hearing anyone. Um, I'm going to ask one last time. Good. All right. Um, hearing no additional public input. Commissioners, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? I'd move that we close the public hearing. >> Second. >> Okay. Uh motion was made by artist and um uh seconded by shower. Uh all of those in favor. >> Uh thank you. Motion carries and the public hearing is closed. I'll now open the floor to the planning commission to discuss commissioners. Any questions or comments? >> Have comments? But if someone else wants to start, >> I've got a question for the engineer city staff regarding the um substantially lowered K value of the um that impacts sight lines for drivers. Is there any um >> it's not >> any discussion on that? I mean, I think if if it was you who authored it, you raised some some concerns there. If there are any new new [snorts] plans that have been submitted, >> you don't want to I have no idea what you're talking about. >> Okay. So, the city engineers review warns that the proposed um grading near Highway 11 results in a quote substantially sharper vertical profile than the standard design. This is substantially lower than what our city regulations um stipulate, which the impact is concerns about nighttime driving and safety. specifically right there on the on that on that extension area. So, is there any is that something that if if you raised it or member of your staff raised it, seems like we should be paying attention to that. So, is there any new uh plan submitted for that to address that or is that not an issue that we need to worry about? >> Well, the first thing I want to say is thank you for actually reading our comment memo. [laughter] >> So exciting. Um, so this is our first time, our first cut through the plans of completing a detailed review. So when we complete our first initial review, we identify anything that doesn't meet our standards. And Mr. [clears throat] Pavoc here in the audience um gets to review those comments and look for opportunities to uh address those comments with his next round of submitts. if he isn't able to meet any of our standards, then we have a conversation about um whether or not we think we can live with those or not. Oftentimes, he figures out a way to make modifications to the grading in order to meet them. So, we have not had that conversation yet, but we tend to work through those things with usually four, five, six plan revisions before we get to final approvals. So, I don't know if you've had a chance to review that yet since we just commented on it [snorts] recently, but I will turn that over to you. >> Uh, commissioners Matt Pavoc with Civil Sight Group. Um, so that particular one K value just has to do a lot with vertical curves and roads. And so in this situation, it's kind of a parking lot and it there's certain uh at the very edges, you know, you're not necessarily going to have that curve uh because you're not going 30 miles an hour right at the stop sign. So that's the type of in the weeds kind of nuance that we'll work through with Cara and and make sure we meet everything that's safe for the for the driving. So >> yes is the answer. We'll work with Karen and figure it out. And I understand that's right in between, you know, essentially two roundabouts. So no matter what, people aren't taking that at at speed, but >> well, and and we're talking about within the parking lot. So we're not affect the >> it has nothing to do with the county road entrance or it's just analysis of the center line through that parking lot area, which is kind of like a street. So we're kind of looking at it >> like a street design. >> Got it. >> Parking lot hybrid. >> That's that's fundamentally core parking lot. Yeah. >> Issues. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. I appreciate the clarification. >> Other ideas? >> I would just amplify the the uh point that Brian made in the staff presentation that should the use of these two uh facilities, the retail food building A and B change, I would like to revisit the parking because I think parking is in scarce supply. I think this is uh perhaps the poster child uh situation in which you would grant a deviation. But if if for example somebody came and put a sitdown restaurant uh in one of these locations, I'd want to revisit that. >> Yeah. Well, and fair point for adding it kind of >> Yeah. an express condition. >> Yeah. Exactly. >> Related to that, Brian, those lots to the east, are those additional parking that could be used for these retail establishments? Yeah. Uh, Chair and Commissioner Kleinfelter. Um, so you probably did not review any of the previous Downtown West approvals. Uh, but this is a um combined project or a combined effort, I guess I'll say, between uh not just the former Dairy Queen site, but all the additional 12 acres behind it. There's going to be additional uh retail, residential, lots of parking. I think uh the recent numbers are coming out to be an additional 250 um approximately stalls out here. So uh there will be a lot of parking for this entire area. I'd say my comment is more on the grass and that um on a personal level, I would rather see native grasses and seeds rather than any sort of turf just because it is so close to the Carver Park Reserve and all the wetlands right there. I'd rather we have more, you know, pollinator grasses and wild flowers and everything than more Limo. Is that the intended the light green part on the bottom? >> If I understand the map correctly, yeah, be that bottom >> portion. >> Um, hopefully that was heard. Um, by those in the audience. Um, are there any other ideas about or comments about this proposal before us? Okay, commissioners. Not hearing any more discussion. I'll I'll ask for a motion. >> Uh make a motion to recommend the city council approve the request for downtown West fourth edition with staff conditions and additional or any other conditions. >> I'll second. >> All right. Um all those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Thank you. The motion carries. Um then item 4.4 public hearing. Uh this is the cup Harland illuminate signage. So uh our next item for discussion tonight is is that item 4.4. Consider a conditional use proposal for illuminated signage with the Harland Chicken and Fish at 1715 Stiger Lake Lane. After the staff presentation, I'll open it up for a public hearing. Uh for those in the chamber who this evening who wish to speak, I'll now turn it over to city planner Brian McCann for a staff presentation. >> Thank you, chair and commissioners. Um just wanted to preface this. Uh Travis did all the work on this. He wasn't able to attend and present tonight. So all the credit on all the work on this goes to him for this item and the next one. I am just here to present it. So tonight we are reviewing a conditional use permit request for some internal or halo style illuminated signage uh consisting of approximately 52 square ft for each sign. Uh the application was considered complete on July 29th and with [snorts] accordance of that 60-day review requirement, the city council has until September 27th to make a decision. Uh but this is anticipated to go to council much sooner being that uh it's planned for the meeting on August 24th. With that, we did issue a public hearing notice in the Wakonia