WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=IJ-mFsZpEPI

Part: 1

1
00:01:41.040 --> 00:01:57.000
Good evening, everybody. We're going to call this meeting to order. And our first agenda item this evening is the open forum. So, the open forum is an opportunity for anyone to address the commission on an item that is not on the agenda and not an application form coming to the

2
00:01:57.000 --> 00:02:16.959
commission at a future date. Is there anyone in the audience who'd like to address the planning commission on an item that's not on the agenda and not an application will be coming to the commission at a future date? I don't see anybody. Last call. Okay, we'll move on to adopting the

3
00:02:16.959 --> 00:02:32.920
final agenda. Uh, let's see. Commissioners, our next item is adopting the final agenda. Could I have a motion to adopt the final agenda? >> So moved. >> Thank you, Commissioner Commissioner Alister. Can I get a second? >> I'll second.

4
00:02:32.920 --> 00:02:48.040
>> Commissioner Ring, thank you. All those in favor? >> Aye. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. The next item is 4.1 to approve the planning commission meeting minutes of June 2nd. Could I get a motion to approve the minutes?

5
00:02:48.040 --> 00:03:06.120
>> I just said before we go there, I did not see the minutes attached as part of the packet. Were they distributed separately because I may have missed them, but I didn't see them. >> Let me check the agenda. Yeah, you are correct. They were not

6
00:03:06.120 --> 00:03:22.640
attached. So, why don't we table that item to our next meeting and then we will have those attached for you. >> Let's do that. Thank you. >> Do you I mean, they're are they substantial or could we pull them up and read through them? Um, you'd like to table them? >> I'd like to table them just so everyone

7
00:03:22.640 --> 00:03:38.320
has time to read and absorb them. >> Fine, thank you. We'll table we'll table that uh minute approval 4.1 to next time. Next item for discussion is item 4.2 to consider a final plan and conditional

8
00:03:38.320 --> 00:03:54.280
use permit for the Hotel Victoria. >> Chair, do do you mind if we go back and take a motion and get a second and a vote on tabling? >> Oh, sure. Yeah, yeah. So, I would like a motion to table the minutes. >> So moved. >> Thank you, Commissioner. Can I get a second? >> Second.

9
00:03:54.280 --> 00:04:10.720
>> And a second. All those in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? Thank you. So, we've uh tabled them correctly this round. Uh moving on to the uh considering the the final plat and conditional use for uh permit for Hotel Victoria.

10
00:04:10.720 --> 00:04:27.400
Uh after a staff presentation, we'll give the applicant an opportunity to speak and then open the public hearing for those in the chambers that wish to speak on the request. So, uh Brian McCann, please give us a staff presentation. >> Absolutely. Thank you, Chair and

11
00:04:27.400 --> 00:04:42.320
Commissioners. Tonight, we are looking at a final plat and a conditional use permit request for Hotel Victoria. Uh typically, you wouldn't see a final plat or hold a public hearing on a final plat, but you're seeing that tonight because they have an additional

12
00:04:42.320 --> 00:04:59.000
conditional use permit request. Um So, typically, we are reviewing the final details of the development here. It typically goes straight to council, but we need your guys um review first for this request. So, um we are looking again at a final plat and

13
00:04:59.000 --> 00:05:14.480
a conditional use permit for shared parking agreement for five parking spaces. Uh the location and existing conditions of the request, it's at 7929 Victoria Drive, which is a single parcel, which currently occupies the

14
00:05:14.480 --> 00:05:29.760
Winchester and Rye building with some vacant green space to the north where the hotel would go. It is surrounded by streets on all sides, as you can see in the image on the left. It also is within close proximity to the Lake Minnetonka Regional Trail and within 1,000 ft of

15
00:05:29.760 --> 00:05:47.480
Steiger Lake. And is approximately 50% impervious as it stands today. And then just as a quick refresher of what the project is for everyone, they are proposing a 46-unit [clears throat] boutique hotel with various amenities, including covered parking for 41 parking

16
00:05:47.480 --> 00:06:03.840
stalls, a fitness center for the occupants as well as a lobby and breakfast bar and multiple meeting rooms and spaces. They did add some changes since the last time that the planning commission reviewed this based on requests by city council.

17
00:06:03.840 --> 00:06:20.680
They've added some on-street parking modifications to the north side of Steiger Lake Lane, but they are keeping the changes to Randy's Way the same. There's also a building overhang encroachment here as well as some portion of the balconies here that

18
00:06:20.680 --> 00:06:36.520
require an encroachment agreement to be approved by the city council. So, here is the final plat. It's pretty simple. Lot two would consist of Winchester and Rye. Lot one would be the hotel site and then a single outlot here

19
00:06:36.520 --> 00:06:53.720
consisting of public sidewalk and portions of parking spaces here. Looking at the landscaping and tree preservation, they are exempt from our open space minimum planting requirements. They typically would require

20
00:06:53.720 --> 00:07:11.200
boulevard trees planted every 35 feet. City staff and the applicant have been working on this and due to the urban nature of this area, we don't anticipate any boulevard trees being necessary besides the one that they're showing here.

21
00:07:11.200 --> 00:07:26.200
And then just highlighting the changes to the north side of Steiger Lake Lane that you're seeing here. They're currently about six parallel parking stalls within this area. They have decided to incorporate a

22
00:07:26.200 --> 00:07:42.040
retaining wall here with a sidewalk extension and angled parking spaces to help them get to a net zero of on-street parking. Before you may recall, they were down four spaces on their previous plan

23
00:07:42.040 --> 00:07:57.200
with some um parking space removals on Steiger Lake Lane. This is the way to get those four stalls back. So, here meets our on-street parking, but the reason that they are requesting the uh conditional use permit tonight for

24
00:07:57.200 --> 00:08:13.800
the five shared parking spaces is because they are required to have 46 parking spaces per our code. They only have 41 in their underground parking garage. So, that shared parking request is for five spaces. The spaces that made the

25
00:08:13.800 --> 00:08:29.160
most sense uh to staff are the five parallel stalls directly on the south side of Steiger Lake Lane right in front of the hotel here. Other than that, uh the project basically remains the same from what you had seen last time. They're still

26
00:08:29.160 --> 00:08:47.320
expanding Randy's Way to 20 ft wide on the east side, and all these parking areas remain the same. Uh except for they did add one stall right here in front of the building that should be noted. Um so, yes, here is uh exhibit

27
00:08:47.320 --> 00:09:02.400
highlighting those five spaces for consideration by the planning commission tonight. We believe that all five of these spaces in the shared parking agreement would meet our general conditional use permit requirements. So, with that, we did properly notice

28
00:09:02.400 --> 00:09:19.000
the public hearing in the June 4th edition of the Waconia Patriot. We mailed out notices to affected property owners within 350 ft of the request. It was posted online and at City Hall, and at this time staff have not received any comments on the request.

29
00:09:19.000 --> 00:09:34.960
So, with that, I have some suggested conditions if the planning commission chooses to recommend approval of the request. I've highlighted a few that are noteworthy for the planning commission to consider. Uh number one being that the conditional use permit allows for

30
00:09:34.960 --> 00:09:52.080
those five parking public spaces to be in a shared parking agreement. Uh that a staging plan must be reviewed and approved before the city would sign off on the mylars for the final plat. They would have to coordinate uh with 1600 Arboretum Boulevard for the project

31
00:09:52.080 --> 00:10:08.640
staging and contractor parking that was reviewed last time. They would also need to receive approval from Carver County for those modifications to the north side of Steiger Lake Lane because it's within their property boundaries. The city actually doesn't own that area that they would be proposing to put those

32
00:10:08.640 --> 00:10:25.720
angled parking stalls in. And then they would also have to provide a connection uh sidewalk connection from Arboretum Boulevard to uh Kwama Klip for that contractor and parking um scenario. So, with that, I do have a sample motion

33
00:10:25.720 --> 00:10:41.200
for you on the screen this evening. I can stand for any questions you have, and there are some representatives of the application in the audience as well. >> Thank you. Uh does the applicant wish to speak? >> Sure. I would love to.

