Good evening everyone. I'll now call our meeting to order. Our first agenda item tonight is called open forum, which is an opportunity for anyone who likes to address the planning commission on an item that is not on our agenda and not scheduled for a future agenda item. With
that, is there anyone who would like to address the planning commission? All right, seeing none, we'll move on to adopting the final agenda. Commissioners, um, our next item is to adopt the final agenda. May I have a motion to adopt the agenda?
>> So moved. >> Thank you, Al. Is there a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor? >> I. >> Any oppose? Thank you. Motion carries. Our first item then, excuse me, there's um I'm missing an item. Uh our next item
is to approve the planning commission uh meeting minutes of January 6, 2026. Commissioners, may I have a motion to approve those minutes? >> I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. >> Thank you, Commissioner R. Is there a second? >> Second. >> We have two seconds. So, we have a
motion and a second. All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Very good. Thank you. Motion carries. So, our next item for discussion tonight is item 4.2. Consider a preliminary plat and associated request for Bell Maple
Farm Residential Development. And this item does include a public hearing. So after a staff presentation, I'll open the public hearing for anyone in chambers this evening who wishes to speak on the request and anybody who does wish to speak will be allowed three
minutes and then I'll kindly ask the next individual to speak until everyone uh who wishes to address the item is given an opportunity. Then I'll ask the planning commission for a motion to close the public hearing and um and we'll go forward on that basis. Um,
please note that the command, the planning commission won't engage in a back and forth uh discussion during the public hearing. It's not a matter of disrespect. It's simply a matter of gathering input from the community. So, I'll now turn it over to our city planner, Brian McCann, for a staff
presentation. Thank you, chair and commissioners. Tonight, we have three requests for the Bell Maple Farms residential development. They're requesting preliminary plat comprehensive plan amendment and easement and right-of-way vacations. You may recall this came to the planning
commission this past July uh for the sketch plat review which was the first process in the major subdivision process. So, uh, as I mentioned, the sketch plat and neighborhood meeting was held back in July with, uh, informal comments created
from the plane commission and city council to the developer as they consider moving forward with a potential development. And then the preliminary plat where we are at this evening is more detailed applications and plans reviews with all the city departments and then where the major entitlements
are granted such as any conditional use permits or variances that may be required. And then lastly, if they receive preliminary plat approvals, they would move forward with a final plat submittal and review for the location and existing
conditions. It consists of one single parcel at 7050 Kings Road as well as a small portion of 3D 33 foot wide right ofway. Uh it is right next to the Chanhassen border. You see this line right here dividing the two areas. To
the right is Chanhassen. To the west is Victoria. There are some existing single family homes uh with a private or just a single family home with a private entrance through the property just to the west here. Uh it's also surrounded
by other single family homes to the north, south, and east. And then the property itself is generally flat. There are some areas of minor uh elevation as you can see on the white elevation lines here as well as
some areas of tree coverage on the outline of the area. It's also in close proximity to the Lake Minnetonka regional trail and within 1,000 ft of lakes St. Joe and Tamarak. So the development that they are
proposing is a 15 single family homes on a temporary turnaround that would end at the end of the development here. Extension of Victoria Public Utilities. Our sewer and water would come from the end of Interlockin just to the west here
of the Lake Minnetonka Regional Trail. They also have a proposed storm water pond and a lift station on the east corner of the development here in their plan. And then they would also provide an additional 60 foot rightway to the
properties to the south. So here is the preliminary plat that was submitted with the 15 home lots, that 60 ft rightway that I mentioned, and the outlot here, which would contain the storm water pond and the lift station.
For our zoning and comprehensive plan review, it's currently zoned and guided R1 lowdensity residential, which allows between two and a quarter and six units per acre. In our comprehensive plan, proposed single family dwellings are a
permitted use. So, they are allowed by right if platted appropriately and developed appropriately. And if a development proposal meets the minimum permitted requirements, if they're not asking for any um reasonzoning requests, for example, uh legally it must be
approved. It it's a by right use. So looking at our bulk standards review, uh here on the top are the requirements of our zoning code and then on the bottom are the proposed bulk standards as staff observe them in the plans
provided and the narrative provided by the applicant. They are meeting or exceeding in every single one of these bulk standard categories. So as part of their request, they are requesting a comprehensive plan amendment. This has to do with our
shoreland overlay district. You heard me mention earlier that portions are within a thousand feet of Lake St. Joe and Lake Tamarak. So the way those boundaries line up, cut through the property like this. Um
to do a development out here would either mean complying with the DNR requirements um and going through a residential shoreland PUD process or pursuing a comprehensive plan amendment
to actually allow fewer homes out in this area than what they could potentially build. So in this scenario, the developer has chosen to move forward with the requested comprehensive plan amendment to actually lower the density for this proposed development.
Excuse me. So looking at that shoreland overlay district that I mentioned, they have to meet certain requirements. Um that's not supposed to be X, that's supposed to be a comma. Sorry about that. Uh so a 20,000 square foot minimum lot size uh within these blue areas.
Their proposal is compliant with that requirement as well as a 125 foot minimum lot width and a 25% maximum impervious just for those lots that are within the blue areas. So, uh the development is also outside
of steep slopes or bluffland areas and we did run this by our DNR area hydraologists and they did not have any additional comments on this uh because it meets all their standards. So, for building materials and
architecture, they did provide some general uh material examples and some architectural examples in their narrative, but these would all be custom home uh built lots. So, each one will have uh different accents and materials on their sightings, but they do comply
with our residential material standards. They will also have custom uh interiors as mentioned in their narrative and the homes are tentatively scheduled to be priced between 1.7 and 2.5 million.
For the lighting and signage, they do have public two public street lights that are proposed and there is also an additional street light on Kings Road on the Chanhassen side. So the lighting is adequate for this development and they are not proposing any signage for this
development. So um that was not reviewed as part of this request. Moving on to landscaping and tree preservation. They have to comply with a minimum percentage of 50% open space. Uh rough calculations put it at
approximately 70% for this proposed development. They also have to provide three trees per single family lot. One of them being in the front yard as a boulevard tree and then two in the rear. Um they do need to show a second rear yard tree as part of their plan. So we
anticipate potentially another 15 trees being addressed in future submitts. And then uh those boulevard trees that I mentioned have to be spaced appropriately and placed far enough away from intersections so that we can maintain vision clearance. So they are
compliant with that as well. And then if they are removing over 20% of trees on the site, they do have to mitigate that per our tree preservation code. Uh the mitigation required is about 759 in that we calculated. the
applicant has 285 inches proposed. So, there's a gap there that the developer will need to accommodate for in future submitts or uh provide contributions to the city's tree fund per our ordinance or to seek an exemption from the city
council to those requirements. Then for streets and parking, single family homes require two parking stalls enclosed per unit. So based on the renderings that were provided, we anticipate at least two stall garages with each of those homes. So that
requirement is met. There's also on street parking allowed for one side based on the proposed street width. And then as I mentioned earlier, they are pro providing an additional 60oot rightway to serve the properties to the south in case they ever developer would
prefer to have a public access versus a private access, which you can see in the corner here. And then lastly, uh, a right-away permit was submitted by the applicant to the city of Chanhassen who reviewed it and are just waiting development approval before they would
approve the right-of-way permit for this project. So, for parkland dedication and pedestrian connections, our per our code for 15 single family homes comes out to about.7 acres in park dedication. uh
they don't have any parks or trails proposed with this development. So, a cash fee uh is anticipated when they get to final plat and development agreement approvals. The parks and recreation committee also recommended cash when they reviewed this project last year at
Sketch Plat. They are proposing a 6-foot concrete sidewalk on the north side of the street for this development. And since it is within such close proximity of the Lake Mitonka Regional Trail, the applicant has uh discussed with adjacent
property owners to see if a connection to that would be possible. Our understanding is that they just aren't interested in having a trail connection run through their property. And then also, there are some steep elevations out here which would make it difficult to achieve a trail to make it ADA
compliant like a trail would have to be. >> Ryan, if I can just interrupt for a second, go back to that slide. You show Kings Road in the middle there. Doesn't King Kings Road run north south to the eastern edge? >> Am I mistaken? >> Chair and commissioners, it does. Um I think this is because of that private
driveway access to the property to the west. Somehow on our maps, it picked this up as a road connection when it's really just a private driveway. >> Gotcha. Thank you. So, their last request was for easement and right-of-way vacations. They're
requesting three different ones. So, I thought it would just make it easier to break them down here with different colors. Uh they are requesting a 33- ft right-of-way vacation for the area in green. This is um to potentially service a public road in the future, which we
know that they are going to be providing a public road with this development. It's no longer needed. And then on the north side there is a 30foot electric easement in blue. The electric line that is within this easement only serves the property to the west. So those utilities
will be relocated as part of this development to serve that neighbor. And then lastly, the 50-foot driveway easement on the south side shown in red is a private driveway easement favoring that owner to the west as well who has signed the application and agreed to
vacate that easement since their access will come from that public road running down the center of the proposed development. So, our fire department did review this as well and had some additional comments. They requested that the hammerhead length match uh the north
side here on the south side so that it can appropriately serve a fire apparatus and also that no parking signage on one side of the streets. They did not have any other comments for consideration as part of the staff memo or for the case this evening.
