e e good evening I will now call this meeting to order our first order of business is is to adopt tonight's agenda for tonight's meeting um I'd like to make
a uh correction to the agenda we're going to do the uh public hearing for the uh swimming pool first and then we will do the W West Creek Village Residential
development can I get a motion to approve the agenda as adopted so moved second motion and second all those in favor I thank you the motion carries our next order of business is to adopt
the minutes from our March 4th 2025 Planning Commission meeting commissioner is there a motion to approve the minutes second got a motion and a second all those in favor I oppos
thank you the motion carries we'll now move on to our discussion items our first item tonight is the for discussion is to consider approval variance for 6580 as
Trail this item does include a public hearing I will now turn it over to associate planner Travis beerley for a staff presentation and then I will open the public hearing for the those in the chambers this evening that wish to speak on the
request good evening chair and Commissioners I apologize about the technical difficulty we're having with the monitors in front of you tonight but we'll have everything up on the the side screens um for the presentation uh tonight we are taking a second look at a
request for uh variance at 6580 Aster Trail we did have a public hearing a month ago on this uh but there's been new information uh this request has been modified um to go from the 75 or the 25t encroachment out to a 28t encroachment
uh from the 100t Shoreland setback um so uh the application we did receive in January and was uh ruled complete January 24th of this year there was a 60-day rule um which we elected to extend with the uh applicant which will
extend out to May 24th for the city council to make a final decision on it uh we did redo the public notice and mail to to all the residents within 350 ft as well as presenting as well as getting published in the Waconia Patriot like I said we conducted a public
hearing on February 18th um and then uh staff dis has discussed this application as well as a plans with the DNR with Carver County and with the minihaha Creek Watershed District um there's new information that was discovered tonight after conversations from the public
hearing post the Planning Commission meeting with the applicant and those are considered significant enough to bring back for uh potential reconsideration of the planning commission's recommendation as a reminder the applicant is looking to install a pool
which will cross over uh the 100 foot Shoreland setback um and when we're looking at that we're looking at a total encroachment of about 28 fet when we consider variance we the biggest thing for us is look at the Practical difficulties question the
first part of practical is is establishing if this is a reasonable request it's staff's opinion that this is a reasonable request for a pool to be permitted as an accessory use to a single family home the next thing that we look at is the uniqueness of the property the uniqueness of the property
comes down to if there's a plight of the owner so is there something that the prop the way the property is designed laid out that prohibits from being able to place an item in this case a pool legally on the property with inside our c zoning regulations the next Factor
that's considered in Practical difficulties is the essential character of the property if the pool is constructed would it have an effect on the neighborhood itself or the area would it cause any type of adverse impacts uh staff would agree that a pool
does not create adverse impacts so when we start talking about the uniqueness we definitely want we're going to talk about two main things tonight which which come up as new information one is the lot shape as reminder it is an irregular lot that
was part of a minor subdivision back in 2014 the intent of the subdivision was to create one lot for a single family home unfortunately that home was was built fairly close to the 100 foot setback on the screen you can see a vertical line going through the middle
of the image uh the dark dash line that is where the 100 foot setback is with that being said staff took a look um at the front yard to see if that was a reasonable location for for a pool and it's not because of space and because you just don't see pools in people's
front yards uh on single family properties uh on the south side of the home uh there's steep slopes that make the pool impractical uh to put in you would need significant retaining walls and it would cause um issues with storm water management and controls then we
look at the West part where the applicant is proposing to put the pool inside that 100 foot setback or at least the majority of it that area is more flat and we require shorter retaining walls and storm water can still be managed through vegetation and other
means that's more a practical application to to not cause any troubles um on the north side of the property and this is where the new information comes when staff had looked at this there is a consideration of being able to put a pool on the north side of the home not
necessarily a large pool but any pool in general could it fit and the answer that staff had a month ago was yes it could fit new information has been presented by um the landscaper who we're going to consider to be an expert in how properties work uh described us and
showed us his staff that any type of obstruction that goes there is going to cause drain water or storm water issues either going to the property line and potentially across it which wouldn't meet storm water controls as required by the state or the water would be forced
towards the home causing significant mitigation that would need to take place either way it would go into you would have that storm water issue and then you'd have a large retaining wall which would likely be over 4 feet once a retaining wall is designed to be over 4
feet uh building code requires that it's an engineered retaining wall which adds a significant cost another challenge towards construction so that's the new information that comes into play um on this staff did consider the different
areas and what it would mean um when looking at the four different locations and the only place that could reasonably make sense to put a pool would be within the Shoreland which would require setback then just a reminder as part of the um the Vance request application
there's two properties cited the first one was 6642 Astro Trail which was a variance in 2023 uh that was for the replacement of a home uh that needed a variance because of uh storm water controls uh it was on similar footprint
it was outside the 100 foot and there was an easement that the DNR required the second thing that we looked at real quick was 7321 tamarak Trail which was also part of the variance request application uh this variance request was for additional hard cover to be on the
property and was done in 2024 um the homeowner had purchased the property prior to a change in our zoning code um with plans to have a pool put in and they went through a pretty arduous process with the DNR and with landscape design for storm water controls on the
property um with that the city council approved both variances there when we do look at the Practical difficulties of this particular application or any application we have to look at the state statute um and we have to know that variances may be
granted when an applicant for a variance establishes our practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance just reiterate what that means is it means that an ability to comply with the zoning code or in this case to install a pool with inside the current language of our zoning code would cause an undue
hardship something that would be extreme and difficult to actually achieve that you wouldn't see as reasonably done um and then our zoning code is is specific in stating that the the
commission will not recommend and the council will not Grant a variance unless they find the the following of facts one strict enforcement or interpretation that result in Practical difficulties or undo hardship inconsistent with the
intent of the city code meaning if it'd be if the Planning Commission would see it as unreasonable to put a pool in another location that it could legally be because of external difficulties um and that would that leads in the next part where it's exceptional
extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that gener wouldn't apply to other properties in this case the shape of the property as well as the placement of the home in relation to the setback um has been looked at by the city council in the past um that is a factor to consider
and that was not considered a plight of the property owner so we would be looking at primarily the storm water management and the Topography of the site as far as the placement of a pool um the other thing is that we wouldn't want the granting of Avance to adversely
affect the public health welfare safety and will be not detrimental uh injures to property or improvements in the neighborhood this also includes any controls or damages that appol could potentially cause to our our leg system or to any type of erosion between with
inside that 100 foot setback uh the other thing the last thing we want to look at is Grant interance um will not allow a use which is otherwise not permitted in the zoning code in question what that is is basically saying is a pool allowed to be on this property the answer is yes so that that's probably
the easiest question to answer of the four criteria um that the Planning Commission should consider um when providing a recommendation as far as the discussion we want to take a direct look at should a variance be recommended for
approval the Planning Commission should ask themselves the following questions and I apologize little small we don't have the screens um but uh is a pool a reasonable use for a single family property with the installation of a pool change the essential char of the
neighborhood does the zoning code create practical difficulties in a plight of the landowner are the ex are there exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and would any adverse effects be caused by granting this variance that's the first group of
questions that a that uh should be answered by the Planning Commission and then if the Planning Commission is leaning towards approval uh should the allowable setback be extended or kept at its place uh this would only be if the Planning Commission want to recommend any type of flexibility if if it is a
recommendation for approval and uh are there any reasonable conditions that the Planning Commission would want if there is a recommendation for approval this could be anything from vegetation to anything for protections uh on based on any comments that the Planning
Commission has um with that being said after the discussion uh staff would request that the Planning Commission provide or provide a reconsideration of the recommendation of denial which we provided the last time we we visited
this and determine whether the denial should stand whether an approval should be recommended or whether an approval with specific condition should be recommended to the city council for that I stand for any questions thank you
Travis um does the applicant wish to speak yeah state your name and yeah John Stockman uh and I'm here with my wife Jane Stockman so thank you for hearing our considerations again and the opportunity to meet with you guys again uh after our
last meeting we've worked with Travis and Brian to really understand what we could do and what would work and I think that's where the information came out that you know our Pool Experts said you know a pool of any size on the north side of the house is not feasible due to the you know storm water mitigation issue um but before we get into that
specifically I want to take a step back and talk about kind of why the three reasons we think a variance is deserved so one we think that we obviously meet the variance criteria is Travis laid out you know that we have a reasonable use a pool is a reasonable thing to use we
won't change the essential characteristic of the neighborhood there's a number of pools including next door to us um and that there is a PL to the ownership and a hardship that results in a hardship and we'll talk about that in a second the second thing is we're not setting a new precedent with this pool in the city of Victoria
there are number of pools within the 100 foot setback whether this was in previous codent or not um there's pools within 60 feet of the shoreline within the city of Victoria so we're not setting a new precedent that doesn't exist and third we believe that we're following the intent of the code to
protect the Lakeshore with this pool because Recreation would be focused at the pool instead of down at the lak shore where we're disrupting by we're disrupting the wildlife and the native vegetation so we're going to dive into each of these three really quickly Travis if you wouldn't mind forward to the next
slide um in terms of our qualification of mea variance Travis laid it out pretty clearly you know we have to show that it's a reasonable use which they agreed that it is and we've talked about that before the project will not affect the essential characteristics of the neighborhood which we've all agreed that
a pool would not be out of the essential characteristics of the neighborhood and finally that we Face a practical difficulty or plight resulting in a hardship um that's where we've provided additional information about the characteristics of our lot and they've agreed that due to the uniqueness of our