34
00:10:41.200 --> 00:10:56.400
Thank you for the invite. >> Yeah. >> Uh thank you for having me. We're very excited to move forward with the hotel. I just want to give the planning commission just a brief uh overview of the schedule so that you're aware as,

35
00:10:56.400 --> 00:11:12.760
you know, residents inquire. Uh we have, once we get our final approval, which we're anticipating that on Monday at the city council, we then have uh approximately 2 months of uh final engineering and structural

36
00:11:12.760 --> 00:11:27.760
drawings that will happen. And then there is a full bidding process that happens. It's a final bidding process. And that process takes 5 weeks. That brings us into August, um early

37
00:11:27.760 --> 00:11:43.800
September. Uh then um we end up we believe that we'll be able to turn in for permit. The permitting process is an additional 5 weeks. And the time frame to get everything done would bring us to December. And so

38
00:11:43.800 --> 00:12:00.680
we are looking uh that it takes approximately 5 to 6 weeks to uh deploy everything and have it started. So we're looking at a February 1st, 2027 start dig.

39
00:12:00.680 --> 00:12:17.040
The road closure for the highway happens April of 2027 for highway 5. And that road closure goes all the way till January of 2028. We anticipate being done very shortly within a month

40
00:12:17.040 --> 00:12:33.520
of that road closure being done. So it aligns nicely to be able to get the hotel open and running March of 2028. Your road closure will go till January of 2028, so that gives us um and then it

41
00:12:33.520 --> 00:12:49.280
gives us time for a soft opening March and April. And then you're really going to go into your bookings May, June, July, August, September, October. So we're right at the tail end of being able to hit that season. And that uh if

42
00:12:49.280 --> 00:13:07.839
everything goes through, it will be a 2028 opening. Any questions? Thank you. >> Thank you. Did you have one? No. >> I have one for Brian. >> Okay. >> When it's appropriate. >> We'll just uh we'll do the

43
00:13:07.839 --> 00:13:22.200
um public hearing. We can now open a public hearing. If there's anybody in the chambers who wishes to comment on this item, I'll just remind you uh if you do wish to speak, you'll be given 3 minutes and then we'll kindly ask the next individual to have a chance until

44
00:13:22.200 --> 00:13:38.680
everybody's had an opportunity. I will ask our planning commission for motion to close the public hearing and then just note that the planning commission and city staff will will engage in back and forth just information gathering. So, um with that, if there's anyone in the

45
00:13:38.680 --> 00:14:01.480
chambers who would like to speak this evening. No brave souls, last call. Okay, I see no additional public input. So, commissioners, can I have a motion to close the public hearing? >> Motion to close the public hearing. >> I'll second. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All those

46
00:14:01.480 --> 00:14:17.600
in favor? >> Aye. >> Any opposed? Thank you. So, we've closed the public hearing and now we can open the floor for the planning commission to discuss. Commissioners, have at it. >> Brian, I do have a question for you regarding the parking. So,

47
00:14:17.600 --> 00:14:34.680
um we're we're making up for a deficiency in the 46 spots through the five shared parking spots. Uh we all know that parking in Victoria is at a premium, uh especially in the summer months. My question is, what does it mean to have a shared parking spot

48
00:14:34.680 --> 00:14:51.240
right in front of the hotel? Uh that's one question. Is it going to be signed as available for public use? >> Um chair and commissioners, that's my understanding is that um we understand that those are prime spots for the hotel being placed right out

49
00:14:51.240 --> 00:15:07.600
front for it. So, um it would be [clears throat] signed for the hotel but open to public use if available. >> Okay, thank you. So, if the hotel is charging occupants for using the parking facility in the hotel,

50
00:15:07.600 --> 00:15:23.200
wouldn't that mean that naturally people are going to use the five shared parking spots first? I I I just wonder if this is really a facade and and are the parking spots really available to the public? >> Chair and commissioners, that's a fair question. Um

51
00:15:23.200 --> 00:15:40.800
I guess we haven't got that far in evaluating if the valet parking would be a service for the hotel free to the occupants or if that would be a charged service. I don't know if the applicant is willing to speak to that.

52
00:15:44.400 --> 00:16:01.040
>> Hello commissioners. Um we have not made a decision. We have to wait and get all of our bidding, get everything thing done. I think it's important to know that the shared parking is done exactly how the city has done all the shared parking. We are not an exception.

53
00:16:01.040 --> 00:16:18.960
Uh you approved Rich Gannon's project with shared parking all along um the the street here. You've approved uh the restaurant that's coming in with shared parking and we are no different. Uh we actually

54
00:16:18.960 --> 00:16:35.960
created all of that parking that is around the site. That would all belong to the Creamery and I put all of that parking to the city. So um we're not we're following all the rules that you've applied to all of the wonderful gentlemen that have come

55
00:16:35.960 --> 00:16:54.080
before you. Thank you. >> Fair fair point. I'm just concerned that parking is at a premium and um you know, people are naturally going to take advantage of free parking if it's available. Go ahead. >> one more thing.

56
00:16:54.080 --> 00:17:09.439
I think if you take a look, there's another thing just to really weigh in here as you're assessing this. Uh the parking that we provided is underground parking. It's millions of dollars for this hotel. You can drive from Victoria

57
00:17:09.439 --> 00:17:23.520
all the way to the airport and I don't know if you're going to see a hotel that was able to financially put in an underground parking. And so for us at 41 spots, we have 46 rooms.

58
00:17:23.520 --> 00:17:41.800
The hotel is typically at 65% occupancy. So, um to for us to be able to provide 41 spots of underground parking um is actually extraordinary for the city. And so, um again, that is how the shared

59
00:17:41.800 --> 00:17:58.520
parking ordinance works. And we are no different. And I don't know if Rich Gannon is going to charge for his parking either. I don't know who charges. I do know that Roll I think they taught they charge for their underground parking.

60
00:17:58.520 --> 00:18:20.560
They charge monthly. But yet you did shared parking for them, and I don't know if you had those same questions. Thank you. >> I mean, can I ask a couple clarifying questions just I mean Is there overnight parking?

61
00:18:20.560 --> 00:18:37.600
One question, just in general in town. >> downtown? >> Yeah, I believe no. >> Correct. >> So, in terms of like someone wanting to park it and just kind of walk away, you know. >> I think that kind of caveats that. Is there anything the city can do in terms

62
00:18:37.600 --> 00:18:54.440
of hourly limitations as well as another thing to encourage kind of migration or mobility? >> Sure. Chairing Commissioners, this is a conditional use permit request, so you can require reasonable conditions such as hourly restrictions if you'd like for

63
00:18:54.440 --> 00:19:10.480
consideration by the City Council. >> Isn't the Do any of the other shared parking spots have any restrictions? >> Not to my knowledge. >> And see, that's the thing. I wouldn't be proposing it if it wasn't. But just as one of those things, again, to kind of get that

64
00:19:10.480 --> 00:19:27.200
you know, most people are parking for a few hours to go for dinner or for going to get ice cream or, you know, things. I think it's it's helping me with duration and overnight and trying to get out of a, you know, paying

65
00:19:27.200 --> 00:19:43.360
for valet parking for a little bit. >> Mhm. >> It's probably a hard one to get around. >> See, the other thing, too, is that like we know we're going to be in this time of frustration with everybody with parking, especially as like the road is closing on 5 for a while and we have all

66
00:19:43.360 --> 00:20:00.560
this construction going on that like it's just going to be frustrating for everyone, but as long as we can keep the goal, you know, hopefully by 2028 we'll have quite a bit of parking up and going by that point. Um things should be smooth, so

67
00:20:00.560 --> 00:20:17.040
you know, I don't see a problem with we've already approved other this kind of situation with other sites, so why should we treat this one any differently? >> I I don't think we should treat it differently. My point simply is that parking is at a premium and I don't know of a long-term solution at this point.