And then wetlands and storm water management. I will pass it over to our assistant city engineer, Amanda Meyer, who I believe most of you are meeting for the first time tonight. >> Good evening, chair and commissioners. Um, as Brian mentioned, Amanda Meyer and
I am your assistant city engineer. Um, so as part of the Bell Maple Farm project, they are subject to the Minha Creek wershed district rules and regulations. Um there are two smaller wetlands on this parcel uh that would be impacted as part of it and so applicant
is working through um the pieces to that and then they are proposing a storm water basin. It has a wet pond and a filtration area all encompassed in outlet A as you see on the screen before you. Um the the box you see kind of in
that northwest corner of outlot A is actually the pad for the lift station. So, if we move to the next screen for the site utilities, I think Brian mentioned there is a lift station required for this neighborhood to get the uh sanitary sewer over to the
interlockin area to the west. Um, so both the city water and sanitary sewer would be connected to at interlockin and brought over to this neighborhood for service. Um there is also service being provided through stubs to the north, the
south, and the west of the uh proposed development to support any future development should it be proposed. Um and then with that, I'll also mention that the lift station is proposed to be designed uh for that future expansion if
need be. And then back to me. Uh we did receive one comment this evening which I'll cover in the public hearing section, but I wanted to provide some additional input for plan commission uh to consider this evening as some of the adjacent um
developments are similar in character size of lots uh density for the proposed area. So as you can see here, I took the next two developments just to the east for examples. Um, all the densities and home sizes are right around the same
range that the applicant is proposing this evening. So, I just thought that was helpful information for the planning commission to consider. And then, um, a public hearing is required. It was properly advertised in the January 8th and 15th editions of the Wakonia
Patriot. This is a little bit unique. Easement right away vacations require two consecutive postings per statute. Uh, so we met that requirement. We also mailed copies of the notice to all the property owners within 350 ft of the development boundaries as we usually do
for these types of applications. We also posted it online and at city hall. We did receive one comment as I mentioned which I forwarded to the planning commission earlier today um with their concerns regarding
density, access, infrastructure capacity and concerns of property value impacts based on this development. So with that uh here are some suggested conditions of approval that were included in your packet and as part of the draft
resolution for you to consider this evening. As always, you're welcome to add any other planning commissioner, city council uh conditions if they desire to incorporate with this proposed development. And then just for members of the audience to know as well, our planning commission is a recommending
body. So, they are making a recommendation this evening. This is not a final decision. The city council are planning to review this at their meeting on Monday, January 26, beginning at 6:30, and they will be the formal decision makers on these applications
this evening. Uh the public may attend, but comments will not be taken during that. The public hearing is tonight. So, tonight is your opportunity to speak on the request. And if they receive approval from the city council, uh we anticipate that they'll prepare a final
plaid application and come back at some point, but that will likely not include a public hearing component. So, this is your opportunity to speak. I just wanted to put that on the table for everyone in the audience this evening. And then lastly, uh, we can come back to the screen at the end, but I have a
sample motion for you for consideration. Commissioners, with that, staff can stand for questions and representatives of the application are in the audience tonight as well. >> Thank you, Brian and Amanda. Um, before we open the public hearing, uh, does the
applicant wish to speak? >> Thank you, Mr. Chair, planning commission members. My name is Pat Hiller. I'm one of the partners Norton Holmes. I have with me tonight John Molina. He's from Pioneer Engineering and he's going to be the engineer for this project. If you have any technical questions, John will be happy to answer
those for you. I don't have a lot to add to Brian and Amanda's summary. I think it was very thorough and very comprehensive. So, I'm going to just leave that as they have it. One thing I do want to go over is as part of this process, we've had a couple of informal neighbor meetings
along the way. one, the first one being when we were going to be requesting the city of Chanhass and provide water and sewer services. And pursuant to that request, um the neighbors sent a petition to the city council signed by 31 people here. This was back in
August 12th of 24 and they asked the council to urge the city of Victoria to do four things. And here's what they asked for. that the lots sizing and quantities lined up with Chanhassen zoning. We've essentially done that. So, they wanted a minimum 15,000 square
feet, 90 foot fronts and 30% hard cover. It's basically where we're at and that's what we're proposing. They wanted a sidewalk to be included. So, we've included sidewalk. That's part of the plan. They did request that a connection to the LMRT trail to the west be made. That's beyond our capability. The
neighbor to the west does not want a trail easement going through his property. when I've talked to him um to get the utility easement that's going underground, he made it clear he doesn't want his trees touched. He doesn't want his property disturbed and it was okay to directional bore underground as long as nothing was disturbed. So, he's not
going to grant a trail easement. That's what he has told me in writing. So, that's not possible for us to extend the trail to the west. It's beyond my capability. Um the fourth request in this memo from August of 24 was to do a traffic study. The city has determined it's not warranted. That's beyond my
control as well. The city is not recommending a traffic study because of the small number of lots. I believe along the way there's also a concern about the location of the lift station. Initially we had proposed it kind of right up against Kings Road and so we have subsequently moved that to the west side of the pond a good number of feet
away from Kings Road. That's as far away as we can get it because that is the low spot of the project and that's just where it has to be for everything to drain down. It's in our best interest as well to screen that with some trees and foliage as best we can. That's what we intend to do hopefully. So it's is not
as noticeable as possible. So we've done our best to accommodate the requests that we've seen along the way and so I feel like we've done a good job with that and so just wanted the uh commission to be aware of that. I'm sure there's going to be public comments here tonight, but I wanted you to be aware of that. But other than that, that's all I have unless you have questions for me
along the way. >> Thank you, Mr. Hill. We may ask questions later on after we close the public hearing. >> I'll be here. Thank you. >> Very good. Um so with that, uh I will now open the public hearing. Uh, and as just a reminder again, um, this is the public opportunity to provide comments.