lot that we have a hardship in placing a pool anywhere that meets the current code and does not encroach on the 100 foot they've agreed that it's there's not a place that we could realistically place a pool without ruining our storm water mitigation without encroaching on the 100 foot part of the lot our pool
builder who's built over 100 pools in the city of Victoria said in his expert opinion a pool of any size on the north side of the home will result in significant storm water control issues and therefore is not a feasible location to place a pool the report should have been included in your packet that you
guys got it's it's up there as well um but he just lays out in that report that you know there's a significant drop 7 and a half foot drop and there's currently a swell or a Swale to maintain the uh current drainage to place a pool there we have to do a significant amount of grading uh the basically the East and
North Side would have to be raised or lowered and the South and West Side would have to be raised and this would not accommodate any drainage or runoff water on site and drainage would have to basically be redirected to the neighboring property and you know Nick from G or Nick ganis from atlan pools is here
tonight if you have question specifically about you know that report um in our location that we proposed on the west side there was no disruption to drainage and storm water controls as Travis just said in addition and while these are not as significant of issues
as the storm water control issues they are considerations and we've talked about this before you know if we wanted to build a pool on the north side of the property a significant amount of mature trees would need to be removed and we think this is not keeping the essential characteristic of the neighborhood there's a good privacy between the homes pretty common in this neighborhood and
and that wouldn't continue to do that also this large engineered retaining wall would need to be built and to do that substantial grading work would have to go on beyond the setback to get this wall in place because the wall would have to extend beyond the 100 foot setback if we were going to build on the
North side um and obviously this would you know affect and disrupt roots and sedimentary soils and everything within that setback area this would not need to be done if we place it where we are proposing to place it on the west side of the house so again do the new information that our pool and solar has
told us where a pool of any size would significant would result in significant storm water control issues we believe that we meet the qualification for a variance in that we have a hardship with the ability to place a pool anywhere on our lot that does not encroach on the 100 foot setback and just quickly you
know I Know Travis had a 28 foot setback the edge of the pool currently as laid out in that diagram is at 24 feet into the setback or 76 feet away from the shoreline we need to have an 18inch coping Edge we learned we don't need I think we have four feet in the dry and that's why it was 28 total but we only
need 18 inches and we're fine with that like the minimum amount of coping Edge we're good with that so 26 foot including the coping Edge 24ot to Water's Edge or Fool's Edge um over the setback so 74 or 76 feet from Lake Shore
um second reason if we go down to the next slide is again you know we're not setting new press these are a couple of homes that you know are in the area half of the homes that are currently on Lake Virginia with a pool have those pools within 100 feet or within the setback
they're not 100 feet distance from the lake shore um they also have examples of pools within the city of Victoria that are less than 60 feet away from the lake shore obviously we're not asking to do that so I just want to reiterate that you know we are not setting a new
precedent something that doesn't exist within the city while codes may have changed since these pools were built given the infeasibility that we just talked about a located pool Elsewhere on our property it seems reasonable for us to have the ability to build a pool that is in a similar location to numerous
pools within the city and then finally just the idea of meeting the intent of the setback rules you know we believe that following the intent of the setback rules is what we're doing with our proposed location the goal is setback is to preserve vegetation marine life and the natural Shoreline if our variance is
granted we've agreed to do runoff mitigation use 100% permeable pavers and replant that native vegetation on the hillside going down to the Shoreline as well as do anything else that's asked of us to preserve the shoreline as lifelong Lake owners which we are you know we agree with the intent of protecting the
lake shore what we if the variance is not granted however obviously we're going to focus our Recreation down at the lake shore side kids will be down there matting down native vegetation disrupting wildlife and doing activities that we could be doing in a pool this is
likely more detrimental to the pool or sorry to the the native uh vegetation and the Lakeshore than you know any potential runoff that could happen from the pool that we're going to do our best to mitigate so again we feel like you know the location of our pool actually helps maintain the natural habitat of
that Shoreline so in summary you know we think we meet the the uh requirements for variants including that our unique lot creates a hardship due to the storm water control issues that we can't play place a pool anywhere but the west side we are not setting a new precent in the
city like we talked about and that adding a pool better meets the intent of the setback rule for protecting our Shoreline then having our family focus our Recreation down on the waterfront to sering that vegetation you know when we purchase this home a year ago we were very excited about uh making Victoria a
lifelong home and making this home our lifelong home the pool was part of that dream and you know we hope you guys consider that obviously you know we are trying to do our best to work with the city and we're trying to do our best to make sure that we can you know be able
to meet our dreams but also do it in a way that mitigates any of the risk that we're worried about so thank you for hearing our considerations any questions thank you only question I have is uh what is the proposed size of the pool so
standard pool generally Minnesota is 20 x 40 we've made that smaller to be able to minimize the setback so we're going 18 ft wide by 38t is the current plan 36t 18 by thank you 18 by 36 is it not possible to put a pool of
any size on the western part of your property the Western size is what we are proposing I understand but um is is this is it not possible to put a smaller pool on on that without encroaching it's not
possible without encroaching if because we have to be 10 ft away from the home and that's basically where that line is and so we would any size pool would basically have to encroach because the wall of our house as you can see here is about 10 ft from that no I I don't I'm I'm focused on the
west side only what's what's the smallest size pool that could be built on the west side without encroaching there is that was my question the building code says that the pool has to be 10 from the structural wall and your footings of the
house you would be and we have footings on the pool so as soon as we move the pool outside of that 10 foot Mark we're into the setback even even with like a five foot six foot pool there's no if you look at the you know the line that
dash line and where the house is that's that's only like six feet at that P area and so really no matter how you put it there it's going to end up into that set back and they placed the pool so that
it's as close to the house to me building code AS really possible there without you know trying to push the pool way out into the backyard so okay that's coule thank you my other question is for
St um is is it true that half of the properties that have pools or or half of the properties have pools and they're all encroaching and and if so why is that 50 commissioner good question yes 50% of the pools are encroaching there
are two pools on Lake Virginia in Newport so we' got one of two there's four there two of four yeah but there's two are ining out of the four yeah so what it is one of the ones that we looked at was uh has an encroachment it's about 60 ft off uh that was granted
a variance of because of a lift station had to be put on the property which pushed the entire home back and then there's some topography things but about half them are encroaching and we're granted VAR at least one of was granted variances for the other one was
done a long time ago and I wasn't able to dig enough information up to provide a reason why are are those ones in Victoria or excelsia the ones that I'll the ones that uh staff reference will always be in Victoria okay so there's two in Victoria
to your point that are 60 or less I also have a question for staff about can you remind me if we approve an a variance pool needs repair in 10 years whatever what is the process do they
have to come back forward get a new variance and then similar like second question that is um these guys you know win the lottery and decide to go move to Mexico and now there's new owners because I know you guys don't want to move right um and the new owners want to do
something different did they have to come get a new variance like what like what are the next steps if if a variance is approved so that's an excellent question on the procedural process um if the Planning Commission uh regardless what the Planning Commission recommends
us to go to the city council for final consideration the variance is granted the variance is granted for the setback change so it's on the actual ordinance itself saying that instead of 100 ft for the setback the setback can be encroached in this case 28 ft or 24t or
whatever the final number gets decided to be that setback is for any structure it's not specific to just a pool so in three months after this is constructed the stock win the lottery and go to Mexico and somebody wants to put a different style pool in they would be
still GR Ed that land right to put in a pool and have that setback now if there are issues with maintenance or there are other things that cause detriments there are legal there is a legal process to revoke the variance uh
as far as the specifics for that I would I would want to consult the City attorney before commenting publicly but yeah there there is a process it's not this is done and then no matter what happens in the future there can't be corrective AC or recourse done so just to
clarify if going city council approves a variance then that Varian is for any structure to be put any structure within code uh that's that would be permissible under their zoning code right so like an ouse or whatever out house is the wrong
word a storage or house let's call it that um could potentially be built without another variance being needed correct that this is for the the variance itself regard as as long as the structure or the action taken on the property is legally done with inside the
R1 zoning code which is currently add or whatever zoning code it could change to in the future it's highly unlikely to happen but um what we're doing if if you take a look at the screen the request is to CH is for a reduction or an encroachment into the setback of section
22-6 D of the City Zoning code which Falls underneath our Shoreland overlay District regardless of the structure that's there basically what we're doing is we're saying there's a 100 foot line and we're going to move the 100 foot line to a different spot and then legally can be
placed on the property could be placed within that new area perpetuity until that variance is legally revoked correct so question on that just as a follow-up so the
variance to install a pool I mean that doesn't have a bind it's actually the land line adjustment correct anything the intent of correct the intent of the request is to build a
pool and in order to build a pool they have to request the setback be changed or they be granted an exception a variance to that requirement but it I guess I'm thinking through this what seems to be a ba switch like
they're going to get variant for the pool and then build something else and I I mean I'm not worried about that it's like even 25 30 years in the road like again these guys want to build a pool but the next person comes in or the other thing like I know we don't think
this to set precent but it sets a precedent of you're you're encroaching on the 100 foot line now the next person comes in and says well they got to do it for pool and I want to put in whatever like what what do we have to stand on to say no then at that point I don't
uh chair Commissioners I'd just like to reiterate when we look at a when we look at a variance we're looking at the city code and we're looking at the city code at a very specific line of the city code in this case it's the 100 foot setback for the shorel if the variance request if there
was uh you could only do s code said that you could only do a pool that's 12 by 14 feet and and an applicant came and said they want do a larger pool then we would be looking at a variance for the dimensional standards of the pool to be
larger but in this case we're specifically looking at just a setback and anything legally allowed with inside our zoning code and with inside our performance standards and all the other setbacks and everything else still have to be maintained uh regardless of what