68
00:20:17.040 --> 00:20:31.800
>> Mhm. >> And as we add more businesses and and the hotel, uh parking is going to be even more at a premium. >> Mhm. >> I would say that the council, and Briany can comment, is looking at several different parking options to increase the availability of parking in downtown

69
00:20:31.800 --> 00:20:48.440
Victoria and to the west. >> Chair and commissioners, that's correct. If you haven't uh been part of the parking survey and the open house that was recently conducted a month or two ago, we are still analyzing all parking options, so stay engaged if you are interested in

70
00:20:48.440 --> 00:21:15.880
downtown parking and viable options for the city. >> I think one of the slides commented on some updates or changes to the proposal. >> Go back to that. >> Um Chair and Commissioner Graham, I'm not

71
00:21:15.880 --> 00:21:38.440
sure which slide >> Maybe I misread it. Never mind. Okay. >> Just a going to the the list of criteria. Could you bring that one up? Cuz I think, you know, I know I read three like some of these

72
00:21:38.440 --> 00:21:55.920
Carver County was hadn't confirmed but they're amenable to the idea of that land possible, you know, is being a point of discussion if it moves forward. It was kind of a negotiation about kind of maintenance agreements for the

73
00:21:55.920 --> 00:22:11.760
portion on the north or the east side, I guess. So, those are all part of this. >> Chair and Commissioners, yeah, we reached out to Carver County about this uh ahead of time and they said they were absolutely open to discussing the idea.

74
00:22:11.760 --> 00:22:41.880
They generally know what the plan is entailing. We just haven't sat down with them to finalize the details yet. That's why it's a condition of approval tonight. We'll want written approval from the county. >> Mhm. >> Any other comments or questions? Okay, Commissioners, hearing no more

75
00:22:41.880 --> 00:22:58.720
discussion, I'll ask for a motion. >> I'll make the motion to recommend the City Council approve the request for Hotel Victoria. >> Thank you. Can I get a second? >> I'll second. >> All those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed?

76
00:22:58.720 --> 00:23:14.360
Motion carries. Thank Thank Okay, on to item 4.3, the sketch plat for Astoria Lake Town, um just a reminder, the sketch plat review is the initial stage review for the Planning Commission.

77
00:23:14.360 --> 00:23:30.840
And uh there are no formal actions or recommendations taken by the Commission at the time of the sketch plat review. The review process is intended for the applicant to receive initial feedback from the Planning Commission and City Council in advance of any necessary preliminary plat or rezoning applications.

78
00:23:30.840 --> 00:23:45.920
So, back to City Planner Brian McCann for a staff presentation. >> Thank you, Chair and Commissioners. Tonight, we will be reviewing a sketch plat proposal for a residential development. Uh I'm not quite sure if any of you were I think maybe one of you

79
00:23:45.920 --> 00:24:02.000
was on the Commission at the time that Amira was last reviewed. That was the former project for this site. Uh so, I'll talk a little bit of the details about that, but some of this information might look familiar to some of you who were on at that time. So,

80
00:24:02.000 --> 00:24:17.080
tonight, we're reviewing a sketch plat just to get feedback back to the applicant. There aren't any approvals or actions taken tonight. We just want to provide them guidance as they start moving forward with any other potential future submittals. So,

81
00:24:17.080 --> 00:24:34.000
the site in total at 2285 Arboretum Boulevard consists of four parcels, just over 56 acres in size. There are two existing single-family homes on the site. There's one here just at the end of Sky Drive, and then there is another one tucked back here central to the

82
00:24:34.000 --> 00:24:51.520
site. Uh the southern two properties here, you see this long strip uh consisting of approximately 7 acres, is uh part of an easement that the city has for the future Lake Minnetonka Regional Trail Corridor. There's also significant

83
00:24:51.520 --> 00:25:09.800
wetland coverage on the site with a stream connecting Lake Auburn to the north and Carl Krey Lake down to the southwest off the screen here. Uh the former Amira site was here consisting of a 147 unit uh senior age-restricted 55

84
00:25:09.800 --> 00:25:26.400
years or older apartment building. Uh but that project was unfortunately not able to move forward after preliminary plat approval, so the property owner sought out a potential new developer for this site. So, that's why we have Ebenezers development in

85
00:25:26.400 --> 00:25:42.040
front of us this evening. They are proposing a 76-unit cooperative senior housing apartment building, as well as six senior housing uh townhomes or duplexes here. There's two units in each of these buildings shown, as well as two

86
00:25:42.040 --> 00:25:57.880
single-family homes, one of them being new and one of them being the existing structure here. They are proposing 167 parking stalls with this project, 63 being in the surface-level parking lot, and 104 of those stalls are underneath the

87
00:25:57.880 --> 00:26:13.680
building. They are also proposing access from Sky Drive uh due to MnDOT restrictions to Highway 5 access there just isn't feasible for the project. Then for the zoning and comprehensive

88
00:26:13.680 --> 00:26:30.480
plan, the site is currently zoned planned unit development with underlying central business district. That was part of the Amira rezoning that happened uh a few years prior. So, uh the applicant is proposing to rezone that to PUD with

89
00:26:30.480 --> 00:26:47.480
underlying R4 high-density residential district instead with different PUD standards. Is also currently guided in our 2040 comprehensive plan as a mix of downtown mixed-use, open space, um and parks for

90
00:26:47.480 --> 00:27:02.560
the section of the Lake Minnetonka Regional Trail. Uh they would likely need one change from that comprehensive plan amendment that was approved a few years ago changing that downtown mixed-use designation to high-density residential

91
00:27:02.560 --> 00:27:19.560
instead. Uh, the project is at about 17 units per acre, so they're under the downtown mixed-use designation's requirement of 24 minimum, but they fall within that range of high-density residential. Otherwise, the uses that they're

92
00:27:19.560 --> 00:27:38.080
proposing comply with the R4 district and the uh, 2040 comprehensive plan. Then looking at the Shoreline Overlay District, they are within 1,000 ft of Six Mile Creek and Auburn Lake. So, they fall within the Shoreline requirements.

93
00:27:38.080 --> 00:27:54.120
We anticipate them requesting a residential Shoreline Planned Unit Development as part of their PUD request. With that, they would need a 100-ft building setback from the stream, uh, which they are well beyond that. The

94
00:27:54.120 --> 00:28:09.520
You can see in the image on the left here, the center line is actually the stream location and all the other blue lines outside of that 300 ft, the building would be roughly around this area, so they should have no problem meeting that 100-ft setback.

95
00:28:09.520 --> 00:28:25.600
But, they also need to have 50% open space for the development and they will need to conduct a analysis to verify that they aren't going over the maximum density allowed for the project per the DNR's requirements. And then with that, uh,

96
00:28:25.600 --> 00:28:43.480
the impervious maximum, anything outside of the central business district is subject to a 25% maximum impervious. We are anticipating that to be higher with their proposal. So, that will likely be a uh, another deviation anticipated with

97
00:28:43.480 --> 00:29:00.120
the residential Shoreline Planned Unit Development. Then looking at building material lightings and signage, it's too early for those submittals, so just note that those will be coming with any potential preliminary plat applications. We would like to see street light and building

98
00:29:00.120 --> 00:29:16.120
light locations as well as any proposed wall signage or monument signage at this time. And then for landscaping and tree preservation, these are all the list of requirements that we anticipate uh seeing with any landscape plan that

99
00:29:16.120 --> 00:29:31.160
is submitted in the future. They would need a mini- minimum 25% development open space. That's likely very achievable based on the existing wetland coverage out there. They would also need one tree and one shrub for every thousand square feet of

100
00:29:31.160 --> 00:29:46.720
that 25% required open space. They would need foundation plantings around the duplexes or townhomes and the apartment building. They would also need a landscape buffer along the north side of the site adjacent to Highway 5 that meets our

101
00:29:46.720 --> 00:30:03.920
requirements with a 3:1 slope. Um and then they would also need a 25-ft buffer adjacent to the single-family homes here on the west side of the site. We would also need boulevard trees every 45 ft along city streets.