It's not a back and forth or a debate with the planning commission, but it is an opportunity to give public input. I'd only ask that, uh, if you wish to speak that you provide your name and address and limit your comments to three minutes in length. So, with that, I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone in
chambers who wishes to address the commission? Yes, please. expecting five minutes not free. So, excuse my speed read. >> No, don't don't speed read. Just >> uh James Cardwell, uh 7115 Kings Road, Victoria. Uh so, good evening, chair and
commissioners. I'm a resident of the uh Kings Road neighborhood in the city of Victoria, and I appreciate you allowing me to address the council tonight or the commission. I'm here to respectfully ask the commission not to approve this application at this time due to unresolved public safety, environmental access, public facility concerns that
fall squarely within the commission's review authority. This proposal would add new homes to Victoria that rely entirely on Kings Road and Chain Hassen as the sole point of access. Kings Road already serves more than 30 homes through a single access point. Single access point neighborhoods present well-documented risks of emergency response, including delayed fire,
medical, and evacuation access during congestion, severe weather, or a single blockage. They are routinely discouraged in subdivision design standards across Minnesota. There is currently no approved secondary access route. The developer is now relying on a utility easement approved early last
year, which was presented at the time as serving emergency or long-term future public needs. Subsequent information indicates that this easement was being coordinated for immediate private development use. Information was not fully evaluated in the public approval record. The planning commission should not be asked to rely on easement whose
scope, purpose, and implications for access were not clearly established at the time of approval. In addition, access concerns uh newly released material raise environmental and downstream safety issues. The site drains toward regulated wetlands and downhill residential areas. Changes in grading imperous surfaces will increase
runoff and may alter wetland hydrarology. Under the Minnesota law, development developments affecting wetlands or connected hydrarology may require review by the DNR and applicable wershed districts. At this time, it's unclear whether those reviews have occurred formally based on the current wetland conditions
of the property. Approving a preliminary plat before the termination exposes the city to avoidable regulatory and environmental risk. I would also want to raise public facility issues that remain unresolved. Park plant. The nearest city of Victoria Park capable of serving this
development is Victoria Lions Park, several miles away and inaccessible by pedestrian foot traffic. For residential subdivisions of this scale, payment of a fee in lie of land does not adequately serve current or future residents. Parks are not a
luxury. They are essential public infrastructure that support health, safety, and storm water function and community cohesion. This development should include dedicated parkland within or adjacent to the site. Access to residents and integrated into the neighborhood rather than shifting the that burden entirely to the public.
Finally, there is a broader public interest concern. City-owned land and easements appear to be critical to enabling this private development. Public assets should serve a clear and transparent public purpose, not merely facilitate private gain without proportionate and documented benefit to the community. The commission is not
being asked whether this development should ever occur. You are being asked whether this pro proposal is ready. And based on our current this current record, it is not. I respectfully ask the commission deny or continue this application until a fully compliant secondary access road is proposed and approved. The impact of prior land sales
and easement decisions on access is reviewed. Reliance on utility easements is clarified in complete and transparent record. DNR and watershed district review requirements are formally addressed and an adequate parkland dedication, not just a fee in lie of incorporated into the plan. Public
safety, environmental protection and responsible stewardship of public assets must be addressed before development proceeds, not after. Thank you for your time and careful consideration. >> Thank you, Mr. Carwell. Is there anyone else who would wish to speak?
>> Um, good evening. Aisha Khan. I'm an attorney with Helmouth and Johnson representing the Kings Road neighbors. Um, my office address is 8050 West 78th Street in Edina. And I too, like the last gentleman,
prepared five minutes. So I can either read fast um which in court a judge just told me she would punch me in the face if I read as fast as I can or I can take an additional minute with your permission. >> Go ahead. >> Thank you. >> There are four critical reasons to deny
this plat. It violates public safety and street ordinances. Chanhassen has already denied water and sewer services due to insufficient access. and any proposed access road violates Chanhasson's adopted fire code along with Victoria's practice fire code. The proposed comprehensive plan amendment is
inconsistent with Victoria's planning goals. And finally, the development appears to involve misrepresentation and possible fraud against the city, compounded by the city's own actions in vacating access to this land. As far as public safety, Victoria Ordinance section 107-29C
limits culde-sacs to a maximum length of 1,000 ft. King's Road already measures approximately 1,54 feet as it currently exists. Any extension therefore would violate this ordinance. While it may be argued that the circular or hammerhead layout creates multiple access or
measurement points, the court has rejected similar reasoning, explaining that allowing segmented measurements would permit individual sections to be added together to form a single dead-end street of indeterminable length. Adopting such an interpretation would permit a single length single culde-sac
to serve at this point what they're requesting it already serves 34 existing homes. It would be up to 59 and they're proposing additional road that could serve unlimited amount of homes. That's simply not safe. Not for residents, not for emergency responders, and not for the city. Further, Chan has an
ordinance, which I know you don't care about, but they are your neighbors, and they have adopted the state's fire code 18-57U7 limits a single fire access, single fire apparatus access road to serving no more than 30 homes. As I stated, there are already 34 homes on Kings Road,
triggering their requirement for a second access road that must comply with applicable state fire code. While Victoria has not formally adopted Appendix D, which is a state fire code, the city has effectively relied upon it in many developments. The planning commission and city council, as far as
we can tell from data practice requests, has raised this requirement for two access roads for developments exceeding 30 homes in at least 16 instances instances involving eight different current developments. Victoria ordinances in the comprehensive plan expressly authorize denial of permits and plats to protect the health, safety,
and welfare of the public and to prevent unreasonable disruption of existing neighborhoods. Approval of this plat would be inconsistent with this. This is a clear basis for denial. Second, Chanhassen has already denied water and sewer. The plat
appears to be a small wedge of a larger plan, but it cannot gain access legally or safely without Chanhassen's permission. Victoria as far as I'm deter as far as I've researched cannot require Chanhassen to grant access for a development that would violate its own ordinance. So while Victoria has not
adopted the ordinance, you'd be asking Chanhassen to violate their adop ordinance which they have adopted. Importantly, the developer has now been granted water and access through an easement in Victoria. Um, but as the previous gentleman stated, that easement
was potentially gained without the city council having all the information that it's going to gather hopefully subsequent to tonight's meeting. There are comprehensive plan issues that seek that violate the density code of Victoria. I won't go into the specific
plans, but if you look at LU2.1, L123, T1.3, T2.4, 4, T-5.3, and T123. These policies collectively require land decisions to maintain compatibility with existing development patterns, respect established density guidelines, and
ensure the transportation infrastructure can safely adequately support proposed growth. Victoria ordinances require strict conformity with the comprehensive plan, including compatibility with surrounding land uses. Amending the plan to accommodate this proposal would undermine the integrity of the city's
planning framework by allowing ad hoc departures from adopted standards rather than consistency polydriven decision-m. Finally, evidence shows that the city engineer and the city planner coordinated sewer easements with the developer only days
before the March 10th, 25 2025 sale of the subject land to the University of Minnesota Arboritum. This 26 acre parcel of land was sold for $240,000 at which time the roadway easement providing access to the property was vacated to the arburitum. That roadway
was entirely in Victoria. The true value of the land is 2.45 million based on anticipated road and sewer access. That's saying if we had known that that land was going to have infrastructure, that land was worth $2.5 million. The availability of its infrastructure prior
to the sale increased the land's value by nearly 10fold, resulting in a loss of $2 million to the city of Victoria. In other words, the developers asserted lack of access, therefore lowering the appraised value to $240,000,
at least in part is a barrier created by the city's own prior actions. Initial discussions regarding potential development of this land began in January 2024 which was discovered from a data practice act. This was led by the city engineer. These discussions were not disclosed to the Victoria city
council, the planning commission or the appraiser. In fact, when directly asked whether development was planned, the city engineer conveyed that such development was not feasible, contributing to the land again being undervalued by 90%. Those access plans and development discussions were not reflected in the appraisal or presented
to the governing bodies at the time of the sale. Finally, it is notable that at the outset of the Tamarak land sale, the city engineer, the principal partners partner of focus engineering was communicating as a focus as the sorry, her communications were
originating as she was the sole proprietor of focus engineering. She is now employed by Bolton and mink which the city contracts for tens of millions of dollars. Bolton and make receives money from the state, the city, and the federal government for the highway five project. When viewed alongside the
coordination of the easement and subsequent development actions, serious concerns should be raised regarding potential misrepresentation, conflicts of interest, and the integrity of the process. >> It's kind of need to ask you to wrap up, please. >> Under ordinance 222-204,
a permit may be denied where there is evidence of fraud, deceit, or material false or misleading statements. These concerns have already been raised with the city manager and city council, both of wh who have expressed legitimate concern. At this stage, the planning commission should deny the plat
application and reconsider at a future date once all of the allegations have fully been investigated and addressed. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Is there anyone else who wishes to speak? >> Yes, please. My name is Nick Cardino. I live at 7050
Mil Creek Lane in Chanhasson. also the president of the Kings Road Neighbor Association. We represent interests of residents of the city of Victoria and city of Chanhassen. Uh I'd like to follow on Aisha's commentary and provide some data to the plan commission that's been discovered through DPA requests. So u as
I mentioned uh from a misrepresentation perspective and you can see in the agenda packet that uh very clear call out that the easement being used to serve the sewer uh access to the development was not put in place for the development. That's just patently not true and data that I have here will will
show you that. So I'll have to pass this out with some visuals. Uh there's record of emails. So on March 10th when that went through uh March 3rd, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th, there's coordination of emails between city planner, city engineer, and the developer designing the sewer easement for this purpose.