structures put here I I do know that we have pool applications to go back to the 70s and early 80s and and those properties still have pools uh so it's it it is unlikely but if the pool was removed by the next owner and they put
in a detached garage they would still be permitted to be at that setback line don't we still have to get a permit yeah they would still have to Grant a permit to build correct correct U it's not like I could just go and build a gar
I have to apply for a permit to build that garage to right but that permit just has to be applied for right and as long as you're meeting every other city code because you extended your variance and you've uh now extended your setback it just gets approved it doesn't get there's no like they just approve it
yeah it just gets approved so and again like this is we have to think through like the entire city and all the planning and and bigger picture here I'm just trying to make sure we think through a big picture the question is let's
say your kids go off to college you say we don't want this pool we're going to fill it with cement and we're going to put a addition onto the house for a pickle ball court or uh indoor gym
or whatever you're allowed at that point to do that as long as you don't go past the 73t setback in my exp in your variant we had this with our cabin too because we had a historical cabin that had a portion that was within the
setback and as I understood at the time with this was Minnesota law and DNR code anything they built would have to be on that exact same footprint it couldn't be like it's it's now 75 ft across our entire yard right it would have to be on the same footprint of what we got
permitted or is it you can go 75 ft you that was different than what they allowed us of your house we had to put it on the exact anything that was in front of the encroachment had to be on the exact same place so chair Planning Commission 3 toate that's Wisconsin Rule
and Wiscon that's Minnesota so but what we're looking at is we're looking at a variance we don't have the variance saying the request wasn't for a certain distance it wasn't going horizontally across the the setback line it's for the entire line to be moved right so that
that is what's being considered tonight at the Planning Commission wanted to look at something like that it would take some staff investigation to find and double check the appropriate appropriate answer I have to say I think we're going down a bit of a rabbit Trail um on on
other uses of the variant I think it's a fair point and one to think about but for me really nothing has changed um compared to our analysis the last time in the sense that there are two issues um the first issue is really whether there's a practical difficulty which is
created by the land itself and not buy something that the owners want to do on the land um the land hasn't changed since you bought the property the placement of the home hasn't changed since you bought the property the question really is uh is it a practical difficulty because you can't
put the pool on the west side of the property and I I don't know what the precedents are but that brings me to the second point which is that and and we've sort of been dancing around that what we are doing is setting precedent and and
we've seen that here I mean you cite other examples as precedents of of variances that have been granted and they should be indeed extremely rare because that's why we have a building code uh in ordinances they're meant to be followed and I just
worry that if we start granting variances routinely that the the zoning code and ordinances will become sort of you know a starting point for negoti ation and that's really not the intent U these are
unpleasant conversations because you want to do something that's good for your property good for your family um and and we're just looking at the impact across the board you know what does it mean if if other people come forward and say well the stockmans were able to do this with their property so why can't we
do something similarly within the setback on our property and that's where you get into things like you know um pickle ball courts and saas and everything else within the back so um okay that's my view sorry well first of all um before we move forward uh we need
to open a public hearing think we've done that is there anyone in the chambers this evening who wish to comment on this item besides the HS uh seeing none uh Commissioners may I have a
motion to close the public hearing so moved well you can come back this is for anybody else you're the property owners this would be for anybody else that would want to so yeah you can come back up second have motion and a second all
those in favor I oppos thank you the motion carries the public hearing is closed I will now open the floor for the Planning Commission to discuss M's any other questions want to yeah
come up yeah sure put the alternative location so we've been working with Travis in the city to figure out if there is there anything else we could do to make this less egregious and so the primary location is
there there's a secondary location that's not it sorry that right there so where we basically try to push it over to meet the 10 foot as much as possible and that makes our the pool's Edge variance 8.8 ft now again the the
cons of this alternative plan are that while it minimizes the encroachment to 8.8 feet it's or 12 feet well it would be 8.8 plus an 18 foot uh Edge so 11et 10et whatever we call it the downside is
again that drainage is an issue and we have to reroute that we have to build large engineered retaining walls to make it work um because of that drainage issue so it's less ideal you know you're cutting into that Hill it's not flat like right behind our house but it does minimize the encroachment and this is
basically the like the point was is there any place on our property that we could place a pool there's not one that doesn't you know go into the encroachment this is one that minimizes encroachment um again there's some downsides to it in the sense that you know we still have to reroute drainage
we have to build engineered retaining walls to make it work but it does minimize the encroachment so we just wanted to bring that up as an alternative if there's any other considerations if it's the encroachment is the main
issue I just want to go back to the conditions of a variance we can because I um it's it's reasonable it doesn't change the it doesn't change the look of the property or the value of the
surrounding neighbors but when you talk about practical difficulties or financial hardship or hardships I I just don't think it's a reasonable suggest that you're getting a hardship by not building a pool and so I I feel like if
I wanted to build something on my property and somebody said uh call it a basketball court and it was impervious and I I couldn't build it well that's a luxury item for me to have and me having to build that somewhere else uh I have hard time finding that to be a financial
hardship for me so um not meeting that kind of takes away the the teeth of the request of the variant so I'm trying to figure out how um I want you to build a pool like you you bought the home you
want to be able to do it but you knew the homes lay out when you bought it the the uh setback was there now nothing changed in the setback or the lot lines since purchase so my my issue with it is
is that um that change doesn't seem to be a hardship of I had to build it somewhere else where I retaining wall for example you'd have to you'd have to reroute the the drainage like that's the obligation so where where am I where am I
off well I I I think that those are all the facts that led us to the same conclusion last time I think to to your point you know wanting to build a pool is obvious and understandable and it it
naturally looks like the right place on this lot absolutely um just in the layout I mean I may be the one that switches here because again it if you want to have the
pool that's that's great there have been other homes in the community that have had a variance and we've had some go through I think the mitigating things in this case are similar to what we saw in tamarak
trail where there's an intent in effort to mitigate the risk associated with the lake um in to your point if there was another place to pull it back and that could work and there's more cost to it I'm
less inclined to see that as a hardship as well um but I I do think in listening to some of the other places on the property without you know certainly on the North
side the slope in the water that would be problematic for the home and again could it be done probably not enough space so for me I mean this is one where I might see the the your fous being justified I
think you've looked at all the others I would want conditions on it in terms of my kind of in those things you were talking about putting in the you know the permeable pavers putting in um the plantings intive plantings to give it more you know restoration on that side
and and a lot could be done and those would be the types of things that would show kind of an interest in trying to get this as a compromise and I think it's rare and the reason I'm coming to this is we've got all of the setup
circumstances that are on each property and this one is quite unique and I have been one of those homeowners when you have 45 minutes to look at the house and it's the dream house that you wanted and you kind of make that you make that choice I think that's why I'm living in
Victoria as we made that choice um so you might not have had that due diligence and I can understand that that thing that you overlook when you see the rest of it that you like so maybe I'm the one that changes but I
think you've done all the things that you could do to find an alternate and in this case if there are those conditions to do what I was mentioning I probably know where my voted so the the objective for sure is
that we're here to make things happen quite frankly and whether it's you or the developer at the at the same time uh we we're not you know we don't want to be a roadblock but we have to do it
within within the confines a a precedent is a is an absolute reality because it will it will come back to the Planning Commission um so you know again I don't
have to go all the way through it but here was another one that was approved and what's the story with with you at the you guys at the at the same time so I think it's um it's it's it's a it's a
complex lot obviously and and you know you you brought it to us and and then you went back you went back again um
and it's it's still it's still the precedent whether we want to use whether we like that term or not but it is a precedent that will be set and um that's that's where we're
at what you my question I got a question for you homeowner um are you adding the patio on the hot tub and the pool correct the idea would be to do the whole project yes
okay I have a question regarding the size and positioning of the pool you mentioned that it was to be 18 by 36 and I'm assuming the 36 is what encroaches into the no it's 18 actually that encroaches the 36 is the length it's the
yeah I was wondering if there was a way to turn it we've looked at a lot of different angles but we're open to ideas for sure uh let me ask 15 by 30 instead of 18 by 36 it's going toach so the question is it's kind of like the plan we showed
it's how much you got you know we're willing to give an encroachment Travis and Brian what what is the in the acception language it's clearly practical practical difficulty or
hardship it's or Comm commissioner the exception to to allow a variance practical difficulties in a variance are those three points that we've talked about the uniqueness
the reasonableness and the character of the neighborhood those are the practical difficulties does that for your question yeah yeah the the statutory language is the plight of the land owners is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the land
on so so the hardship is unique to the property and not because but the hardship is what I'm I mean if we could clearly make it a hardship I it would be well there's the uniqueness of kind of there's a drive in it's very narrow for
a while and then it has that triangle and they put the house originally there which was loud can we get but you couldn't put it on the other side of the house and but but just I guess my I'm having a hard time with understanding how just putting it in general creates a
hardship like not being able to put something you want is that a hardship I mean if you want to think about it the other way it be more like because of the lot shape that's the hardship right that that's how I view it
that's how I because of the way the hardship is that's the hard that's defined is are you able to do something that's permitted use no because of the the hardship of your lot you're not able to do something that is of permitted use which is adding the pool as a permitted that's the way it leads and and the
hardship for the Stockman's is the fact that if we try to put the pool on the north side of the house because of the way that the house is situated on that lot and the way that the lot itself is graded the lot can you put the the slide
back on that shows the lot with the pool um so on on the north side of the lot up at the front corner of the garage there's very minimal space the entire
front of the lot which is substantial drains through the north side of the lot there is no other drainage path for that whole side if you try to put a pool in and this is where my problem becomes from the build
standpoint I cannot put the pool there and the reason is is that it's going to flood out and we're going to flood the house out because if you look at the front corner of that house when it comes through over on the the right hand