102
00:30:03.920 --> 00:30:19.440
Um so if I actually back up a couple slides, I should note that this here is anticipated to be a public cul-de-sac bulb. Everything outside of that is within their single property, so we would require boulevard trees along this

103
00:30:19.440 --> 00:30:34.920
section of the cul-de-sac, but anything after that would be considered a site tree. And then any off-street parking area, so that parking lot they had on the north side would need to be screened from Highway

104
00:30:34.920 --> 00:30:51.760
5. That could likely be achieved with the buffer, but if they want to include some 4-ft tall plantings there to deter any additional headlights that would be recommended as well. And then tree preservation requirements, as you're all aware, they can remove 20%

105
00:30:51.760 --> 00:31:08.720
without having to mitigate them. Anything over that 25 or 20%, they will need to mitigate with additional tree plantings. Then regarding streets and parkings, as I mentioned just a moment ago, with the blue area here in the image on the left

106
00:31:08.720 --> 00:31:24.920
is anticipated to be a public cul-de-sac, and then everything else would be a private street entrance. And then looking at our parking requirements, senior housing requires one space per dwelling unit, plus one additional space for every five

107
00:31:24.920 --> 00:31:42.040
dwelling units, requiring 92 spaces for the cooperative building. As I mentioned, they're proposing 167, so they're well over that minimum requirement. And then the single-family homes and duplexes will have driveways, and we anticipate at a minimum the

108
00:31:42.040 --> 00:31:58.520
single-family homes will have garages. We'll need to evaluate the townhomes uh to verify that garages are part of that proposal as well to meet their parking requirements. Overall parking looks good, too. And then regarding pedestrian

109
00:31:58.520 --> 00:32:15.880
connections, I put on the image on the left here. This would be a public sidewalk meeting our 6-ft concrete standard. And then everything else internal to the site is anticipated to be private um for their residents, or if they want to open

110
00:32:15.880 --> 00:32:32.200
it up to the public to walk through the site, especially as this trail has a or this sidewalk has a future connection shown down to the Lake Minnetonka Regional Trail Corridor. That would be up to the applicant. Um and then moving on to Parkland

111
00:32:32.200 --> 00:32:47.240
dedication, as I mentioned, there is an easement over these two properties for the future extension of the Lake Minnetonka Regional Trail. We evaluated all the proposed residential uses with this project and came out to just under an acre of

112
00:32:47.240 --> 00:33:05.080
required parkland dedication or $98,000. Uh the developer would be exceeding that requirement by dedicating 7 acres of parkland to the city for this future trail corridor. Um and then just as a side note, we've been getting questions from the public

113
00:33:05.080 --> 00:33:21.880
on this regarding if the developer is required to actually do the grading, clearing, uh and construction of the trail. That is not typical here. We only take the land in parkland dedication and then it's up to city, county,

114
00:33:21.880 --> 00:33:37.520
um other partnerships to actually do the work out here to construct that trail. So, that's not something the city is anticipating asking the developer at this time. And then additionally, there are a couple uh properties off screen here within the Lake Minnetonka Regional

115
00:33:37.520 --> 00:33:53.760
Trail corridor that are under private property ownership. The city is not asking them to acquire those properties as part of this project either since it is not directly owned uh by the same group that is developing the site.

116
00:33:53.760 --> 00:34:08.639
Then, looking at wetland storm water management and site utilities, they're subject to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District's rules and regulations. So, they have to put uh wetland buffers within outlots that are deeded to the city. So, here you can

117
00:34:08.639 --> 00:34:26.480
see uh one of their proposals include that wetland buffer within the actual lot lines of the single family homes. We've since asked them to change that, which they have. Um it's just not shown here. I just wanted to show you this example so that you understood they may be coming back with

118
00:34:26.480 --> 00:34:42.320
some PUD requests for the single family homes. That's because they're required to put this area in an outlot to the city per our code. Otherwise, they are proposing a underground storm water system shown in green here and utility connections

119
00:34:42.320 --> 00:34:59.240
highlighted in yellow from Highway 5 and Sky Drive. Last night was a busy evening for this project. They had a neighborhood meeting and I presented this item to the Parks and Recreation Committee as well. Um Jen attended the neighborhood meeting

120
00:34:59.240 --> 00:35:16.080
and noted approximately 15 attendees at that meeting last night. Uh stating concerns regarding the feasibility of the acquisition and construction of the Lake Minnetonka Regional Trail Corridor. They also expressed concerns with increased traffic on Sky Drive and Lakes

121
00:35:16.080 --> 00:35:30.040
Parkway since Lakes Parkway would be the direct connection to Highway 5 for this project and the Lake Bridge neighborhood. And there was also uh some support noted for a lower density concept than what Amira proposed. We're

122
00:35:30.040 --> 00:35:46.480
going from 147 units to 82 total. So, it is a much less dense project than what was previously approved. But, uh people are also excited about the dedication of that trail corridor, which is a big step in getting that future of the Lake

123
00:35:46.480 --> 00:36:02.240
Minnetonka Regional Trail extended. Or in that, we did receive three uh actually four now public comments before the packet was post or after the packet was posted. I did print copies of those and leave them all on the dais for you all this evening. So, hopefully you had

124
00:36:02.240 --> 00:36:18.520
a chance to review them. Uh we typically don't receive public comments at sketch plat, but I thought it was important for you guys to have those and they will be included with the council packet as well for next week. Or and then the Parks and Recreation Committee reviewed this last night and

125
00:36:18.520 --> 00:36:34.680
they recommend the City Council accept the trail corridor as the full dedication for the project. So, with that I have some general questions here to help guide the discussion if needed. These were included in your packet. Otherwise, I can stand for any questions you have, and there are representatives of the

126
00:36:34.680 --> 00:36:53.880
application in the audience tonight. >> Thank you. Would the applicant like to speak? >> Absolutely. Thank you for uh welcoming us here tonight. Um I'm representing Leap Development, my company, as well as Astoria Cooperatives, uh which is a product of uh partnership of myself and Ebenezer

127
00:36:53.880 --> 00:37:09.200
Development um with this project. And so, we're really excited. Um obviously, it's uh it's a beautiful property. Uh one we're pretty excited to be pursuing. It's not often uh that you get to develop or look at a property like this one where you're as close to a downtown

128
00:37:09.200 --> 00:37:24.760
area but sitting on 40-plus acres. Um and so, we're excited to be talking about that uh with you here tonight and learning as much as we can for our next proposal or next submittals. Um the the neighborhood meeting was was very helpful for us last night as a

129
00:37:24.760 --> 00:37:39.800
team. We learned a lot. Our architect and civil engineer were there as well. Architect on the project is Kost Wilson. Uh and the civil engineer is Civil Site Group. Uh both great groups. Um and Civil Site Group in particular had a connection to the Amira project that was proposed before us as well. So, there's

130
00:37:39.800 --> 00:37:55.760
a lot of learning that they had done through that process as well. So, um the trail connection is a big one. It it was the biggest topic last night at our neighborhood meeting. It's important for us, too, which is uh evidenced by the by the dedication that that the group is making. And so, um we're we're allies

131
00:37:55.760 --> 00:38:11.120
with the neighbors in terms of hoping that the our project moving forward um would allow some more discussions with Parks and Rec in the city about um finally getting that in so that all those residents out there can can enjoy all the all the amenities of in downtown Victoria. So,

132
00:38:11.120 --> 00:38:28.360
um with that, I think Bryant covered things pretty well, but I'd be happy to answer any questions that the commission would have. So, thank you. >> Thanks. Appreciate it. Commissioners? Discussion? >> Just a reminder of the context of

133
00:38:28.880 --> 00:38:45.080
having direct access of the property on Highway 5 was turned down by the DOT originally. >> That's correct. Yes. Um as part of the Amira project as well, I went back in the project folder and looked at it tonight because we've been hearing a lot

134
00:38:45.080 --> 00:39:02.840
of questions about requiring um a traffic study as part of this. So, just some additional context for the group, a traffic study was conducted for the Amira project. It noted that during the peak AM and PM hours, it would only generate an additional 21 vehicle trips

135
00:39:02.840 --> 00:39:19.880
based on a senior use out in this area. So, we anticipate that number could potentially be even lower due to um the reduced unit count here. So, something to consider, Highway 5 access still won't be feasible, but we anticipate

136
00:39:19.880 --> 00:39:36.680
less traffic than what was actually done with Amira. >> All right, help me understand, where is the access point then to this new neighborhood? >> Yes, let me go to a better aerial. So, here um Lakes Parkway here would be the main

137
00:39:36.680 --> 00:39:52.040
access from Highway 5, and then you would turn onto Sky Drive to come into the development sites. The cooperative building would be here, town homes here, single family here. >> So, you're not going through the neighborhood except for maybe what, 100 yards? >> Correct.