There's email history that goes back to November of 2024 where the city engineer directs her employer, Bolton Magg, to draw up this sewer easement. Uh going back to in the timeline, uh there's substantial communication between the
city of Chanhass about the mo anou to provide Chanhassen sewer and water. Uh those messages occurred around July and August of 2024. >> That is the same time that the appraiser was gathering his data to put together the appraisal. And I'm going to start
handing these out with your permission. >> Sure. Copy these copies. page there. There's an email back from the mayor uh in June to Mr. Cardwell indicating that she at March 10th
meeting had no knowledge of and the city had no knowledge of a development being planned. Fortunately, the data doesn't support that. >> At the same time, here is
email communications with Chan Hass. I know this is a lot to go through >> and and we're not going to have time to read these tonight before we begin our discussion. Just so you're aware. >> Oh, I understand that.
>> Thank you. I think most pertinent is this email thread ending August 5th, beginning in late July with the appraiser and the city engineer. The appraiser says, "I'm thinking of a
way to get to I think it's way too speculative to assume one or more properties to east can be assembled to somehow provide alternative access to these properties." He's speaking about the lake property used for $240,000 and that allows him to arrive at a low
water mark of $240,000 instead of 2.4 million. Lastly, from November 25th, beginning November 14th, is this email. I'll turn to the back page of the
proposed and the proposed development. And so it's clear from the data that there was a proposed development plan. It was brought before the city but withheld from the appraiser and withd Why?
>> Yes, sir. I'd ask you to wrap up. >> Sure. So before I use substantial information indicating definitely misrepresentation potential for fraud. Why does this exist and why did this happen? Um lot of effort around the highway 5
project. Carver County and Boltman Bank. The highway engineer highway engineer Bolton Bank received over $12 million of public funds for professional services related to Highway 5. A big the biggest lynch pin on Highway 5 was acquiring the Tamarack properties to offset easement loss by the arburitum and mitigate
department of fish and wildlife issues with rusty patch bubble mitigation. Highway project doesn't happen without that land. Bolton meant can't continue receiving millions of dollars of Carver County funding to support this project. What do they do? They acquire focus
engineering in the fall of 2024. that vests a financial interest with the city engineer whose firm focus engineer has bought all the encouragement needed to drive down this land value, drive the sale forward and potentially cost the city
$2.2 million of potential land value. Bringing us back to why should the city deny why should the planning commission deny this? I think we've stated val very very valid public safety reasons which were the overarching reason that we brought this forward because of misrepresentations around the
purpose and scope of the easement. I instituted data practices act requests. Those data practices act requests led to the finding of the rest of this data which I now share with you. >> Very good. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Appreciate it. >> Anyone else wish to speak to this
request? All right. Uh, hearing >> you you'll have a chance in a second. Uh, let me close the hearing. Um, commissioners, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? >> Motion to close the public hearing. >> We have a motion to close. Is there a
second? >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I. >> I. >> Very good. Uh so commissioners um we'll now open the discussion time and and an opportunity for questions. I would very much uh Mr. Hiller like to hear your
response to some of the allegations that have been made. I would remind the audience that we are not an adjudicatory body. Uh we don't have a vote. Uh we don't make judicial decisions here. Um, some of the allegations made, I would note for the record, are very serious.
Allegations of fraud and conflict of interest by the city engineer and members of of the city staff are not to be taken lightly. Um, I'm hopeful that, and I would encourage uh those who spoke to speak with the city staff at some point, hopefully sooner than later, to
have your questions answered and addressed uh hopefully in a consiliatory manner. So, with that, Mr. Hill, I'd very much like to hear your response >> on a couple things. So, let's talk about the fire access. Um, it is my understanding, Brian, please correct me if I'm wrong, that the fire fire
inspector fire department chair in Victoria is not worried about the access from a safety standpoint, >> chair and plane commission. That's correct. Uh you'll note on the city staff review memo in the case report and on my slide deck this evening that the
fire chief is well aware of the surrounding area concerns regarding access but they did not provide any formal comments requiring plan revisions or access. And then regarding this, I'm hearing this for the first time regarding these
allegations of fraud between the city engineer and and and uh the city and regarding this uh easement for the public utilities across the um the land that was was sold. That has nothing to do with us and I don't know what bearing it has on the
approval of our plat here tonight. We've followed the process. Other concerns have been raised. We have followed the process. We have followed every We've filled out every application. We've done everything that the city normally requires in these types of plats. We meet the city standards. It's a straight up zoning application. We've done
everything that is required of us. And what may or may not have happened regarding that 50- foot public utility easement at the time, I don't think bears on this at all. So, I don't I hope we certainly aren't going to get mired up in that. That can be talked about at another date between the city and those
out alleging the misdoing. It doesn't have any bearing on our application. So, I hope we can keep moving forward here. >> Very good. Thank you, Joe. >> Planning Commission. Any questions, comments regarding this? >> I'm sorry. >> 30 seconds.
>> Um, sure. >> You know, again, respect uh Mr. Hiller's commentary. I think that the rest of the record uh not entirely before you would indicate that on March 10th when the easement was approved and the Tamarack properties were sold at that point and there's an email
record that you have in front of you. uh of the coordination to do that. The developer says, "We're going to be bringing forward this plat for 15 homes." They then allowed 60 to 75 days to lapse between that statement and actually bringing a sketch plat in late May or June, potentially suggesting that
there may have been knowledge and I don't make that allegation here, but there are more questions than answered. The fact that that bring forward that sketch plat waited and cooled for 75 days and from this happening potentially indicates there was potential knowledge or direct uh cooperation with it and I
think that that is a substantial point uh to consider. >> Thank you Mr. Cardino. >> Very good. Again, we're not an adjudicatory body. We're here to gather public input to provide planning uh commission input to the city council. So uh with that commissioners, any
questions, comments? got one. Um I thought when we had initially talked about this that we were discussing it being a private road because of snow and getting our public services out there. Um I guess my followup with that is is
that still a discussion having it be private instead of public? And then also because it's such a burden for public services to go out there, is it a burden also for fire department and so forth? Uh, chair and commissioner shower, I'll I'll take your question in twofold
there. One from the public works perspective and then secondly from the fire perspective. Uh, public works, we have weekly meetings with them. We've talked about this development with them multiple times regarding uh, capacity to get out there to do uh, required snow
clearing. They did not express any concerns about that. And same with our fire department. our fire chief and our deputy fire chief sit in those same meetings and they said they did not have any concerns about response time to get out in this area in the event of an emergency either.
>> Ryan, I have a question for you. One of the um one of the neighbors, Mr. Carwell, made the observation that the site drains toward the wetland. Uh are we concerned at all from a hydraology standpoint about the integrity? I guess maybe it's a more of a question for the
water conservation district, but are we concerned at all about the integrity of the wetlands in this area? >> Uh, chair and commissioners, uh, we did submit this application to the DNR and the applicant has been working with the Minhaha Creek wershed department.
Neither of them expressed any specific concerns to my knowledge about any um, severe impacts to local wetlands or drainage areas. >> Very good. Okay. So explain, help me understand
kind of where the water's coming from and and what was mentioned about Chanhass not approving something and kind of a I need more clarity on that. Where is the water resource coming from?