corner of the garage it's it's literally up against the setback as it comes through there's a drainage swail that maintains the entire front yard water from the dry driveway over to the neighboring property it
swailes and then allows the water to flow down through the lake that swail goes right through the north side where we would put a pool the only way to put even a small pool there would be to build the retaining walls up to the
point where they match the grades at the front side of the garage and then we would have to push the water towards the side Lot line because there's not enough space there if you put a pool in to do that we're
going to move all of the water into the neighboring property or we're going to flood their house out it's one or the other there is no other choice so to put the pool while there is space there to
put the pool in on that side of the lot even in even a tiny pool it just doesn't work with modern building code and the drainage situation and that's what's creating the hardship not the pool
itself so the only way that we can feasibly put a pool in is that we have to go into the setback the question becomes to what degree do we go into the setback ideally the original plan puts
it in a much flatter plane it doesn't require a bunch of retaining wall work but it is farther into the setb the secondary plan that we've been toying with and went back and forth on pushes it into the yard more so it's outside of
your setback and it encroaches less extensively into that setback but but there is no way to do it without encroaching somewhat into the setback it's a tradeoff do you build retaining
walls on the property you have less of a pool into the setback itself or or do you put the pool behind the house where we're encroaching you know 24t into the setback but we don't have a bunch of you know extensive retaining wall work that
retaining wall work for the most part is not going to be in the setback it's going to be inside the yard itself but that that's the big question you know but we can put it towards the right hand side and keep it you know inside the
setback significantly more thanks I have one more one more point so uh the size of a lot um creating it creating uh preventing you from doing a permitted
use so um there's several houses around around mine in my neighborhood that aren't big enough to put in the lot's not big enough to put in the pool and a pool is a permitted use but this one's big enough it's right but that's just another restriction of proper mine wasn't my property may not
be big enough to put in a pool right yours might not be big enough CU it has a setback yeah yours might not be W enough tall enough round enough to do something else but we're creating a variance for it right so so then the next person that comes up and has a
small lot and says you know what it's permitted use to have a pool yeah my lot's too small I want to go over the impervious no mitigation then what it's like when this house was previous homeowners said well I want to
be as close to the lake as I want to get mhm and I don't because I want the view of the lake I don't want whatever I don't care about putting a patio or a pool in the back so they
built the house where they built the house and now you guys bought it after the previous owners moved out and it's built the where it
is um but why is that that's where I have I mean I'm having that whole discussion in my head about yes if I want to put a pickle ball court back here and it's
over the setback it's a permitted use but I shouldn't be able to do it because I don't have the room um we have a we have developments in town that you
know have sidey guard setbacks that are way too under code that we've done puds on and someday they're going to come and say well I want to do this well it's a hardship and it's a variance I need a
variance to get to do this are we setting a Prestons just creating variances to do stuff because the lot House was built incorrectly on the lot at the time or isn't
there um I understand I mean I could go either way on it as long as um I would have some conditions that you would have to use permeable favers you'd
have to do the mitigation to the trees that you were talking about doing um seen houses on Lake motanka that are 25 ft within Lake motanka um now granted where was that before they even came up with a Shor
land ordinance I don't know um but I understand you know the other side of going down to the lake and destroy grow in the lak site or creating a beach down there
um so there's good pluses and minuses to and then just the experience having been able to do what you want to do um so that's kind of where I'm at I'm
kind of going back and forth know earlier there was something about a June date C we build pools tons on lake minona and every other Lake around and there is no no one
has set it's an extraordinary setback begin i' like you to speak in the microphone please you know it's it's an extraordinary setback at 100 feet almost all of the lakes around here including minona on every other city is 75 ft I
mean it's it's an exceptional setback Travis chair chair commission to say where the hunf for setback is um I went back and researched the 1998 city code that 100 foot setback existed in
1998 the Shoreland information goes back into the 70s as well as into the 80s for different decisions being made um there's different recommendations that have been made over the years by the DNR there's been different rules put in place but most importantly the city has
the right to establish minimum setbacks and we can do that underneath the guidance that's provided by the DNR so when a setback is set regardless of other communities and their standards the city of Victoria has every right to set its own standards
yes I was on the commission time we set that 100 foot set back and I think it was a lot of it was coming at the time from the DNR kind of recommending um because of all the Lakes
we have around here and new developments coming in and trying to control some of that um but there was a lot of discussion we did extraordinary setback that we deal with I mean it's you know
I've got five pools going on Lake minona right now not a single one of them is 100t from the lake they're all 75 feet from the lake again that's what our ordinance is I know but and I can't you know unless
we want to rechange the ordinance that's but again I know in 1998 we went through a lot of meeting meetings on the Shoreland ordinance and a lot of discussions about
it and um and I know we it kind of even it came a lot to with the dnr's recommendations okay at the time because I think the stockmans are more than happy to work with a DNR to mitigate any
drainage concerns to mitigate any issues that are there and I think the DNR was didn't by chair commission just a on on a process Point talking with the DNR if a variance
was to be granted by the city what would still happen is an application the pool would still need to be submitted to the city would still need to be approved by the city as well as reviewed at a minimum reviewed by the DNR prior to anything taking place with the
DNR was uh was asked general questions and provided General feedback um and to staff it was more specific to well what are the plans going to be when they come in so they want to see the application as far as the setbacks and things like that I would like to point out that the
current model ordinance with the DNR has a 100 foot setback as well in it so to that point they have to they would the DNR would be going through its review and
they could would render a judgment of not allowing it if a variance was approved in the theoretic in that situation the commissioner the the DNR is going to has given the city the opportunity to make the decision whether
the city would want to Grant the variance or not if the city denies the variance the DNR is okay with that if the City Grants a variance the DNR is okay with that and we they would be the ones making
recommendations and requests for specific types of mitigation controls and uh other natural resource protections so that that's where that would sit ultimately the question comes down to um providing a recommendation
from the Planning Commission to the city council on whether the Planning Commission believes that a variance should be granted and at what distance because we have seen uh two different distances and we've talked about three different distances tonight um also if
it is approved that there's any special conditions that would want to be on there uh mind you it wouldn't be providing direction to any other government agency such as the DNR or the Watershed or the county uh to take certain actions or if there's a denial and if there is denial uh for the
recommendation the Planning Commission would want to State on what purpose what part of the Practical difficulties test is failed um so that that's what we're looking at as far as the reasons why the 100 foot setback is there it's in our
code we have to follow our code this is the process for doing that the other process um would be a zoning text amendment that is a lengthy process because it does require the city to apply for variance to the DNR to get that changed anyways uh so this is this
is the the shorter process the more effective we're looking at the setback line for a permitted use on an R1 property and having that permitted line being moved from 100 ft from the
ordinary high water mark to 72 ft um or or or more from the high water park so that's that's the main focus of tonight and that's the main um thing that I believe we should continue the track on the discussion and that goes to the question
earlier there was a date up posted about June 30th 202 when a land use application is submitted whether it be a conditional use permit or whether it be a Pew or this case a variance the city gets put underneath what's called a
60-day rule from the point that that the city staff determine that the application is complete we get put on a 60-day clock as uh or the city council gets put on a 60-day clock to make a decision if a decision is not made within the 60 days then the application
as applied for is automatically granted the city what we've done because this would not go back to the city council uh until the 24th of May or excuse me of March the 25th of March is actually when the 60 days is up so we've extended an additional 60 days which we're permitted
to do by Statute to allow to further the discussion um especially with getting new information about the slopes on the property and some drainage issues and allowing the applicant to get a um another chance to uh show that there there could be significant challenges
and maybe they have practical difficulties to the property um ultimately that's here what we're here to decide but ultimately the Planning Commission will or excuse me the city council will need to take an action by May 25th um else the applications as
amended uh would be processed and would become long I don't know I'm kind of at a best in final offer next round and table it um any other discussions I
get motion I would that the application for variance be denied I got a motion second second had a motion in a second to recommend denial to the city
council the variance requests for zoning ordinance section 2.6 d 2 2.6d to permit a pool uh encroachment 28 ft into the Charan setback for the intention of installing
a pool patio on the property of 6580 at Trail due to hardship uh chair uh we would ask in the motion that the reason for denial as far as uh the practic or the Practical
difficulties is stated as part of the recommendation we'll pass that along to the city council as well so you want me to amend the motion um yes please I would I would amend the motion to state that uh that the application for variance be
denied on the basis that the owner has not established practical difficulties in the sense that the difficulty is not inherent in the condition of the property but rather the use to which the owners wish to make on
the property and to uh to invade the U statutory or or ordinance setback motion have second some someone second yeah
John motion second all those in favor I opposed there thank you come back see what city council has to say I guess yeah we're only a recommending body thank
you we'll now move on to uh our other item for discussion uh revised sketch plat for West Creek Village Residential development sketch plat review is initial stage of the reviewing that the
Planning Commission reviews and considers regarding development proposals there are no formal actions or Rec uh or recommendations taken by the Planning Commission at the time of the sketch plat review sketch plat review
process is intended for the applicant to receive initial feedback from the Planning Commission in advance of any necessary preliminary plat or zoning applications I will now turn it over to city planner Brian McCain for staff
presentation thank you chair and Commissioners so this uh development proposal has been before you back in August of 202 24 I believe uh they did submit a preliminary application uh but there were some um discrepancies between
staff's review and the application submitted so they decide to pull their preliminary plaid application and bring forward A New Concept for the plan commission and city council to consider now as uh the chair just mentioned this is a sketch plat process so this is just
to give the developer feedback on their proposed concept uh if it's agreeable to the plan commission and city council they can be directed to move forward with a preliminary plat um but a lot of this will be familiar information for you but starting at the very beginning