138
00:39:52.040 --> 00:40:08.400
>> And it's not by any other neighborhood houses, either. >> And that cul-de-sac you showed, does that become a drive-through? So, you drive through what was a cul-de-sac, it looks like. >> Correct. Yeah, so um to get into the cooperative site, you would pull

139
00:40:08.400 --> 00:40:23.440
directly through that cul-de-sac. >> Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. >> And could you go back one slide just for context? Okay, so that that one there. So the easement for the trail of the 7 acres goes all the way up to the right

140
00:40:23.440 --> 00:40:39.720
side and then there's two parcels that are still three of those three there that are still to be negotiated. >> Correct. >> would actually go through. So, a big gesture. >> Correct. >> one. >> Chair and Commissioners, just to give a

141
00:40:39.720 --> 00:40:54.840
little bit more context to the city has approached them in the past or has had discussions with them in the past about possibly acquiring those properties to help facilitate that trail extension. At that time, I don't know the last time it

142
00:40:54.840 --> 00:41:13.560
happened. It was before my time, over 3 years ago now, but none of the property owners were interested in selling to the city for that extension. >> I know I read something about the height of the um the apartment building, the taller building, would exceed the um the zoning

143
00:41:13.560 --> 00:41:30.560
code's maximum height. >> Uh Chair and Commissioners, so our R4 district is actually a little bit unique. Um our downtown height requirement, as you might know, is 50 ft. >> Right. >> Our R4 standard in code right now is 55

144
00:41:30.560 --> 00:41:45.040
ft. >> Okay. >> I understand that the applicant is proposing somewhere around 53 ft. So, they would be meeting the requirements of the R4. They just don't meet the central business district height requirement as it stands today. >> Okay. >> Good.

145
00:41:45.040 --> 00:42:00.840
>> I have another question. Um in Lakes Parkway, is it proposed any modification to allow all the extra cars that are going to turn in to the left? >> Chair and Commissioners, that's a good question. There aren't any proposed

146
00:42:00.840 --> 00:42:19.480
modifications being applied to Lakes Parkway, which is that main entrance from Highway 5. Um as I was showing, they would finish out the cul-de-sac here on Sky Drive, but no changes to Lakes Parkway. >> Ryan,

147
00:42:19.480 --> 00:42:34.040
can you Is it possible to share the previous Amira MnDOT study and or I I'm interested if it contemplated emergency vehicle traffic and if when

148
00:42:34.040 --> 00:42:49.240
that study was conducted if the population and anticipated growth with all the new development that's happening materially changes any of the the entry and exit findings that they might have. >> Sure. Chair and Commissioners, so we

149
00:42:49.240 --> 00:43:05.120
haven't engaged MnDOT yet on this. They typically don't review sketch plats. It's something we can certainly send them now since it's been 3 years since the Amira project. Maybe sentiments or parts of their evaluations have changed.

150
00:43:05.120 --> 00:43:21.040
So we'll definitely be sending it to them as part of the preliminary plat submittal. We can engage them sooner if the Planning Commission thinks it would be beneficial for them to look into that before the applicant starts preparing preliminary plat plans.

151
00:43:21.040 --> 00:43:37.560
>> Ryan, you mentioned that the impervious maximum is going to be a challenge. Do we know the percentage of of impervious coverage that will likely have? >> Development wide, I don't anticipate more than 50% based on what they're

152
00:43:37.560 --> 00:43:52.880
showing in the current site characteristics. So it won't be an extreme number, especially when we're talking about the site itself or the development itself. But if we're talking about a

153
00:43:52.880 --> 00:44:08.920
site-specific analysis, if we're talking about just their site boundaries, which doesn't include this hatched area down here, that percentage could be inflated up to potentially 80%, which would be like our central business district

154
00:44:08.920 --> 00:44:24.880
requirement. Um so it's what it's guided for today, but they would have to change the designation to high-density residential. But um the impervious would likely still match something of a central business

155
00:44:24.880 --> 00:44:42.880
district nature. >> How does that compare to the Amira project? Is it more or less? >> It would be similar. Um as the applicant stated, they have the same architect working on or the same engineer working on the project. So, I would guess that

156
00:44:42.880 --> 00:44:59.000
the engineer likely tried to keep the same figure. >> If I could speak to that too, we we feel for our program we're we're over parked and so that has been a discussion. I would assume that when we come with our next submittal, some of the surface parking is going to be removed just for

157
00:44:59.000 --> 00:45:15.520
more green space for our future members. >> That makes sense. >> Um just because we are over parked for what we typically shoot for and and we are above and beyond the one-to-one underneath. Um every every share, every co-op member gets a parking space with theirs uh with their share and then additionally the

158
00:45:15.520 --> 00:45:32.360
first there's a first-come, first-serve basis and we have I think it was 100 and four underneath or 106 underneath? >> 104 >> Uh with 76 units in the building. So, we have an abundance of underground parking and so it'd be my hope to be able to minimize some of that surface parking as

159
00:45:32.360 --> 00:45:47.880
well to help with some of that. Thank you. >> Very good. >> In this image on the northeastern side, it looks like the part of the driveway kind of just ends. Is there anticipation for continual of that or is it just like

160
00:45:47.880 --> 00:46:05.920
that's it? >> Chair and commissioners, that's a good question. I should have pointed that out in our staff report, but that is actually necessary for uh fire truck turnaround. >> Okay. >> Brian What? >> I was just going to say there aren't

161
00:46:05.920 --> 00:46:25.520
there aren't additional buildable acres on the site. The rest of it is in wetlands, so there's no future proposal for additional >> Brian given um the the um Met Council's density requirements, where are we at given just overall

162
00:46:25.520 --> 00:46:41.680
density um requirements to kind of adhere to their guidelines, especially given the withdrawal of other projects around Victoria and this one coming in a little bit under proposed density. >> Chair and commissioners, that's a good

163
00:46:41.680 --> 00:46:58.920
question. Um overall, we're still right around that three and a half, which will be our 2050 comp plan requirement. Uh this proposal, putting it in a district that is slightly less dense, would bring down our overall density a little bit.

164
00:46:58.920 --> 00:47:16.320
Um I don't know how drastically it could, but it's something I could discuss with our sector representative to see if it's going to be a drastic change for our future projections. >> Something that we need to Council needs to keep in mind overall for for all projects moving forward.

165
00:47:18.840 --> 00:47:35.080
>> The other thought I had is looking at this, and I'm pretty sure the new roundabout 45 and Steiger Lake, that's that uh top right corner, right? The north >> Correct. Victoria Drive and Highway 5 roundabout is under construction here at

166
00:47:35.080 --> 00:47:51.040
the moment. >> I would love to see uh part of the trail system from all of this or a sidewalk connecting to that so that residents here could easily walk and have a easier way of crossing the road there.