Is it confirmed? Are there issues between our two cities that need review? Um, Chair and Commissioner Ree, long- winded, um, I guess maybe short- winded summary of what transpired is this, uh,
development was originally seeking Chanhassen Utilities because they are closer. They're right off of Kings Road available to them. Um, but it would still be within Victoria's boundaries. So the city council of Chanhassen would
have to approve an extension of utilities outside of their jurisdiction. The city council was not interested in doing so. City council of Chanhassen being uh was not interested in doing that. So um the applicant
needed another way to get utilities. They explored multiple options. um even doing private well and septic systems with with within shoreland areas you need at least 2 acre lots. So that was not viable for them. Those were side
discussions. the easement here that we're talking about between Interlockan and the Kings Road development that was done separately as part of a land transaction with the Minnesota
landscape arboritum related to the Highway 5 improvements. So that's how that easement came to be. It was stated during that meeting with the city council on March 10th as part of CARAS and Mind's presentation that that could be used in the event of an emergency uh
to get utilities out in that area in case of failed septic systems or in the event that development is possible and pursued by someone willing to develop out in this area. So the source of water and and
everything would be coming from >> from city >> from uh the end of this culdeac here and then brought through that 50 foot easement through the Minnesota landscape arboritum's property through an adjacent
property owner to the west who has agreed to that extension down into the development. Ryan, what does that adjacent property owner have to say about this development? Are do they have objections? >> Uh, chair and commissioners, I haven't heard any. I was part of a meeting with
him uh after the sketch plat review for this proposal. They did not state any opposition to the development at that time, but I haven't spoken with them since. >> I assume that they are on a private wall in septic, >> correct?
>> Yep. but they they would likely connect to the services if this development went through. Thinking outside the box here, is there any possibility
that an emergency access passageway, call it, not a road necessarily, could be included in that utility easement such that push came to shove, >> somebody could make an emergency run from interlocking.
>> Chair and commissioners, that's a good question. uh the slopes out there unfortunately wouldn't be able to sustain that uh right off the back of this property here. It is a steep drop. Um so it wouldn't be able to support any type of road improvement or emergency
access unfortunately. >> Okay. >> Is there a reason we haven't the city of Victoria hasn't adopted the state's fire recommendation or fire code? Uh, chair and commissioners, I know that our associate planner and our fire chief and
our deputy fire chief are working on that currently. I think it's just an outdated ordinance that they're working on updating to bring it up to today's standards. >> Do we know if they're planning to adopt an update then similarly to the way Chassen is
>> soon? Correct. Okay, >> comments, questions. >> I guess I wanted to just clarify my understanding even even if it were to, you know, go to the city council be approved. Um, it still has to get approval at Chassin for the access. That's correct, >> Chair and Commissioner Graham. Yes,
that's correct. The the approving mechanism for Chanhassim would be the right-of-way permit, which they've already reviewed. they just won't sign off on it until they know that this access is a real thing that will be happening which requires Victoria's
approvals. >> So understanding that often times they don't like working in hypotheticals. Do we have indication on whether or not they support? >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Other comments, questions? >> I I would just observe um well two
things. First of all, thank you for the thoughtful input from the neighbors. I appreciate that and I know the planning commission appreciates that, takes it very seriously. Obviously, very heartfelt concerns about this area. Well researched points. Um, disturbing allegations that uh again are not
appropriate for this commission to try to parse out and and make a decision on. That's something that can be resolved outside of the meeting. I do have some sympathy with Norton that um you know, this is not their issue. The allegation is that the city did something that it
should not have done uh relative to the easement grant to the University of Minnesota. That's not for us to consider or decide here. Um I I just would observe um Norton builds really high-end homes. I drove out there today, look at it. It's a beautiful neighborhood with
lots of very lovely homes in a in a nice bucolic setting. Uh, I think this would enhance the area, uh, not detract from it. Um, I'm not as concerned as as some expressed about the safety of the access point. I do understand it's a single
access road, but there are not that many homes in that area, and there are other areas like that in the city. Uh, as long as it can be served adequately by fire and police, I think, uh, I think we're in good shape. Um, that's that's my observation at a very high level. at the
at the uh sketch plot review, the very the very first review, um we gave them input on on trees on on sidewalks and we asked questions about access to the regional trail. All of those have been addressed, uh at least to my satisfaction. I don't know about other
members of the planning commission. So, um with that, um unless there are other comments or questions from the planning commission, I'd ask for a motion. >> I would add that I think we had discussed sidewalks on both sides of the street. I don't see that reflected on the most recent drawings. No, I I saw that too. There's only on one side. That
said, when there's a culde-sac, you don't normally see any sidewalk. So, I don't know, Mr. If you want to address that or not. >> Mr. Chair and Commission members, I I don't see the need for two a sidewalk on both sides of the street. It's a very small development. There's just a
handful of homes in here, and the sidewalk on one side seems perfectly adequate to service people walking up and down the street. It just seems unnecessary. That's why we're not proposing the second one. >> Can I ask a follow-up question with that? For postal service, where is the mailboxes going to be held? I know post
office doesn't do at physical houses anymore. >> Uh, in virtually every development we've done recent years, they wanted a a single box and so I don't know exactly where that's going to go yet, but um it'll be a group mailbox that they can service in one location and it'll be on a pedestal. I suspect it'll be down near
the the pond area or the uh the lift station. We'll >> probably put a a mailbox pod down there >> because that would be my thought with having an additional sidewalk on the other side is neighbors are going to want to go take their dog for a walk, grab the mail, go back home. So, make sure that they have a safe way to walk.
>> I'm happy. I'm open to where that pod can go if if there's a preference. The post office issues standards on how it needs to be located, but they don't tell us where. >> And so, um I think as part of final plans, I'm open to suggestions if there is if there's a desire that location of that. And I see a value to sidewalks on
both sides. I think that's where kids play. Um so that's the value I see I guess is presumably a lot of families here. Um that tends to be where kids play to not be in the street. >> Understood? >> Yeah. >> One last question. The size of that outlot a
I'm just wonder is there and again I'm just thinking out loud here. Um, could that be turned into some kind of park space, small playground or whatever that would serve the the neighborhood as
an option to address the concern about park dedication? >> Can you bring up the grading plan you have? >> I that's what I want. >> Yeah, I can answer your question, I believe, on that. Is it too uh >> well the quick answer is while Brian's finding that along the 60 foot right away there has to be a 20 foot wide
access um to service the pond. >> So along the west and the south that's pretty much used up with this 20 foot wide road access. >> And then you can see the grading around the pond. There's some pretty steep slopes. >> Yeah. Okay. >> The entire outlot is sloped and graded >> and made up of that access pond. So
there really isn't any flat space left other than the flat space we've created with the small retaining wall for the uh for the lift station pad. >> And that's going to be like a NERP collection pond. >> It'll it'll be drainage. Yeah. The
engineer can talk about exactly how it's going to be constructed, but it's going to be there'll be an infiltration media. >> It wouldn't necessarily be conducive to having kids playing down there anyway. >> No, not that we're going to stop them from playing down there, but >> Well, kids will be kids, but I don't know. We're not going to design it as such. >> Yeah. Not going to encourage. Okay.