the location and area this is just to the west of the marsh Hollow development it consists of two uh Parcels approximately 90 acres in size it's north of County Road 10 just past the railroad tracks if you're heading westbound on 10 uh it is also south of
the Lake hunting club now this revised concept that they've proposed uh Alters the uses a little bit I think originally they' proposed 156 town homes and 15 single family lots here they're going for 36 single family homes 18 Twin Homes
and 56 town homes for the existing conditions of the property it's a generally flat vacant Farmland there are some Wetlands present as you can see on the screen uh in the colored portions and there there is a area of West chasa Creek on the North
side in the wooded area you can probably just barely see uh the wording there but that is the creek so here is the revised sketch plat that was submitted so they still have the single family uh larger Lots North
of Creekside similar to the huntersbook creek side development um those are within Shoreland so they'll have to comply with Shoreland standard s um and then they have twin homes in this small row I'm trying to point with my cursor
but I just realized now that you guys can't see because of our technical difficulties so my apologies for that uh but the South West edge of the development you can see some Twin Homes those backtack units on the west side of the the long winding road going down
towards 10 um and then on the east side of that road they're proposing some single family units there and then up near the Northwest Edge that cluster of town homes those four to six unit row homes that they're showing those are
those Town Homes I mentioned uh as part of this they do have a future extension of Creekside Lane coming from the marsh Hollow development to the east that would curve up and go towards the western boundary uh with a
temporary um culdesac there until future development occurs further west of them they have something similar with a street down towards the bottom of the development as well going to that western border looking at our comprehensive plan
this area is guided for a mix of low density medium density uh each of those have their own density ranges so low density 2 and a/4 to 6 units per acre medium density 6 to 12 and then also open space and across the railroad
towards the south side of the site you can see a very small strip of commercial designation with it with this uh concept that's proposed they would need three comprehensive plan amendments the first one would be some modifications to the
low and medium density areas as I've told you on the past the Metropolitan Council likes to see land uses align exactly with what um is being built so single family should be in low density Twin Homes Town Homes if they fall
within 6 to 12 or 12 to 36 they should meet the um according um future land use designation so that's the first complain Amendment they would need secondly is the conservation residential district
for those larger lots that are adjacent to the creek um those would not meet our two and a quarter units per acre density range so they would need to seek a comp plan Amendment for the conservation residential designation which allows
half a unit per acre up to two and a quarter and then thirdly they would just have to change that small area of commercial to open space because it's largely consumed by Wetlands it's not developable so um we should change that while we
can then looking on to the actual density calculations for this revised concept I spent some time today going through these um and the Metropolitan Council gave us a breakdown of what our current density guidance is throughout the city so right now we're just under 3
and A2 we're at 3.47 units per acre our guidance in the 20 240 requirement is for a Citywide three units per acre so we're still about a half unit above that requirement with this proposed development that would only bring us
down 009 so we would be at 3.36 units per acre after this development and the necessary comp plan adjustments are made um looking at each type of use individually though those conservation lots that I mentioned those would result
in 0.62 units per acre falling within that conservation residential guidance uh the standard um single family homes on the east side of that that winding road for the south side of Creek Side that would
fall about 2 and 1 half that's within our guidance for low density and then for the twin homes and town homes that falls within our 6 to 12 units per acre so those would fit a medium density guidance in our comp plan as well now what those changes actually
would look like on a map as I mentioned the me Council likes to have land uses align directly with what they are in our future land use map so this was just a rough sketch I put together to to show what that change would look like um
overall a slight reduction in that Medium density that's where we're losing that9 units per acre Citywide uh but really not a drastic change overall looking at annexation and rezoning so this is within Laketown
Township so an annexation is required it has been approved by the township so now it's just up to the city to approve an annexation with a preliminary plat submitt when it is annexed it automatically has a agricultural zoning established so that would need to be
changed with any future applications for rezoning as part of this request uh for the single family homes they would be requesting a PUD with underlying R1 and then uh based on my initial calculations and review of the concept they would be
meeting the standard requirements for the twin homes and town homes so our planned unit development process I always like to include this one we have a PUD uh potential application in front of us so it's to allow Innovative
creative and flexible development that is sensitive to environment or other considerations that's in partnership with public values um the sketch pla is the first process where we provide initial input or the plan commission city council
provide initial input for the applicant then the details are approved during preliminary plat and then the ordinance for the Pud is adopted at final so here are the deviations that I noticed with the proposed concept plan
in front of you this evening um this figure right here for the proposed minimum lot area is likely higher these are just the numbers that were given to me initially um but I'm still listing it as a deviation in case they are proposing less than 12,000 Square ft for
the single family lots um minimum lot width of 56 fet what that would do is they would have a 40ft wide Building Product and then 8ot sidey yard setbacks on each side so that's where they get that 56 feet um the minimum lot depth they're
requesting to reduce that from 130 ft to 100 and the front set back from 30 feet to 25 ft which is pretty standard for what we see for puds nowadays and then the maximum impervious because the lots are going to be smaller they're requesting larger impervious on it in
terms of score footage they're not really changing anything compared to our current developments it's just allowing for that higher percentage for them to get three four 5,000 square F feet of impervious depending on the lot
size uh and then for the R3 requirements as you can see here they aren't proposing any deviations or I didn't note any Dev ation we're requiring for the Twin Homes or the town homes and then the non Shoreland Lots uh for the
single family those are going to be those larger Lots they're going to meet all our minimum requirements so no PUD is required for those moving on to the architectural renderings that were provided these are some of the single family products um
that would be built for the single family homes within the culdesac north of Creekside and on that uh Straight Street on the south side of Creek Side for the single family homes these are the twin Home Products uh you can see some portions are grayed
out these are really to accentuate the end units of what their uh town home styles are basically if you can imagine these back to back that's what they would Envision for their Twin Homes just two end units put
together and then lastly their town home product uh that hasn't changed from last time that the planing commission saw this sketch plat moving on to the streets and parking so uh in the previous sketch
plat that you all saw they had proposed public streets uh throughout the development except for those two private drives for those six s six single family homes on the North side here they would
make those 58 Town Homes as PR private Street we really want to get feedback from the planing commission and City Council on the thoughts of having um a small section of private Street exclusively for the town homes within this development or if that street
should be public as well uh additionally for the parking they appear to meet all the parking requirements we don't have any guest stall requirements at the moment that's something we're working on in our zoning code revisions uh but based on the architectural renderings you just saw they're going to be meeting
the enclosed space requirements for the single family and the town home units so looking at pedestrian connections this is another situation that we want to get plan commission city council feedback on um they are proposing a 8ot wide trail connected to
the marsh Hollow development so on the south side of this development they would have a trail cutting through the wetlands to connect to Marsh Hollow I believe our parks and recck committee and staff are very supportive of this um
the other change here is that they have a 8ft trail shown on the south side of Creekside Lane uh with a sidewalk on the North side connecting the culdesac and the private drive to the east uh staff's
preference we'd like to get back to our collector or our residential collector Road standard which is Trail on both sides throughout the stretch of Creekside Lane through this development we'd like to get feedback on playing commission and City council's thought on that as well and then lastly they are
proposing sidewalks on at least one side throughout this development um when it comes to the town homes we have um a suggestion I guess in our code it says may not shall that if a development is
exceeding three units per acre uh they may put in sidewalks on both sides so we want some feedback from Commission on city council if this is a situation where they would prefer to see sidewalks on both sides for the town home portion landscaping and tree
preservation this is pretty standard stuff you all have seen this before they're required to plant Boulevard trees and a certain number of trees based on the type of zoning so uh three trees for R1 lots and then one tree and one shrub for every th000 Square ft of
required open space for those R3 homes and then a buffer would be required between R1 and R3 uses in our code and then also a minimum 50% of open space for the R1 areas and 25% for
R3 there are some trees on the site um we'll have to evaluate how many are removed with a preliminary plats middle they are allowed to remove 20% without a mitigation requirement so that's what that minimum 80% preservation is about
if they preserve 80% they don't have to add any more additional trees than our landscape uh requirements as I mentioned there's a small portion within the Shoreland overlay district there that area consists of 300 ft within West chesa
Creek so those requirements for those lots a maximum 25% impervious and a minimum 75 ft lot width um in discuss with the developer all the single family homes north of creek side should meet these
requirements and then Parkland dedication I have some figures crossed out here this is what was in the report prior to receiving actual unit counts and our Park dedication requirements are based on the number of units and type of
of units going in uh so I left that unchanged from the last time the planing commission reviewed this but now that we have updated information regarding the number of single family Twin Homes Town Homes uh I was able to update those numbers so it's actually a reduction
down to 3.65 acres in total or $383,500 in total it's in this situation it's one or the other but the developer can always have um you know the their proposing a quarter acre Park that can
be reduced from either of those requirements as well as the 8ft trails that they provided those can be reduced so whatever combination comes out of uh cash and land dedication and then our Parks and Rec committee did uh review this twice they
actually did review the preliminary plat that was submitted that never made it to the planing commission um their um recommendation was pretty much the same that they were supportive of cash fee or some sort of alternative
Parkland dedication uh just because I believe this development is in relatively close proximity to the marsh Hollow park that will be um designed and built within the next few years here and then the highway 10 accesses so
I believe the last time we talked it was potentially proposed to be a private um exit for the development that's not the case here this would be a gated emergency access only so only for emergency veh vehicles to utilize all
the traffic within this development would be funneled out through Creekside Lane uh Carver County did review this they're agreeable to the uh temporary access they would just like to see it removed once development occurs to those um to the west and the Creekside Lane
and that other Street with the CU deac bulb those roads are extended so that people have other ways to get out of the neighborhood moving on to car of stuff uh greetings storm water management it's the usual things here they have to meet the ccwo rules uh including Wetlands