167
00:47:53.280 --> 00:48:09.720
>> I will when I reach out to MnDOT about that, I will ask him as well about that possibility. I've under If I'm understanding correctly what I've heard from past staff members is that MNDOT wasn't interested in a trail in that section, but I can certainly ask the

168
00:48:09.720 --> 00:48:27.360
question again to see if sentiments have changed. >> It actually would facilitate connection to downtown West as well. For all of the neighborhood areas. >> Mhm. >> I just feel like right there would probably be best anyways cuz that's traffic's already slowing down with the

169
00:48:27.360 --> 00:48:43.080
roundabout, so a little bit easier for pedestrian crossing. >> Mhm. Brian, is there any contemplation or to the developer on the entry the current proposed entry and exit on Lake Bridge for either

170
00:48:43.080 --> 00:48:58.880
um traffic control signs, stoplights and if there's going to be any requirements around um you know, resurfacing, reconstructing that given that there's a big uh you know, center troll planting in that middle and that you know, right at that

171
00:48:58.880 --> 00:49:15.440
entry exit there which I don't know how that would impact either emergency vehicles or heightened traffic. Has that been contemplated or is that present in any of the packets either for this or Amira? >> It was present in the packet for Amira. As I said, there was a traffic study

172
00:49:15.440 --> 00:49:32.040
that was conducted for that project. Um they determined that the I looking at it again earlier today, the worst level of service meaning um A is the best, F is the worst. The worst was a left turn out

173
00:49:32.040 --> 00:49:47.960
of Lakes Parkway onto Highway 5 um at the peak PM hour when everyone's commuting home from work, but that was still only a level service C after uh construction, which is a fairly average

174
00:49:47.960 --> 00:50:05.680
uh traffic designation, so that doesn't warrant any additional improved intersections. >> When that project or study was done, was this neighborhood already built out fully or >> Correct. That's my understanding. The

175
00:50:05.680 --> 00:50:22.040
Lake Ridge neighborhood just to the west here started construction, I believe, 16 years ago. So, they've been built out for a bit of time. So, that study considered uh all of this neighborhood as well as the Amira project with impacts to the Highway 5 and Lakes Parkway intersections.

176
00:50:22.040 --> 00:50:37.800
>> So, to that point, just for cuz I I don't remember, but did it quantify how many vehicles were moving through that intersection in the early period? So, of 21 additional,

177
00:50:37.800 --> 00:50:54.320
you know, what percentage? Cuz that's kind of the counter balance. It's like how big is the community that it's serving relative to this new additional, you know, impact? Um is it proportional? You know, is it >> That's a good question. I did not get

178
00:50:54.320 --> 00:51:11.040
that far. So, I will look into that and have a better answer for you next time. >> wondering is like, yeah, how big is that neighborhood? I can't you know, I don't know what everyone that flows that way. We all know what it's like on some mornings. >> And that traffic study is part of the Amira

179
00:51:11.040 --> 00:51:27.520
um development. I can tell you that was reviewed in July of 2023. If you want to go back and look at that package, that uh traffic report is part of that. >> I got a question for you. Is that

180
00:51:27.520 --> 00:51:42.040
There's a pond there, and then how close is this getting to Sixmile Creek? >> Uh Sixmile Creek is the stream that actually runs through the site here. Uh this is a 300-ft distance. So, the

181
00:51:42.040 --> 00:52:00.280
building itself is probably 400 500 ft away from the stream. >> The footprint of the building on this would be inside the light not touching any of the dotted blue. >> Correct.

182
00:52:00.280 --> 00:52:14.640
>> By another 100 ft? >> Potentially, yeah. >> And what about the pond there? Is that considered a No, no, up. It's next to the house. >> Oh, this one? That is not on the DNR's

183
00:52:14.640 --> 00:52:30.200
list of registered waterways. So, um that could just be wetland and not stream. There is a difference between the two. DNR doesn't care as much about wetlands as they do streams. Um

184
00:52:30.200 --> 00:52:47.920
but there are wetland buffer setbacks that the applicant would have to comply with um district's requirements. So, Minnehaha Creek will look at this section, but DNR will look at the rest of it, if that makes sense. >> So, is that a potential issue if they

185
00:52:47.920 --> 00:53:04.000
Have they come on site and looked at this call it pond? >> Yeah, they did with the Amira proposal. I don't know if the applicant has engaged Minnehaha Creek Watershed District yet, but they will be required to as part of their preliminary plat.

186
00:53:05.080 --> 00:53:20.440
>> Kind of remember something about that, but not the details. I know it was looked at, though. So, good for context. >> Um what were the um What were the trail concerns at the

187
00:53:20.440 --> 00:53:35.640
at the meeting last night? What What What more could you do? >> Um I So, I think it was the trail concerns were probably less about our proposed property and more about the fact that when that development went in many years ago, I think the developer

188
00:53:35.640 --> 00:53:51.680
had shared, "Won't this trail be great to access downtown Victoria?" 16 some years later, still not complete. Uh a number of factors leading to that, I think. Um but certainly this property now being up for sale and

189
00:53:51.680 --> 00:54:07.120
us proposing this project, it feels like a good opportunity, I think, to share those frustrations and concerns to say, "Hey, can we fix this now?" Um and certainly we we would support that with with the dedication and and he mentioned um Minnehaha Creek uh Watershed District,

190
00:54:07.120 --> 00:54:23.000
that's um some discussions we've had. While we haven't We haven't talked to them yet about that pond structure, Civil Site Group was on that project as well, so they were likely involved with that. And so those are some of those learnings. But additionally, we understand that um we would like to reach out to them to talk about a potential funding source,

191
00:54:23.000 --> 00:54:40.240
too. So that in August when when the city um Parks and Rec meetings start, we hope to have a seat at the table. I'm sure the neighbors will also have a seat at the table along with the city and and hopefully be bringing up those ideas of, "Hey, how do we How do we finally solve this um for everybody?" So um

192
00:54:40.240 --> 00:54:58.120
>> Thank you. Can I ask another question? Brian, can you get a little bit bigger view of this image on the left? >> The whole of the whole of the basically the top side of the trail. I'm sorry. Is there another slide that you have that shows a more zoomed out view? >> Yeah.

193
00:54:58.720 --> 00:55:15.120
Uh yeah, that might do it. Uh is there the potential to run the trail to the north of these not tied up lots and make the curve a little bit different? >> I mean, in this >> Uh-huh. Right. So the curve would go >> So the curve would go a little bit

194
00:55:15.120 --> 00:55:30.120
higher, kind of parallel five. >> There's potential with that. Um I think the city owns this lot. I could be wrong. Um we own one of these four and we own this one.

195
00:55:30.120 --> 00:55:46.440
Um but if it did have to go from here all all way up uh and connect back down here or something. That could potentially be achieved with a boardwalk. It would be a pretty expensive boardwalk. Um

196
00:55:46.440 --> 00:56:02.360
>> Why boardwalk? Cuz it's wet cuz it's >> Correct. Yeah. Everything back here is wet. And then we would still be working with two different property owners here because these are um industrial properties that own all the way back through these wetlands.

197
00:56:02.360 --> 00:56:17.560
>> I guess the only point would be on the developer of this if we'd be able to contemplate that budge of that land if we needed it because if we run into a full stop on one of those

198
00:56:17.560 --> 00:56:32.760
and we find some um you know, some property owners that are interested in working with the the county to move the trail around that corner. The solution to connect it, which is the goal.

199
00:56:32.760 --> 00:56:49.280
>> Yeah. Um chair and commissioners, I'll note that will likely be a city responsibility. That area is outside the scope of the applicant's project. So if there's interest in that, I can certainly bring that up to uh senior staff here at the city.

200
00:56:49.280 --> 00:57:04.800
>> talked to these other property owners on the on the north side about >> Not to my knowledge. >> Hm. Okay. >> I could be wrong. >> When was the last time we talked to the uh the four property owners with the little boxes? >> It was at least 3 years ago.