Patriot on August 6th and mail notice was provided as well. Um at this time I have not received any comments and my name was provided on all those notices to be the direct contact. So uh nothing has come in for this one. The location is at 1715 Stiger Lake Lane. Uh the former Victoria House building. You may have noticed recently they've been working on some uh remodeling and updating there. That is for the Harland Chicken and Fish Restaurant. Uh these are the signs that they are proposing that require the conditional use permit of about 52 square feet each as noted in the presentation and staff report. Uh with that we have some pretty typical conditions for illuminated signage. Uh specifically that it shouldn't be plainly visible on sidewalks or create a safety hazard. Um they also shouldn't use any exterior lighting methods like a a lamp projecting from the building to illuminate it. It should be internally lit. Um and then the sign should be properly maintained or fixed within a reasonable amount of time. And then we aren't allowing any movement or color changes that could be distracting to drivers. Um, and then also just general compliance with our city code and that's also turned off no later than 1 hour after the business uh closes for that evening. And then we also will require proof of recording of their conditional use permit with Carver County within 180 days of approval. So with that, I have a sample motion for you on the screen this evening. Um, I don't believe the applicant is in attendance for this item tonight, but I can stand for any questions that you may have. >> All right. So, the applicant's not here. Um, thank you. So, I'm going to open it up for public hearing if there's anyone in the chamber this evening who wishes to comment on this. Not hearing any. Uh, thank you. Uh, hearing no public uh additional public input. Commissioners, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? >> Move we close. >> Can I get a second? >> Second. >> Thank you. Um, all those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Hearing none. Thank you. The motion carries and the public hearing is closed. I'll now open the floor to the planning commission for discussion. Commissioners, there are there any questions or comments? Seems pretty straightforward. Okay. Uh, commissioners, hearing no more discussion, I'll ask for a motion. >> I'd move that we recommend to the city council to adopt a resolution granting a conditional use permit for illuminated commercial signs for Harland at 1715 Stiger Lake Lane. >> Second. >> Thank you. So, motion made by Stadder and seconded by uh Kleinfelter. All those in favor? >> Any opposed? >> Thank you. The motion carries. Okay. We are moving on to item 4.5 of public hearing uh for a cup for upstream financial illuminated signage. So this is going to be similar. Our next item for discussion is item 4.5. Consider a conditional use permit for the illuminated signage for upstream financial advisors at 1750 Tower Boulevard. After hearing the staff presentation, I'll open it up for a public hearing and those in the chamber that wish to speak on this item. So, I'm going to turn it over to city planner Brad McCann for the staff presentation. >> Thank you, chair and commissioners. Um, yep. Pretty similar to the last item except this request is for upstream financial. Uh they are also proposing two internally lit illuminated commercial signs approximately 48 square feet each in size. Their completeness date and uh 60-day date are the same as the last item. So fully complete submittal on July 29th and their 60 days expire on September 27th, but this will be going to council on Monday, August 24th. We did also notice this in the Wakonia Patri on August 6th. mailed it to property owners and I did not receive any comments on this item either. So with that, this is located at 1750 Tower Boulevard. They are planning to uh take over the former Tazzy's uh site right on the corner adjacent to Victoria Drive. Uh specifically suites 107 and 108. Uh this is the proposed view of the signage from Victoria Drive. Uh there would be a tree in the way obviously, but that is what the sign is proposed to look like. And the Tazzy baby and child signs would be removed. And then this would be the location of the signage within the uh parking lot for uh the restaurant area just here. So with that, uh these have all the exa the same exact proposed conditions as the last item. Pretty typical for illuminated signage. We just don't want it to be a nuisance and uh reasonably repaired or turned off uh in a certain amount of time. And then we also want proof that this is recorded with Carver County. So with that, I have a sample motion for you on the screen. I can answer any questions you have. A representative of the application is in the audience's night uh tonight as well. And thank you for your patience this evening. >> Thank you. Does the applicant want to speak? >> Thanks. Okay. I I am going to open it up for a public hearing. Is there anyone in the chamber interested in speaking to this? Not hearing any. All right. Um I'll think we'll move on then. Uh hearing no additional public input. Commissioners, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? >> Okay. Uh motion and second made. All those in favor? >> Any opposed? That hearing any? This motion closes the public hearing. I'll now open it up to the floor for the planning commission to discuss. Commissioners, any questions or comments? >> Very similar to the last one. Um, commissioners, hearing no more discussion, I'll ask for a motion. I will make a motion to recommend to city council 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. >> I'd second. >> All right. Motion made and as well as second. All All those in favor? >> Any opposed? Uh thank you. Motion carries. All right, that concludes our discussion for Is there one more in the back? >> I think that was the last one in the back. >> Okay, that is the last one. Okay, sorry about that. Um, so this item. So, we'll move uh on to the miscellaneous sections of our agenda. Are there any staff reports? >> Yes. Uh, chair and commissioners, I got two quick items for you. The first one is that we do have new artwork in the chambers this evening. Uh you all should have a little sheet of paper and a pen if you wouldn't mind just filling out which one calls to you the most so that our city clerk can take votes on the favorite art piece in this latest edition. And then uh secondly, we did uh kick off our comprehensive planning engagement. So Jen and I attended the city booth at the classic car night last Wednesday and spoke to some residents about the future of Victoria. So, just wanted to know you all to know that we have officially started the comprehensive uh plan cycle for our 2050 plan. So, keep your eye out for future engagement opportunities and if you have any questions, feel free to reach out to staff. >> Awesome. Thank you for the update. Um any reports from commissioners? >> Hearing any um commissioners, there are no more items on this evening's agenda. Can I ask for a motion to adjurnn? >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second, please. >> Seconded. >> All right. All those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Thank you. Motion carried. We're adjourned.