being platted within buffers um that are deed to the city and storm water facilities should have access provided within the outlaw and cannot encroach onto private property the site utilities would be
extended from Creekside Lane from the East uh well number six must also be completed and permitted by the DNR well it is completed now so just permitted by the DNR before Services outside of our current city limits can be served and
then we are also looking for an area for our future water treatment plant out here so if this is the parcel that plan commission and city council thinks staff should explore Water Treatment Plant further uh the developer and the city
need to be guided to do so in that situation and lastly for the planing Commission uh once again no action is required this evening I do have some bullet points up on the screen for you for discussion topics uh like I mentioned earlier I I'd like feedback
regarding those sidewalks on both sides for the town home regarding the trail on both sides for Creekside Lane um and then the public or private Street for the town home so those are three things I think Josh and I would both like some
feedback on this evening and then lastly this is a new question I'm going to start asking in planing commission so that we can really get direct feedback uh from the planing commission city council for the applicant to move forward is this sketch plat sufficient do you think they're ready to move on to
preliminary plat so with that staff um is ready for any questions you have and the applicant is in the audience this evening thank you Brian does the applicant wish to speak good evening uh Cher and members of the Planning Commission my
name is Josh metzer with lenar Minnesota we're out of the Plymouth office um yeah Brian summarized it pretty well um if you recall we were here back in August I think with a uh different version of the
concept plan um that was actually the second plan the original plan we had um I guess to to summarize the the north side is has always kind of stayed the same the north side of Creek Side um but it's the South that has gone through a few changes um mostly because uh trying
to chase uh a medium density requirement um to get the units up to the minimum requirement while dealing with uh kind of a long linear site with Wetlands uh it's a pretty tight site originally we had shown 156 Town Homes down here um
but once we got into um kind of looking and evaluating storm water treatment um we just needed more space for storm water so it it reduced from 156 Town Homes to 148 on the South Side um we had the previous layout shown the way it did
um with a public Street uh because um we only have one access to a public Street and that's from Creekside and you can't have 148 town homes on a a private street with one way in and out um so which is why we had a public
Street shown ultimately um staff wasn't comfortable with it once we got to planning we were bringing a preliminary plat forward with 148 town homes and we were a couple days away from you seeing that uh preliminary plat
but when I noticed that staff's recommendation would have been for denial of that um really it came down to snow storage I think was the big thing uh concern about snow storage and possibly trying to fit in trees and uh fire hydrants and light poles in the
right of way um would have gotten tight um so we kind of stepped back and and thought we brainstorm some ideas and we thought well it's it's medium density do we talk to City staff and
find out if there's flexibility to regu it from medium density to low density or some sort of mix of medium and low which is what Brian had shown in that kind of SketchUp exhibit so we're here now with the town homes shown on that
Loop um that hasn't changed that corner there um but we now have Twin Homes and single family homes shown here uh that brings the density originally the density south of Creek Side was at six units per acre which was
right at that uh minimum threshold for medium density um if we were to have lost one unit below that 148 we would have been below the medium density requirement what we're looking at here is uh 4.5 units per acre so it's going
down in unit count it's going down in density um but hopefully um Brian uh and the calculations are correct and and met Council will agree with the reg guidance to a a lower density um than what the comprehensive plan currently
shows so um the 55 foot wide Lots um we chose those because they would be in our opinion comparable to what's across the Wetland there in Marsh Hollow um looking at the plat from Marsh Hollow those lots were 51 ft wide and I couldn't quite
tell the sidey setbacks but it looked like it was somewhere between seven or eight foot sidey yard setbacks um we would be proposing 55 foot wide Lots with a sorry 56 wide foot wide Lots so we can achieve a 8 foot side step back
on each side um with our 40 foot wide home um Brian did point out a couple of deviations that we'd be requesting um as far as lot depth uh and impervious surface now that's only for about I
think eight of those single family lots um because we have a couple of pinch points um on the where the road kind of Curves because behind us we've got a wetland and those wetlands have a buffer area that we have to maintain uh that we
can't grade into they have to be maintained n in a natural state so on a couple of those curves um it's a pinch Point uh where we don't quite have enough depth U to hit the minimum depth lot depth requirement um that's something that we didn't have to worry
about when we had Town Homes because uh Town Homes don't require the same sort of rear yard and rear yard setback that single family homes do and single family lots so um a bit of an unforeseen uh circumstance there but um still able to
meet a you know a 25t setback across the whole single family neighborhood still able to get a uh our homes in there with at least a I think a 20 30 foot uh rear yard to work with still um at a minimum
so that uh what you're seeing there for deviations that's not for all the single family homes it's just for the few that are inless pinch points um yeah I guess that's quick summary I'm happy to answer any questions and as Brian pointed out um
certainly would welcome any feedback so we can uh make sure we're going in the right direction here with the RIS preliminary plat thank you Josh you leave that up there Brian question what so the there's only 16 feet between the single family
homes right there would be yep is that how is that compare to the other other developments in our area uh chairing Commissioners just to note I believe it was hunterbrook um the first ones that you
had seen they had their side setbacks reduced to seven and a half so um you're asking about other comparable developments out in the area yeah so 15 yeah um and I can speak for brookmore which is the uh Community just north of
Holy Family which uh lar we brought through a couple years ago that um was 7 and 1/2t setbacks I believe um I live in lak toown um just south of deun we have 72t setbacks in that neighborhood um so
and 7 and A2 foot is uh for us you know Metro Wide that's for our single family homes that's the standard setback we usually try to request um there's only been a couple uh circumstances where um
cities have required greater than seven and a half here we are uh proposing 8 foot side setbacks um I think we were kind of attempting to try to meet U most of the standards of the R2 District which I understand is kind of a
Antiquated District now um it's for any developments that were pre 2019 um but it's kind of an in between zoning District between the R3 and R1 um and for us you know just the standards of an R2 just looking at them they are still
listed in the code um they certainly lined up more with a single family home that's directly across the street from Twin homes and town homes than um what a standard R1 lot would look like but the the um single family lots
north of Creekside would be the would meet the standard R1 uh standard I guess the question on the private streets um he I would what's the fire chief or fire
access um what I guess I'm looking at like that out lot e out Lot C and then even just private streets to all the whatever Street SE
I don't know which one you were looking at but I guess I'd want to make sure that the fire chief we can get trucks in and out of there chair and Commissioners Vehicles yeah so um the fire chief has
reviewed this concept multiple times we talk about at our development review meetings he never stated a preference on if it was public or private his concern um let me see if I can get my mouse here
was this corner right here within the town homes and being able to uh basically Park his fir truck on there because of the tight curve um so there might be some adjustments that need to be made to that
curvature um I'll have to run that past our fire chief again but he from what I recall did not have a preference on public or private how wide are the private streets so they should be uh typically a private street is 24 feet
wide back to back um public street is usually anywhere depending on the city um 30 to 32 feet back to back ours is 28 just for reference so four feet narrower part of the reason for this is a 24 foot private
street is what you're saying 24 feet wide correct versus 28 for a public um and part of the reason we um showed a a private Street just for the town home portion here um was staff's previous concern of snow storage um if it's a
private Street uh it'll have to be um that private Street portion would have to be cleared by the hoa's um snow removal contractor and where would they put it sorry I don't see an area where they would put it there's no parking area for instance that could be
sacrificed I mean these are uh over 2 foot5 foot long driveways um we did have a snow storage exhibit um that we submitted with the preliminary flat package um and as with any of our town homes um or Villa communities um if
there's major snow and there's no place to store if if they've maxed out with their areas here um it is hauled offsite and that's part of our contracts with our the the people that are hired to perform the the snow removal so that's that's not uncommon um
the and so so the fire uh Chief did review this uh even at a very um detailed preliminary plat level um the two private streets on the north side of Creek Side for the uh single families uh they did comment on our initial design
uh they just requested that the um the turnaround the U what do you call it why am I blinking on there the dead end yeah the the um not a T-bone but anyway all h no uh but the the temp turnaround he
basically asked that it be extended to the city standard so that has been Chang the provid to meet City standard on the one comment on the um temp called deac on the what is the Southwest but um if you're looking at it on the right side
it's yeah they're right by Brian's curer um was requested that we change that from a temporary cult circular culdesac um to a to one that's similar to the ones up on the um single family area to a hammerhead reference there we go thank
you um and as far as the curve that that tight curve I'm not I'll have to check with our engineer but um that is something that we worked with Cara on previously the previous design uh wasn't meeting minimum uh turn radius standards
so that was uh Sly adjusted to meet minimum standards so that's uh that's how we got to what private streets are showing here excuse me so just in kind of recapping with it being private it could
be 4 feet narrower so that's probably a choice that you your team is recommending to is there would there be parking allowed on that street again getting to the fire chiefs kind of turn Dimensions
chairing Commissioners um our zoning code or our Municipal Code actually does not allow parking on streets that are 20 4 ft wide if it's a 26t wide road we allow parking on one side if it's a 28t
wide Road full public we allow parking on both so if for this case the private Street if it's 24 feet we wouldn't allow any parking on it and I guess we didn't have that knowledge um until right now so if it's 26 and you would allow
parking on 26 I'm sure we could manage to make that street 26 feet wide because yeah that that would kind of that became the question is why is it a private versus public what are the tradeoffs and I didn't know if it was
space in the back or interior portion that was constraining having said that there's not a lot of room for parking on that street is there I mean it looks like almost all the units have driveways that go out to the street so there's very little room for parking so if somebody
has a gathering that requires more than driveway parking where would they Park so these are so each of these has a two stall garage um the driveways are paved at a two stall width um at a minimum you've got 25 ft from the property line
to the front of the garage typically unless you know it's four pickup trucks you can fit four cars in that driveway um and if if we're not required to put a sidewalk on both sides on the side that doesn't have a sidewalk you're going to have 25 plus you're going to have almost
40 ft from the curb to the front of the garage because that property line um is typically 14 to 15 ft from the edge of the curb so we're not that the 25 foot setback is required not from the curve but from the front property
line my bias would be towards uh private versus public Street just based on snow removal costs and maintenance costs being borne by the HOA versus the city being responsible yeah I was trying to get the context for