201
00:57:04.800 --> 00:57:24.960
>> Okay. >> Well, there's new momentum though. I think that's >> There's what? >> There's new momentum for a conversation. >> Get the property given the circumstances. >> It looks like there's actually a room there to make a little bit bigger turn if it's if it were possible because

202
00:57:24.960 --> 00:57:42.040
>> Yeah. >> We we wouldn't I mean I it's it's tricky because I'm speaking on behalf of the county. >> It's tricky because we're speaking [clears throat] on >> behalf of future shareholders and owners of the cooperative, and so that's always a tricky spot that we're in right now, but I would say

203
00:57:42.040 --> 00:57:57.200
um uh in general, we would support uh any sort of potential for additional easement discussion if that's what it required to get a safe trail connection to to downtown. That's going to benefit those

204
00:57:57.200 --> 00:58:13.640
members in the future, and so if that's something that that comes onto the table, we would be absolutely open to discussing a number of different scenarios, I think. So, but to Brian's point, it is an expensive uh way to construct the trail, but certainly if it gets the access done.

205
00:58:13.640 --> 00:58:32.360
>> Got it. Thank you. >> Anything else, commissioners? >> Uh if we got a connection to this property, uh would the owners be willing to make it a through connection for the other residents on the uh western side? >> Yep, really good question, and and sort

206
00:58:32.360 --> 00:58:48.720
of similar answer. It's it's tricky cuz we're speaking on behalf of a future um organization that operates like an HOA, and so obviously security and safety are going to be priority number one, but if uh uh again, I would say that yes, we'd be open to discussing that access coming

207
00:58:48.720 --> 00:59:09.400
through ours uh through the cooperative's property, um especially if the idea of the the sidewalk and Mendota is open to it up front, that could be a potential solution as well. >> [sighs] >> Brian, one more question. Uh correct me if I'm wrong, but there is currently a

208
00:59:09.400 --> 00:59:25.400
trail from that neighborhood through the other neighborhood. It does it go through this property? >> Um >> I don't know. >> Chair and Commissioner Shower, yes, that's a good question. Um I can highlight here generally on the screen

209
00:59:25.400 --> 00:59:41.480
for you. Uh this is a trail that comes from the Lake Ridge neighborhood. It comes down and connects to a dirt or gravel path here. Um but this is these two properties are still under private ownership. So, there's a trail there.

210
00:59:41.480 --> 01:00:04.120
Maybe it shouldn't be there, but that is how people have been connecting up to the Kelzer Pond neighborhood to get through and into downtown. >> Got you. Okay. We're good for now? Okay, we don't have a formal motion, so

211
01:00:04.120 --> 01:00:20.640
we can move on. Thank you. Yep, thanks for the presentation. Um so, now on to item 4.4 with some development updates and a map. Final discussion is to review the development updates, and I'll turn it over to our planner Brian McCann for the

212
01:00:20.640 --> 01:00:37.160
staff presentation. Thank you, Brian. >> Thank you, Chair and Commissioners. Last discussion item tonight, this should be a quick one. Um every quarter, I just like to bring forward development updates for the commission. Uh and then also have that publicly available as a resource for

213
01:00:37.160 --> 01:00:54.480
anyone interested on just one comprehensive what's happening in Victoria document. Uh so, I've broken this up into five sections uh just for ease of reading. We're going to focus on the central business district area. I say that as area because not everything

214
01:00:54.480 --> 01:01:10.880
on the screen here is part of the central business district, but it's everything in close proximity to our downtown. So, tonight you reviewed the sketch plat for Astoria Lake Town, that 76-unit cooperative with an additional six uh duplexes and the two single-family

215
01:01:10.880 --> 01:01:26.160
homes. That will be going to council for consideration of the sketch plat on Monday evening, June 22nd. Downtown West, uh they got their third addition plat approved for those four retail buildings. We're working with them and

216
01:01:26.160 --> 01:01:44.120
construction should be getting be beginning shortly on those four retail buildings. Downtown West first edition is the Olivine apartments consisting of I believe 145 units. They are actually having um a

217
01:01:44.120 --> 01:02:00.200
opening ceremony later this week, I believe. But they are taking residents in at the moment and it sounds like they're doing well. The Victoria Condos project that was the Gannon building located within downtown

218
01:02:00.200 --> 01:02:16.800
for the 10 condo units. They've received final plat approval. They're still working on their pre-sales for those condos before they actually plan on beginning construction. Then for Hotel Victoria that was reviewed tonight and recommended for approval for the final plat that will be

219
01:02:16.800 --> 01:02:34.120
going to council on Monday evening as well for their 46 unit boutique hotel. Then Row Apartments is nearing final construction completion especially for those retail units. I've heard that potential users

220
01:02:34.120 --> 01:02:50.120
will be opening at the end of July for that building. And then Victoria Gateway East, that's the Hometown Bank Mocha Monkey project. They also have final plat approval. They are planning to stage their construction around the same time that

221
01:02:50.120 --> 01:03:06.360
this section of Highway 5 reconstruction begins so that will be anticipated to begin later this year. And then for the Church Lake Boulevard proposal, you may recall the Planning Commission was going to review a sketch plat for I believe 92 or 96 townhomes

222
01:03:06.360 --> 01:03:22.840
out in that area. David from David Weekley Homes. They've rescinded their application and so we're getting lots of calls about these properties but no official sketch plat submittal for those. Any questions on the Central Business District area?

223
01:03:23.920 --> 01:03:40.040
Okay. Moving on to the General Marsh Lake Road area, Shores of Marsh Lake First Edition is still under construction. They're finishing the last of the homes out there. Shores of Marsh Lake Second Edition with an additional six single-family homes received final plat

224
01:03:40.040 --> 01:03:55.000
approval and development agreement approval. So, that should be coming in, um, as soon as they get their comprehensive plan amendment approval from the Met Council, they'll start construction of those six homes as well. Hunter's Glen, all the homes out there

225
01:03:55.000 --> 01:04:11.480
are complete and staff are working with the developer on public improvements and landscaping inspections. So, that one's almost complete. And then 8675 County Road 43, you might recall that was a minor subdivision. They're putting in, uh, two new

226
01:04:11.480 --> 01:04:28.200
single-family homes here at the end of this street. And then a new, uh, larger parcel here which would be on septic and well. We're still in discussion with this property owner about how they are planning to move forward. They don't have all their final approvals yet, but

227
01:04:28.200 --> 01:04:47.400
they did receive approval from the Met Council on their comp plan amendment for that project. Any questions there? Okay. Then, moving on to the East area, Brookmore is nearing final completion as well. I think they have a couple homes

228
01:04:47.400 --> 01:05:03.040
still under construction out in this area. Staff are doing public improvement and, uh, landscaping inspections out there. And then, if you haven't driven along County Road 18 recently for the new fire station, it looks great so far. I believe they are planning an open

229
01:05:03.040 --> 01:05:22.400
house for September this year, but it will be officially complete, uh, I believe in July. So, that will be exciting as well. Any questions there? Great. Then Victoria North, only the one project here, which is Belle Maple Farm.

230
01:05:22.400 --> 01:05:37.560
Uh this one was originally tabled by the City Council for some official evaluation on their utility corridor because this is a particularly challenging development. Uh they came back and were going for City Council

231
01:05:37.560 --> 01:05:54.640
consideration, but they the City Council received a petition that was sent to the State Environmental Quality Board, so they had to delay again until an environmental analysis was done on this project. Uh the petition analysis came back stating that a mandatory

232
01:05:54.640 --> 01:06:10.480
non-discretionary EAW was required for this project, so the City Council approved the preliminary plat. The applicant is still working in the background and planning to submit for final plat for that project soon. >> Will we see that again, Brian, or is that just go to council?

233
01:06:10.480 --> 01:06:27.160
>> That one will just go to council. Um >> Okay. >> The comprehensive plan amendment was only other section that required Planning Commission review along with the comprehensive plan amendment for this one. Um so, as soon as those are approved, it would just go straight to council. >> Very good. Thanks.

234
01:06:27.160 --> 01:06:41.480
>> Just quick question on that one. So, that's the one that would all of the excess would be coming from that current Mill Creek area, right? It's that. >> Chair and Commissioners, that's correct. >> Yeah. That's what I remember.