>> I would note but uh although it's not a Victoria park, Roundhouse Park is literally about two blocks down the road and I'm sure people in this development would use that park. There's no restriction on Victoria residents using Chanhen Parks. So,
>> I guess I've got a I the land behind it. Are are any trees being taken down? And I haven't heard anything about tree removal. Looking at it from kind of where I'm I'm going to be looking at this development. >> Yeah, there's
>> we have a sketch that shows >> there isn't. >> Yeah, because there's lots of trees out there, but >> we are removing a little over half of the trees on the site. This shows this this chart shows in yellow the trees that are being removed in order to do the grading right there. The trees in
green are being preserved. It's pretty flat area >> in that one. Yeah, in that area. Okay. >> I keep going back to the fire discussion just because of events that have happened in our other neighboring city
of Chaza. Um I really want to make sure that these houses are going to be safe and the very random unfortunate time that something would happen. Um and that if this is an ordinance that is coming down the pipeline, I'd like us to be ahead of the game here instead of you
know giving access of you know >> so that's is one of the biggest concerns that I have in that this is kind of remote and kind of truncated in terms of the town of Victoria. So are there any
is there any due diligence that between now and this gets advanced at least from our commission to the final plot where the cities if they make a determination X or Y or Jan
Hassen doesn't sound like there's an issue access how do we address those >> chair and commissioners I I will say that our fire chief and our deputy fire chief again have looked at this and
determined there's not an issue. The Chanhass fire chief is aware of the situation and has determined there is not an issue either. >> Other questions or comments? If not, I'll ask for a motion. Brian, if you'd put that slide, please.
Commissioners, is there a motion? >> Not a motion, a question, I guess. Is there enough new information from tonight that would suggest we should table it? >> There's a lot of of information. There's some that we can't act on,
>> right? Is there >> So following up on that, what is the con what is the impact of were a table vote to go forward? >> It still goes to the commission. Am I am
I correct? >> Or to the city council >> chair and commissioners, if you table it tonight, um it would have to come back to you first. We are on a typical 60-day calendar here. Um we're probably a little over a month
into that. There is potential to be able to make the next meeting. Um just for the public to be aware too, what that means is the public hearing was opened and closed tonight. There would not be another opportunity to speak. It would just be staff bringing back new information for the planning commission
to make their recommendation. So just so everyone in the audience is aware of that and playing commission, that's up to you. Um, if you if you would like to table it, I think there's sufficient time to maybe make it onto the next agenda. Otherwise, we can send out a
additional 60-day letter requesting more information from the applicant. But like we've discussed tonight, I'm not sure um what more we can request of the applicant at this time for their proposal. So for me it's a it's a lawful use of
the land. The developer has met the requirements of our ordinances. Uh I would move approval u to the planning commission uh and recommend to the city council approval uh at this phase understanding that there's more to come
with a strong recommendation that we work to resolve the uh issues that have been addressed here this evening by the community members and by council for the homeowners association. >> I could second that.
So, we have a motion and a second. All in favor? >> I I >> Any opposed? >> Name. >> Name. >> I'm gonna I'm gonna go I'm I'm going to go nay. There's information that I want to read. >> Very good.
>> Chair and commissioner. So, that that motion fails. We'll need to find another motion for this evening. >> Right. Very good. All right. With that, uh we'll move then to our uh next >> Sorry, where did we end up?
>> We ended up at 33 as I understand it. >> Correct. >> So, we need a majority one way or the other to be able to to move forward. >> Can I make a mo a motion to recommend to the city council to table it? table the request of the Bell Plane Farm
Residential Development um to the next meeting and to give time to digest some new information. >> I would second that. >> I would agree. >> All right, we have a motion to table the
uh proposal. All those in favor? >> Opposed? Nay. So, we're stuck again. So, I I think that results in a deacto tableling. Uh we'll have to bring this back uh to the
next available opportunity. All right. So, we'll move forward. Our third and final item for discussion tonight is item 4.3, sketch plot request for Hotel Victoria. The um sketch plat review is the initial stage of review uh that the
planning commission uses to review and consider regarding new development proposals. Nor no formal actions or recommendations um will be taken tonight on the sketch plat review. Um
the purpose is to offer initial feedback to the applicant from the planning commission and then later by the city council in advance of uh any necessary preliminary platter resoning applications. So uh I will now turn it over to city planner Brian McCann for a
staff presentation. Thank you chair and commissioners. Tonight we have a request for Hotel Victoria, which is a new proposed commercial development sketch plat right in the heart of our downtown. Uh, as you mentioned, they've submitted a sketch plat to receive initial feedback from the planning commission,
city council. There aren't any approvals or actions being taken this evening on the request. We're just here to provide guidance to the applicant as they start preparing any potential preliminary plat or land use application submittals in
the future. So for the location and existing conditions, it is currently on the north side of 7929 Victoria Drive, which also has the Winchester and Rye restaurant. It's surrounded by streets on all sides as you can see on the image
on the left with Ry's Way to the east, Tower Boulevard to the south, Stiger Lake lane to the north, and Victoria Drive to the west. It is also within close proximity of the Lake Minnatonka Regional Trail and the uh Stiger Lake as
well. And uh currently the site sits at about approximately 50% impervious as you can see on the image. So, Hotel Victoria, their proposal consists of a 46-unit hotel with various amenities for their guests, including a
covered parking garage with capacity to hold up to 41 vehicles with a valet service, uh, a fitness center, a lobby and breakfast bar, as well as multiple meeting rooms and spaces. They are proposed uh have proposed some
modifications to our existing on street parking on Stiger Lake Lane and Ry's Way. You may recall uh just from driving around there's approximately six parking stalls here. Uh they're showing two. So that would be a slight reduction in four parking stalls and then there are 22
stalls on this side of Ry's way currently. They are showing 19 with this proposal. So an additional three there. Uh but they are providing those 41 spaces within the garage that I mentioned. And then just a bit of additional information about the
proposed hotel. It's uh five stories at the lowest grade to the tallest point uh approximately 68 ft there and then adjacent to the Winchester and Ry building at grade around that area it's more closer to 55 ft.
So here is the perspective from the south if you're looking north. This is the Winchester and Rye building and then this is the Hotel Victoria in the background. And then here is from the opposite vantage point. If you were on the north side looking south towards
Highway 5, uh this would be that tallest point here uh where you could see all five stories. So for the zoning and comprehensive plan, it's currently zoned central business district and guided downtown mixed use in our comprehensive plan.
Commercial uses are allowed in both of those districts. Hotels are a conditional use as well as building heights over 50 feet. So, both of those would require conditional use permits. That would come back to the plane commission and city council for consideration.
It is also within 1,000 ft of Stiger Lake. Like I mentioned, um commercial uses in the Shoreland Overlay District also require conditional use permit. So, uh we anticipate three conditional use permits coming forward if they proceed. Uh, this property is also subject to the
80% maximum impervious requirement in our shoreland overlay district. We did meet with our DNR area hydraologists and the applicant to discuss alternatives for variance to increase over 80% impervious for this project, including
uh methods of storm water mitigation such as underground tanks um and catch basins. and the DNR uh area hydraologists did not express any specific concerns over going that route, but is just a note for the plane commission that a variance would be
anticipated to exceed that 80% impervious for this project. Then looking at the building materials, lighting and signage, uh that will be required with an official submittal of a site plan and building materials application in the future where we'll
take a closer look at our central business district design standards and the proposed exterior materials for the building. Uh still early where we don't know uh locations of proposed lighting with this plan. So we'll need to see that in the future as well. And then
lastly, we did take uh a glance at signage. Really, we noticed that wall signage for the building uh exceeds the 160 ft maximum requirement. So that will need to be addressed in future submittals to reduce the proposed
signage for the project. Looking at landscaping and tree preservation, they do not have any landscaping shown at this time. We expect that to come forward with preliminary plat mills as well. And just a note, our central business district is exempt from open space and minimum
planting requirements, but they will have to provide for boulevard trees and foundation plantings around the building where it's practical and comply with any of our tree preservation requirements. Looking at the streets, parking, and the
drive aisles, they are proposing to expand Ry's way here. There's a pinch point here to the north which they would uh increase from 18 ft to 20 ft. So they would be widening Ry's way a little bit. And then for our parking requirements,
hotels need one space per room with an additional 20% of the occupancy or or for a condo or or a club, not a condo or lodge. In this case, they're not proposing a club or lodge. So, their requirement is 46 parking stalls.