yeah all of it yeah I think we would decision when play recommend private but with wider I think where we're going right so you could do parking and deal with the fire hydrants and we did have a parking there might not be a lot of when you think about a car going in between
those there there might be a few Place yeah there would be stretches where but it's like to me that's like you know yeah I don't know that there's space between but that again there's practical parking elsewhere and we did have a parking that
it prepared for um the previous plan that was what the uh preliminary plat set um and in looking at it you know it it's there are certainly some areas where um the driveways are tight and you can't park but I was surprised at the
number that you could fit there um people would have the option of parking on the east side of the um Tot Lot and pond open space area along that whole stretch there that's all public Street
um Outlaw G yeah correct yep um you know and there's the where the where the road curves um west of the uh Tot Lot there's room for a number of spaces there again
where where the private Street curves um kind of in a southeasterly direction back out to the public Street on that curve between buildings there's quite a number of cars you can fit there so sidewalk s mentioned as a concern as
well of having the the both sides that's something the city would like to but doesn't have a requirement was a May versus a shell chair and Commissioners that's correct um we'd like to get back
to our standard of densities over three units per acre having sidewalks on both sides um that as I mentioned as you just reiterated that's a may not shall so it's a discretionary requirement so that's why we want to ask the plane
commission city council given that this this is already like this is a neighborhood already developed is that going to be weird then if all of a sudden you've got double sidewalks I mean I don't know it's just Aesthetics maybe it doesn't matter the reason in this case that staff would be supportive
of a second sidewalk here is because if you look at uh the layout of the sidewalks that are in this development if you can see it here's the sidewalk for instance along the single family homes um here's the sidewalk along the
town homes how do people on the other side of the park reasonably reach the park and navigate through the neighborhood without just directly crossing the street without a crosswalk or a sidewalk to guide them along the way that that was staff's reasoning for
requesting uh sidewalks on both sides for the town homes and I would I would the one quick point is I would imagine this more than not there's going to be families with kids and that would immediately have me
leaning towards having it up both sides if nothing more than yeah the density of this is going to lead to younger families yeah quite a large population um at the at the same time and and
typically would would one side be um city-owned and then the other side um HOA um maintained owned I think in this instance they would both be private sidewalks since they're within the the
town homes if it's a public street now if it's a 28 foot wide public Street yeah city are you are you looking and I guess maybe some to throw another curveball at you
um if we decided it was best for us to show this as a public Street um would there be any objections to that um I guess we could either way would be
uh as long as the snow I mean again then you'd have if it was a public Street the snow removal issue would be probably an issue um is there lighting is lighting requirements on public versus private
same or res street lights Street lighting street lights yeah um it's it's the same either way it doesn't make a difference and going back to the sidewalk point Point Travis just made a good point to clarify if the if it is
sidewalks and it is a public Street the adjacent homeowner is required to clear the sidewalk of snow similar like your single family neighborhood if you have a sidewalk coming through your driveway you're responsible for the sidewalk that cuts through your property right so here
would be the HOA these would be you're talking a concrete sidewalk not an asphalt pathway correct yep and part of the reason for us um requesting sidewalk on one side of the street is again snow removal if you've got sidewalk on both sides of the street
that's snow storage for sidewalk on both sides of the street um and also maintenance and care that's you know if it's private um that's maintenance of that sidewalk that's on the Atway um
just added cost not the end of the world but just looking for ways to keep GS down for the h I know putting driveways in we Crush every one of them so um what's that I work for a driveway company and every
driveway every concrete sidewalk that gets put in that goes through when we go to put the driveway in we end out pretty much cracking every sidewalk that and we actually we we did um that was a question that we did uh ask of Brian and
Cara um um and we may ask again a preliminary plat um is if sidewalks are required on both sides um if they can be installed um when driveways are being installed rather than putting a sidewalk in and having a construction you know
rock driveway while construction's happening and in SS like a good idea sidewalk get destroyed yeah put them in one driver I do think snow removal is going to be a big issue for the HOA because nobody is going to want to pay the cost
to haul snow off their property and if we have sidewalks on both sides that that will increase the hoa's cost to get rid of that snow what it's worth it is I mean and if you make it a public Street then the city's got exactly isues getting rid of the
snow along with either way this the HOA contractor is going to have to get that snow off sight it's not like they're going be able to dump it out on the street right is there not sufficient
uh what is that that grass called between the road and the sidewalk Boulevard Boulevard the boulevard there's not sufficient Boulevard for that snow to just be plowed up on the sides I and then the sidewalk depends on the a I mean I mean ours ours has I don't know if it's like six feet or
something over where we are and uh never issues in plowing the snow up against the side but I guess when you got driveway driveway driveway exactly you're pushing that BM and you know I mean and these guys aren't coming out with the giant City truck these are guys with jeeps and
pickup trucks with a plow in the front of their truck and you know when I see them they're they're pushing the snow up along the side of the driveway into the yard um so in our opinion there's there's going to be plenty of room uh this isn't the first town home community that we've built uh and we live in
Minnesota um storm removal is a thing uh it's as real as garbage disposal and anything else um and we we our HOAs contract with um companies to do it and there's certain
requirements um very specific on you know inches of snowfall when they come out um number of hours that they're required to respond in um so it's it's something that's taken very seriously and it's it's
um it's managed this just and I was I also add that um if the city felt the level of comfort with the Victoria Ridge um town home development that was just approved that's going to be uh built uh off Victoria Drive North of the Quick
Trip in the apartment building uh if there was a level of comfort with snow removal in that Community I would think there should be the same level of comfort here yeah I my own uh my own experience we're in a uh in a townhouse development at the same time and of
course there's been years where there's been very little of any snow and there's been some years where it's been almost unbelievable amount of snow and uh these guys with the Bobcats uh they uh they they seem to
find room you know I mean is there room well no not really but they you know what else are they going to do and they they they they do find room I mean I think that that that's pretty congested
pretty congested area and um not you know not a Boulevard you know how much can you how much can you stack up and and and the cost in doing it on but average average average um you know the the winners
you're going to get you know I mean as of recent you will get um you know two Winters out of 10 that's really heavy so you just say well you know we're not going to prepare
for uh 10 years of heavy snow and and requirements that would be required in my in my view you know I think the and Hauling away is is extremely expensive um but um but in L of that and
I'm on a uh have been on HOA board for 10 plus years and um well let's figure this out in lie of the cost of hauling it away so um put your list back up what else were
we besides besides private Street and I will say even if it does have to be hauled um the Twin Homes would also be included um as part of the HOA snow removal so there's certainly uh more room on this new plan in that twin home area than there was previously where
there was um four and six unit buildings building shown previously well we we have um where where we live there's Twin Homes on one side and then there's and then there's quads um with with a finger
Street on the other side and um so it's all one Association so um every every square foot of yard is free game for the for the Bobcat operators and and it seems to
work I mean you know it from a very practical standpoint it's it's a you know there's easy solutions is the way it appears uh Commissioners just for clarification I want to make sure that
there's consensus on on two points that we've discussed here it sounds like private Street 26 ft wide to allow parking on one side and uh sidewalks on both sides do I do I have that correct or do you want to does any want to
change that that would be a preference if possible okay you're in three do I have four do I got seven awesome y thank you and then uh the last point that I mentioned was Trail on Creek Side Lane
if you want to see Trail on both sides of Creek Side Lane for the entire stretch through the development to get back to our our residential collector standard or if you're comfortable with uh the trail connection only between the
culdesac and the private drive on the north side of Creek Side so I'll bring the map back up to highlight that again so what where we land with the trail coming in on that above and the um oh the marsh Hollow one yeah is that on both sides or
is that on one side no no yeah on on whatever that street is yeah yeah didn't we have a big debate about that so they've got Trail on the South Side the whole stretch um and then sidewalk shown between here um staff's
preference would be a trail the full stretch because that's our our collector our residential collector Road standard but we are also comfortable with a trail not a sidewalk connecting these two um because the city would want to make
maintain that portion if we're already going to be out there doing the South Side we might as well be doing the north side as well the question is do you want the trail on the North to go the whole stretch of the road or are you comfortable just connecting these two I I just my question back is what is the
trail on the North and South connecting too like it on the on the other side that's already finished I'm going to air quote finished is there Trail on both sides uh over here up in Marshall yeah in Marshall there is not um on the north side here is the third and fourth
editions of the hunters Brook Creek Side development uh they only have crosswalks at their private streets the reason for that being is because there is a drop off there that did not remember that allow
for sufficient grading to get a trail in there so we provided a deviation for them or the plane commission city council did uh because of the grading conditions here those conditions aren't present in this area so we go back to the question similar that we did with
Creekside should we require it for the full stretch or are you just comfortable connecting the neighborhoods uh to the crosswalk so that these residents could access the park as well it's really what comes out it should go the full length because it'll be another trail that ends
somewhere and doesn't connect and we'll be doing a trail connection I'm yeah I'm not understanding like why why would we put a trail on the North if it's G to it's it's going to dead end there anyways though it's not connecting to anything it would just be on that short strip I
don't know why you doing on the once on the again from a staff perspective or maybe even just a resident perspective so if these residents wanted to go and use the marsh Hollow park for reference they would have to come down this way
cross then go back um I think safely it should go down a long on those single family lots yeah and then whether and then somewhere they're going to have to
cross those town homes or they would cross there to go up it should just be on the I'm going to say leftand side of the road at as I'm looking at it the problem with putting it on the left hand is there's no path
on the left hand North or uh east of that so they're still going to have to cross right so my point is like keep it on the south because there's already a path on the south like where they show it makes sense um and then just have a little connector between these two neighborhoods yeah
similar to what they're showing right now the only change that this this path goes all the way up here and then if there's another's Trail later onth here this side there's no path that's over here yeah and so putting one here but then this path should go all the way
down that I agree with yeah that one should go all so yeah the south side of Creek Side Lane or as you're if you're looking at the picture on the right on the right side of creek side or the South side there is Trail City Trail 8 foot wide all the way trail