235
01:06:41.480 --> 01:07:00.040
>> Any other questions on this one? Okay. Um that was for 15 single-family homes, if I recall correctly. >> Mhm. >> And then the last larger section of town here, this is for um what we're just

236
01:07:00.040 --> 01:07:17.120
generally calling Victoria South. So, uh starting at the north side here, Hunters Brook and Hunters Brook Creek Side, they're still busy building homes out there. Um the Creekside area are the executive lots, which I believe they have two houses up down here. I'm not sure if

237
01:07:17.120 --> 01:07:32.840
they have any constructed yet out of these three down here. Um but they're getting close to completion in the Huntersbrook area, but the Huntersbrook Creekside area is still under development. And then Marsh

238
01:07:32.840 --> 01:07:48.680
Hollow, they have completed all the single-family home rentals for a while. They're still constructing the last few townhomes out in this area. Then Victoria Ridge will be starting construction of their first 70 townhomes

239
01:07:48.680 --> 01:08:03.880
that were approved last year out here. Um the apartment building just to the south here in this section uh was approved. They have not come in to actually record the plat yet, so we don't anticipate construction on that

240
01:08:03.880 --> 01:08:20.640
one starting soon, but that was for 163 or 167 units, I believe, for an apartment building there. QuickTrip is also working through their building permit plans. Uh should be beginning construction soon. No other

241
01:08:20.640 --> 01:08:36.880
updates on the Victoria commercial area. We did meet with the real estate uh the commercial real estate agent out on this site to discuss possible uses that the city would like to see out here, so they will be doing some additional engagement, and you guys would review

242
01:08:36.880 --> 01:08:54.000
any new commercial projects that come out in that area. Then West Creek Village is the Lennar development. They got their first edition approved for 56 townhomes and 13 single-family homes, so they've been doing mass grading out there and should be constructing soon.

243
01:08:54.000 --> 01:09:10.200
Then Enclave at Huntersbrook, uh you guys I don't believe reviewed this one. This is actually a section of West Creek Village that Tradition Development bought from Lennar. So, they'll be constructing the 13 single-family homes on the north side of Creekside Lane

244
01:09:10.200 --> 01:09:26.080
within that larger Lennar project. And then, Kookenmeister is still being evaluated by Pulte. Um a year or two ago, the Planning Commission City Council reviewed a sketch plat there for a mix of single-family homes and townhomes. They've been working with the

245
01:09:26.080 --> 01:09:42.240
city on modifying their sketch plat. They should be coming back with a revised plan soon for your consideration. And then, lastly is the Athletes Village project further down on County Road 10 Angler Boulevard. We do not have any movement on that project. So, we know

246
01:09:42.240 --> 01:09:58.640
that they're still engaged and planning on doing some sort of uh sports facility out there with a future commercial component, but we don't have any recent updates for the Planning Commission. >> Is it going to be affected by the 43 road

247
01:09:58.640 --> 01:10:13.840
if it changes? >> Correct. Uh chair and commissioners, they've been engaged with Carver County who owns County Roads 10 and 43. So, the county is working with them on what their access looks like for that site uh

248
01:10:13.840 --> 01:10:30.800
because it likely will be a large commercial user which would generate enough traffic to require some intersection improvements with the project. >> What was the last you heard on that project? How long ago? >> 3 months, maybe. >> Okay.

249
01:10:30.800 --> 01:10:45.400
>> Yeah. >> Frank, can you remind us where the city proper boundaries go on the south side there? >> Yes. Um so, all these uh black lines that you're seeing are property boundaries. It's really convenient in

250
01:10:45.400 --> 01:11:01.760
this image on the left because this is the future line for the city. Everything south of this line that you don't see property lines for is future area for Carver. So, everything that you see to the left or west of County Road 11 going

251
01:11:01.760 --> 01:11:18.320
north-south here, and everything north of this east-west black line is either current or future Victoria area. >> Was there any further updates from the county on Engler Boulevard and when

252
01:11:18.320 --> 01:11:34.080
that's going to be worked on? >> Yes. Uh so, I that segues if we're done with this, I've got a transportation project slide as well. Does anyone have any other questions on this? No? Great. Perfect. So, starting at the south end,

253
01:11:34.080 --> 01:11:51.800
the county is evaluating the remaining section of Victoria Drive, County Road 11, as well as County Road 10, Engler Boulevard. Um I'm part of a team with the city engineer, Carrie Garen. We meet monthly with the county and their uh selected

254
01:11:51.800 --> 01:12:07.880
consultant to do these projects. So, they're anticipating improvements to Victoria Drive being done in 2028, and improvements to County Road 10 being done in 2029. We're still working through the designs and alternatives of

255
01:12:07.880 --> 01:12:24.160
what those access uh and intersections look like. So, nothing's been finally determined yet. I will note they are planning another open house in July. If you're able to attend that and are interested, it will be held at the Westbrook Community Church.

256
01:12:24.160 --> 01:12:42.400
Uh if I back up a slide, which is right on the southwest corner here of County Road 10 and 11. So, if you're interested in that, I highly recommend you attend that and listen to what they have to say. And then, uh other transportation

257
01:12:42.400 --> 01:12:58.040
projects, Highway 5 uh and County Road 11 north is still under construction. From what I've heard, they're still on target for um July 4th opening. So, that could potentially change weather pending.

258
01:12:58.040 --> 01:13:14.080
We've been getting some rain recently, but from what I've heard, this should still be opening July 4th weekend. And then later this year, they will start working on the remainder of the large Highway 5 project. And then the state is still looking at improvements to Highway

259
01:13:14.080 --> 01:13:35.200
7 on the north side of town with anticipated reconstruction of that happening in 2029. Any questions? >> No, that's helpful. >> Great. Well, that's all I had for you this evening. Thank you.

260
01:13:35.200 --> 01:13:50.800
>> Good information. Um so, if there's no more discussion there, that concludes our items this evening. So, we'll move to the miscellaneous section of the agenda. Any staff reports? >> Yeah, just a couple minor updates for

261
01:13:50.800 --> 01:14:05.560
you. Uh the July 7th meeting, I will likely not be attending that meeting, but we do have two items on that agenda. Um we potentially have a zoning text amendment request coming forward regarding fences that Travis will be

262
01:14:05.560 --> 01:14:22.600
presenting to you. And then uh outdoor dining interim use permit, which I believe Jen and Travis will be jointly uh presenting for that. Otherwise, those are only two items as of right now for the Tuesday, July 7th meeting. I know that's a Tuesday after a

263
01:14:22.600 --> 01:14:39.840
holiday, so please let me know as soon as possible if you're not able to attend that evening. We want to make sure we have a quorum because those two items will involve public hearings. >> Brian, is the fences topic related to the June 2 topic that we addressed on

264
01:14:39.840 --> 01:14:55.480
fences? >> I believe so. >> Okay. Let's make sure that we've get the notes out or the minutes rather for everybody to I know it was a short meeting, but if we're following up on it. >> Yes. >> [clears throat] >> It's great idea. >> Uh other than that, there is new art in

265
01:14:55.480 --> 01:15:12.120
the room today as well. So, I left those little slips of paper for you if you wouldn't mind taking a look and uh writing down which one is your favorite. Our city clerk for the new commissioners likes to collect these and uh send out a note to everyone on what the favorite

266
01:15:12.120 --> 01:15:30.640
piece of art was. >> Thank you, looks good. Any reports from the commissioners? >> No, has there been any community dialogue with the city about data centers? I know that's a hot topic right now, but has that come up with our city at all?

267
01:15:30.640 --> 01:15:49.960
>> Chair and commissioners, it has not come up with our city and I can tell you in our conversations with potential developers, none of them have approached us. >> Okay. Just wanted to double-check. >> [laughter] >> Any other items?

268
01:15:50.680 --> 01:16:07.680
And then I'll ask for a motion to adjourn. >> I'll make a motion. >> And a second? >> Second. >> That works. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Meeting adjourned.

269
01:16:46.480 --> 01:16:48.520
>> Mhm.