They're showing 41, as I mentioned, within the parking garage. And as I mentioned, there are also 28 existing stalls on Randy's Way and Stiger Lake. With those minor modifications, they would still meet the 46 parking stalls
requirement for this project. But additionally to that, they have a plan to provide some interim parking offsite on a property uh close by just off of Highway 5. It's in between the Old National Bank site and the Butcher's
Deli. So, they are proposing to stripe this area to provide additional parking to service the hotel as well as the rest of downtown in the interim. Um they would be providing 66 parking stalls with this plan. Uh, but they also have
plans for potential redevelopment of this site as well. I included it in the case report and showing you here how that site could potentially redevelop based on their plans. They are showing proposed condos and retail with an underground parking garage with capacity
of up to 112 stalls that would accommodate any overflow parking for the hotel and the new condos and retail. So all the parking here would be able to accommodate both projects. Um and then just for a note, this is a
future sketch. This is not anything we're providing formal review on tonight. This is just helpful context for the plan commission to acknowledge what this site could be in the future after that parking goes away. So, looking at pedestrian connections,
they are showing 8-ft sidewalks on the west side and then some uh patio pavers here for an outdoor plaza on the north side of the building. The east portion does not have a proposed sidewalk just because with bumper overhang of the
vehicles here would be uh too close and not wide enough to accommodate a sidewalk. And then just regarding pedestrian connections as well, the Lake Minnitonka Regional Trail is nearby that I mentioned and the applicant is also exploring that use of a valet service
for their garage and the interim parking area for their guests as well as bike rental services for their hotel guests. So parkland dedication, we do not require parkland dedication for
commercial projects less than an acre in size. So, we don't anticipate any land or fee dedication with this proposal. And we already have all sorts of amenities nearby in our downtown, including Bayfront Park and our the uh
the Lake Mitanka Regional Trail. Again, so with that, I will pass it to Amanda. >> Um so, with this project, again, it's within the Minia Creek wershed district. Um I believe the applicant has already started conversations with them regarding any requirements as part of
devel redeveloping this site. Um no impacts to wetlands and then uh just as an FYI that this propertyy's outside that downtown regional storm water system based on grades the water wouldn't drain to that regional basin. Um, so then as part of utilities, there
is a water and sanitary sewer stub already available from Stiger Lake Lane on the north side um as highlighted on the screen before you that would be available uh for this building to connect into. And then with sketch plats, I'd like to just throw a few questions up in the
case report and up on the screen for plan commission to consider as they discuss this property. So, I've highlighted those questions here for you again as you consider and discuss with the applicant about their proposed uh
lastly, next steps. Uh this is also tentatively scheduled to go to our city council on January 26, but this will be part of the workshop meeting beginning at 5:00 p.m. So, not part of the regular agenda. And again, the public may attend if interested for that, but there won't
be any comments taken during that meeting. And if they receive favorable feedback, we anticipate preliminary plat submitts to come shortly after. >> Very good. >> Thank you, Brian and Amanda. Does the applicant wish to speak?
>> Thank you. We were are very excited that we are able Mary Meson 7929 Victoria Drive and I'm one of the owners of the Victoria crearyy and today we have Jennifer Kading who's an architect with us Tom
Almquist one of the owners and Matt Pavoc was civil engineer. Um, we were able since we sent submitted the uh proposal to you, Jennifer was able to work on the elevations of the building and um, and so that was just something
that we wanted to address here. We were able to bring it down to under the 50 ft from from Tower Boulevard. As you look at the building straight ahead, we do have um a model to show you of the entire downtown so you can see the
elevations and how the hotel would look um in relationship to the other buildings and it is also matched with topography. So you can uh tell that we've married the hotel to the land um
from just having show this when you're coming into the downtown here. Here's the current Winchester Drive and here is the hotel
that sits above and um at this point we are no taller than the Rich Ganon proposal that's before you. Um, and with our walk out in the back of the hotel, which is very nice to see all all four
sides of this project, but when you look at the walk out on the back, um, instead of doing this all in block like you'll see in other projects in the downtown, it's actually got a small
front lobby, etc. So, you feel like you're walking down a, you know, a street way with a shop. Um, in order to get the full vis, you would have to be way out in the lake, you know, to see it. So the only
difference from the Ganon proposal to our proposal um is that is that uh we've done the facade across the parking garage and but as far as on the level when you view the project this
model will be a good model for you to see because it's done to scale as the height of the different buildings that are going in the And then we are showing you a future proposal just to get your mind to see what can happen. These also lift up and
show all the parking underneath. They also show uh after the meeting you can take a look at them the size of units uh you know and so with the um future proposal we are proposing a very large
1.4 4 acre underground parking garage that would handle the the condominiums and would handle the retail and also the extra I think we have approximately 58 public parking spots there too. Uh so we
find that very helpful. The hotel we would like you to know that we think it's such a great asset for the community uh for the businesses in the downtown. We all want these wonderful mom and pops where we have these, you
know, boutique clothing, eye stores. Um, we have where we want to have art stores and bookstores and currently there's it's it's a struggle for them to survive. We've had a lot of them leave in the last year. Uh we've gone to our
group has gone and interviewed uh we've talked to uh we went to Hastings, met with the owner of the hotel at called the Confluence. The mayor shared with us that their town stores really boomed
once they got that hotel in. And because people come with their pocketbooks and a little bit of time to shop and so it can be a huge uh economic boost for your small shops. They don't have to rely just on the local and that is a really
important thing to know. Uh we also went to Still Water and toured those hotels. We've been to um up up north and taken a look um at hotels there. So we've had and also to Weisetta to the landings and
at each of these we've met with different people and gotten their comments which was very helpful. At Confluence the hotel manager is a 30-year Marriott hotel person and he redlined our plan and gave us all kinds
of great things. We've done that with four or five other hotel groups. So the plan that we're presenting has been well gone through and um we're working with Leisure Hotel Company for the management and they also work very hard to make
sure that the project can be successful. And so with all of our local businesses, with the wineries, with the park, we just see it as a wonderful addition to downtown Victoria. It is 46. So, it's a very boutique. Most boutiques you try to
achieve 50. We're at 46 rooms. Um, we're going to have it for the area residents, the area businesses. They've requested it uh for them to be host business meetings. And then we have Bavaria Downs on our border and they also would like
to have hotel space. So with that, I'm available for any questions and I hope at the end of the meeting we can show you this so you get a really great visual. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Uh I'll now open the floor to the planning commission to
discuss raise any questions, concerns of the developers uh as well. >> Yeah, I'll jump in. Um Mary on the um the concept you you had the meeting
rooms and conference space on that first floor. Is that going to be uh public access or is that only for the hotel residents to book rooms? >> We're looking at for the meeting space
um and the hotel lounge etc. That is for the hotel guests. >> Okay. And so um yeah it is set up for the hotel guests the conference center or the area where we can have corporate meetings that again would be something
that really helps for Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. We have a lot of corporations in the area. It's a very large demand to be able to have a place um where they can rent out rooms for their executive sales staff, their
marketing team um and all of their other corporate people to host meetings and they the reports have come back after we interviewed them that uh we need a area the size that we put together. >> Okay, so those would be non-residents,
right? the corporations that want to have meetings. >> No, they have to they they actually take the they have to book the hotel. >> Okay. So, >> so the hotel needs to have a place for them to have a conference and to be able to bring in their sales their people. They come as like a a conference.
>> Okay. So, you're not talking about local >> businesses wanting to have some meeting space. >> They need to take a space at the hotel and it will be local. They do it. I mean, they bring in people, their executives, etc. But they have to book a room. >> They have to book rooms. Yes.