from east to west on the north side of Creek Side we are showing just a sidewalk connection between the easterly private Street and the Northerly culde and I would I would say that that's the right way because again that's not another neighborhood it's is that eight
or nine homes I don't know how many 1 I mean that's even yeah I mean and it sticks with what we what we did uh just e it connects it connects the two neighborhoods or the two called the what I'm hearing is just the the trail connection between the two is the
planing commission comfortable with that that would be my but what I mean just unless you wanted to go and but I don't know why you'd even connect it all the way down you go up my only thought was like why why connect the two
neighborhoods on the other side of the road if you have a path going all the way down and you if you just cross over you're on the trail you're have to cross over if you wanted to connect the two neighborhoods that'd be the only thing yeah but so you cross the road once and cross again and you've saved putting in
a sidewalk or a trail or a trail for and M never traveled and maintaining it and maintaining it and just for reference for playing commission um I'll reiterate the same thing to city council this is our one
opportunity at getting a a trail along this full stretch if that's what we envision for our Trail Corridor in the future we should request it now um but if you're comfortable with just the trail connection between the two neighborhoods that's fine as well all right so with that in mind or you could
refer it back question so this Trail right here yep connects like to your satisfaction or no the Southside yes all the sell side connects it all fully exactly this this tiny
little piece is inconsequential to the trail system or whatever right it's that's the portion that I want feedback from the planing Commission on because it's fine it meets the needs of this community will it meet the needs of any potential future resident when Creek
side is extended even further down and there's no sidewalk on the North side for them so they have to cross over as well it's that's the question it's getting to our residential collector standard do we want it on both sides or do we not it's children crossing
over and there and therein lies you know the reason to really have it on both sides in my my view but either either way they're going to have to cross somewhere have to cross up by yeah so it's it's either at the edge up
here or here or here or down here like no matter what if they want to get up here they're going to have to cross if they live on this north side if I remember some of these early designs over here it's very similar to this it's a couple scattered houses maybe a dozen at most that I think we're going to end
up following the same kind of path that we've already figured out here that's my recommendation but I think I would leave it on the south than just simplify it okay maybe I'll just go around and ask each commissioner what the preference is I I think everyone understands the the
whole picture here so uh commissioner our stter do you have a South is fine South is fine okay uh in this case the South works it's it's more like my neighborhood but I want to see it come from top to
bottom on the south side yeah um both both sides having had a uh a lot of exposure to park and wreck and the trail system um if if it's not done today uh tomorrow it's too
late so I would I would opt for both sides CH uh I agree with either a portion on both sides um whether it goes up to marallo but
then it should go whether it continues down to the end of the road um like John trying to build these paths after these developments are in it's like not don't take my yard don't do this don't you
know I don't want it and it's just easier to do it up front and if someday if you ever want to take it out you can take it out cor uh full length Southside any preference on the
North indiffer full length Southside I'm indifferent on the North okay we see us full length both sides okay sounds good so I've got full length Southside um four votes and indifferent
on the North side three votes so we'll just I'll provide that feedback to city council and they can make the fin I agree with full weth on the south side I mean going the South Side all the way yeah yep the the main question on the North side is the north side do we want the full way or are we just comfortable
with the sver that was my question and I think I got The Vibes of the group okay I'll go back to my last slide um we can ask on the
[Music] deviations um just like variance we just discussed these Lots aren't made right somebody's going to come want to do something different in their backyard do they have enough room in their backyard
to do what they want to do and are we that's that's the problem I have um with some of these Twin Homes is there how big of patios are you putting in in the backyard uh or access to Twin
Homes um and we're over impervious surface um that's the question I have on that I don't know and I don't have an answer for you and as far you know space you heard the discussion we had
about earlier today and that's what we're running into and I think it's going to get worse and worse to be honest so on the the single families here um again the deviations on lot depth and impervious
um was only on eight or nine of the 36 single family um we're going to be able to maintain a 30 foot the required 30ft rear yard setback so at a minimum you're going to have 30 ft from the back ofy home Tre rear lot line um so you'll be
able to put in a if somebody wants to put in a pool or a a patio or a a fire pit they'll have room for that they won't be able to f um they won't be able to not a pool with the impervious and the HOA was would probably restrict a lot of that anyway
right um but there's no um all the Wetland buffers are being planted outside of the private Lots um so there's no not going to be any buffer setbacks or anything like that I guess maybe one thing recommendation is to like make it very
clear which Lots excuse me R and are not meeting or are are not needing deviations like that would paint a better picture for if it truly is a couple that's that oh that changes the
conversation versus what we're seeing here it makes it seem like all you know most of them are which is I don't know Brian if that's just the way this isk marked up or what but that's that's probably just the way it's presented here but Josh has more technical information on this than I would so 2.7
2 point on that is one is yes whether we would like to see another sketch I think that would be a fine point to add that delineation my question on these numbers was are those averages of those 38 you
know because going from like 12,000 to 55 it's less than half that was um chairing Commissioners just to clarify Josh had sent over some figures um late last week after I prepared the report um
the number for the minimum lot area that he gave me was 5,500 ft for clarification I don't know if that's the twin home lot area that you were talking about do you know what the single family lot size would be off the top of your
head the smallest one I think that was um looking at if we had a and looking at this now it should be 5600 cuz at first we were thinking 55t wide Lots um but wanting to go with eight foot side
setbacks instead of seven and a half that made it 56 and my engineer was telling me that one lot maybe two lots um will be as shallow as 100 feet because of the Wetland buffer behind it again that we didn't have to worry about because
previously there was Town Homes there which do not have as deep a rear yard um so we have maybe two that are at 100 so if you take 56 time times 100 that's 5600 um most of them are going to be 120 feet
deep or more so I think that's just showing like the most extreme deviation would be 5600 yeah the impervious was that's another I think it's part of the density of this kind of
Housing and just for reference portions of hunterbrook also did receive a 50% impervious so there's some history there as well in the city and perhaps with our preliminary plat application we could not only show graphically which Lots
we're talking about but maybe show a you know a cumulative impervious for all the single family lots one lot might be at 50% but another lot might be at 20 one fully built out with a driveway and a and we'll assume the largest
footprint just to be conservative okay yeah my recommendations bring another Vision backest them if I could just request not um we were um previously expecting to be through city council preliminary plat by
this point um Our Hope was to be grading um as soon road restrictions are off which could be in a couple weeks um so to bring this back for another review of of a concept after already receiving what I think are pretty thorough
comments tonight in good direction um that would cost us at least another two weeks um and we have sellers that have already um been gracious enough to extend us on our closing dates um we're
trying to do good by them as well to uh try to um get to a end goal as soon as possible I would say yeah taking it to Council next week see what their feedback
is um did we get the answers you were looking for yes thank you chair and Commissioners um and you can move if council is ready to move forward I
would recommend that get past them I think we could probably go on to theary well there is no decision tonight right correct so don't worry about what
I said oh I [Laughter] worry any other are none uh thank you Josh thank you appreciate the feedback look that concludes our discussion items
for this evening moving on to the miscellaneous section of our agenda staff yes few items uh firstly uh if you watch the city council meeting last week
uh the city council did choose uh three new appointments for the planing commission so unfortunately tonight is Jarrett and John's last meeting on the planing commission just want to thank you both for all your years of service and experience it's really been great
working with the both of you wow um and then our April 1 meeting we will introduce the new members also have our nominations for chair and vice chair so start thinking about your peers and who would be best serving those roles um and
then also adopting our work plan for the year and going through our yearly orientation so all the housekeeping stuff at the beginning of the planing commission year on April 1 and then lastly uh Jen and Travis have been working hard on an outdoor dining
ordinance to replace our eat Street policy so they'll be bringing that forward as well uh question I is anybody else going on spring break because I have kids and I'm gone April 1st no okay I know one of our new Commissioners will
not be at the April 1st meeting yeah I'd like to attend but if it's not widely missed I won't be there April 1st Tuesday April fools so you could play a really good
joke and nominate Ben for yes Light It Up vacation that are you also gone yeah so we'll have four members can you can you move it that that discussion it's we won't have a
chair if we move it we need those nominations to occur for the first Mee because the chair's term is only a year so we will at the very minimum at least have to nominate a chair and vice chair for that meeting nominate and vote or
nominate correct nominate and vote can you become chair without being there I don't see why not don't worry you're about to yeah watch it we gonna find out
um can you I don't know if you have internet you would probably have to accept the nomination so I for best practice I would say we wouldn't want to nominate anyone who's not present we're going to need a chair and vice chair for the year could you do it
BL or not cannot cannot okay I might be back on time can't remember when I fly in not canceling spring break you shouldn't have to Puerto Rico for a wedding
yeah okay Commissioners you have any miscellaneous items nope no just thanks service John and Jared I mean we're going to miss all of your great experience and contributions going to be a real loss without you serious it's
been a great honor and I enjoyed the six years um did a lot didn't we John yeah is as a matter of fact a huge um a huge amount of uh developments of development
that occurred yeah and we had uh we had one year uh did did we have any meetings that were not a public hearing well um minimal minimal at at best but I I do I do think it is an incredible opportunity
for uh for literally everyone that has an interest in it and and and I think the the educational value is is absolutely incredible my my
original um statement that I had made three years ago was that um I had uh term limited myself now all of that said you know I think that the Planning Commission has um a combination needs
needs a combination of a certain level of history and and also a um a large level of New Perspective so however that's accomplished it it'll it'll be accomplished so that's good that's good
but yeah yeah I had um um very a very enjoyable and uh one of the one of the um city council members that was on when when I was originally selected said so
um uh and and and and I knew him somewhat and he said and you know without going into a real long story but you uh you know he said so what do you know about being on the Planning
Commission and I said here's what I do know is that I have a huge amount to learn he said you're in a lot to learn so I will
volunteer input if you want to reach out uh I'm not going anywhere so but thank you it's been thanks great job we get a motion to adjourn so moved second second second all those in favor
I I oppos thank you the motion carries we are for