>> I can't drive over from Chaska and have a meeting. >> Um, you know, at this point we've left it to the hotel because it's a hotel facility. Um, it's treated differently if it's not part of the hotel with your parking and that makes it very difficult
to be able to do it. >> And that you just nailed my next question. Um if if it is um nonre nonoccupant meetings that you know from somebody from Chesa wants to have a group meeting
or whatever meeting >> they're going to take up some of those parking spots and are we going to have enough parking if we need a parking spot for all 46 rooms that was my concern. I don't know if there's a enough excess parking
that those rooms could be made available. >> Yeah, that is why we went and we have under contract the one one of the largest lots in Victoria which is the Hartman lot uh right next to the bank and your exact question is why we went
and put that under contract so that you saw the 66 additional spaces. So if if there is any overflow needed, we have a lot of extra parking now available for it. And that is how a lot of the hotels
work. You know, you drop your car, they valet it over sometimes a block or two away. It's a very common practice. >> Okay. Can you then help me understand what what is interim about the Hartman 66 spots? The interim piece about that
and I'm going to demonstrate this on this uh model that we have uh is that we can't do both of these simultaneously. Our goal is to create the hotel, make sure we have plenty of parking and then our goal is to work with the city and
get the next project done which would move all that parking underground. And so, um, we'll be able to pull this model up and show you that you're asking what the interim part is.
Okay. You will be able to see that when this piece is done, we're looking at this being all underground parking and it will show you. So, the interim part is until this project is done, we have plenty of parking. it surface and and then eventually
>> and then we have a plan to pull it all underneath. >> Okay. Gotcha. >> One one quick followup question on the on the 41 spots that will be underground or at the first level of the hotel. Uh presumably those are paid spots. >> Yes,
>> we haven't determined that yet. Those are this is it's a private parking garage just for the hotel. >> That was my next question. >> Yeah, because we have to host the hotel guests. So the valet people are pulling them in, parking them, lining them up how they're going to leave them. They manage the cars. Got it.
>> Uh but but the um you know, we we don't have that for you. It is uh to make sure that it isn't taken by public parking. We're actually providing that underground parking to really to hold just the hotel people. >> Got it. And as you know better perhaps
than anyone here, parking is the holy grail in Victoria. >> Yes, it is. Yes. >> And so what are we going to do for people like employees of the hotel >> to park and other people that might be visiting guests of the hotel? >> Are we going to I'm just worried about
compounding the parking problems that we might have especially as we build out downtown west as well. >> Yes. Well, um just going to the ordinate the the parking your parking requirements when it calls out that it needs 46 for a hotel. That would be at
like a full capacity. They're looking at if there's a car per room and your ordinance already takes into account that hotels are not occupied 100% all the time. Our numbers are all done on 65%. That's what was required of us to
do. Um, so your your your rules have set that it's one car per room. Some people Uber, some people will take a limo. Um, you know, some are going to be, you know, work with however
they do it. Uh but as just as an extra caution, that is why we're going to take the land that we have under contract and we're going to create the 66 parking spots above and beyond. >> And when you So when you talk about
employees, your parking requirements are already covering that. um you know what we would do uh and what we would encourage all the businesses to do you know I mean if we can get employees to park down at the away from the the
business center that's the best when we have this underground parking or the parking the 66 spots they would be encouraged to park there and uh and be able to walk on over. So we have the spots. >> Okay. Okay.
>> Yep. A boutique hotel is ran with like three employees, too. Just so you know. I just want you to know uh with the numbers there there aren't a lot of employees at any one time. >> You've already addressed the um the height concern that I had uh with the Monarch project as you referenced. Uh
>> yes, >> one of the feedback items for them was to make sure that they were not in excess of 50 feet. So, I think that's something that all of us on the planning commission hold dear as a principle to try to keep that small town feel and not not let big buildings kind of eclipse
the skyline. Um, the other feedback we gave them was to not exceed 90% impervious. Is that something that we can manage for this project? >> I'd have to ask Matt >> Matt Pavoc with civil engineering. >> Oh, very good. Thank you.
Hello, chair, planning commission. Matt Pavick with Civil Sight. Um so the way we're addressing imperous surface coverage here is to address uh through storm water management. So um we've met with the watershed district and the DNR representative to talk about this. The
site's such a size that it really isn't feasible to just reduce the size of the hotel to leave green space. So what we're doing instead is we're creating a storm water system that's going to be the equivalent of green space. So we would do the math that says uh here's what the runoff would be from an 8020
site and uh here's the storm water management facility that we need to put in to make it equivalent at the end of the day. So the concept there is uh in the spirit of of the purpose of of that 80% requirement and then we'll just meet that working with the wershed and the DNR.
>> Very good. Thanks Matt. Other questions or comments? Uh the only comment I had was when I was looking at the plans initially, um I was looking at the meeting space that was on I believe the second floor uh room 223. It didn't
really look like there was an ADA accessible entrance to that area. And I just want to make sure that like as people bring in other guests that everyone would be able to get to all meeting spaces. >> Yeah, we will be following the requirements of the law that shows what
has to have ADA. So we have numer you know we have several meeting spaces so they'll let us know. Perfect. Thank you. >> Any plans to use that meeting space for like weddings? >> No, not for weddings.
>> I just think about the parking thing specifically for that use. >> No, >> the varia downs. They host the weddings. >> Okay. >> We've talked about a reduction in parking from 46 to 41, but we're also losing was it four street parking spots? Is that correct? Or is it two?
>> Uh, Commissioner Graham, it's seven. So, it's four on Stiger Lake Lane on the north side and then three on Ry's Way to the east. >> Understood. >> For the valet, do you have to be a hotel staying person to use it or would people
be able to use the valet and go to Winchester and Ry or? >> No, the valet is just for the hotel guests. So, this is not an expansion of Winchester and Ry. This is for a hotel and so that is for hotel guests. You
pull up, your car is parked and put underground in the parking garage. >> The site plan that's up on the screen right now doesn't seem to indicate there's a park or a sidewalk, excuse me, along Ry's way, but another plan I saw did. I just wanted to make sure that there there is plan to have a sidewalk.
>> There is not a plan to have a sidewalk along Ry's way. >> Okay. Another drawing kind of showed space where it looked like there was >> on the other it's on the It's on the other side of the street. >> Okay. >> You know, so if you're talking about on our side, but it's on the other side of the street. >> One of the drawings just showed space for it. So I was just curious. One of
the floor plans. >> It's on the opposite side of the street. >> That sidewalk does not extend up to Winchester right now. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. So on the right side, it's it's going to
be right up to the building parking. >> Correct. >> And when Winchester and Rye was built, >> we reviewed all of that. They did not have a they said they were not putting a sidewalk on that side, the east side of our building. So that was all built
without a sidewalk per the planning commission and council in the previous. So, this is just consistent because the sidewalk is on the other side of Randy Way. >> I guess the only other question I had was on the south elevation. Is that
fenestration or is it masonry detailing? It's kind of large rectangular decorative >> art deco look. >> Yeah. >> Is that is that a masonry detail or is that >> it's a metal detail? Okay. >> So, there's no glazing on the south elevation.
When you say glazing >> windows or >> on the south elevation, can you pull it up so we can show? >> Yeah. And >> read my mind. That was going to be my question. Yeah. But yes, this is a metal detail.
>> Sure. >> And it's got all >> Okay. So that's I guess my question is there is no windows on the south elevation above >> which is right. Okay. I guess that would be one comment for me is I understand facing the lake, but if there's an opportunity to also address the the
community, the city would be a nice thing to see. >> Yeah, that's really good input. Yeah. Thanks. Thank you. >> Commission. Any other comments, questions?
If not, this does not require a formal motion or action on behalf of the planning commission. So, thank you Mary and and to others who presented this forward looking at the 3D uh models that you provided to us as well. Uh moving on
then to the miscellaneous uh section of our agenda. Any reports from staff? >> Thank you, chair and commissioners. Um yeah, so looking ahead, our next meeting is scheduled for it's a Wednesday if you
may recall back during our calendar discussion. Um there's a caucus on Tuesday, February 3rd. So our next meeting will be on Wednesday, February 4th. So, update your calendars if you have not done so already. Um, and then
just to prepare ahead of that meeting, I think I'm going to reach out to you all individually to schedule one-on-one meetings to discuss the Bell Maple Farm proposal and answer any questions that you might have based on the discussion and feedback we received that evening. So, check your emails. I'll send
something out tomorrow. >> Very good. Thank you. >> Thank you, Brian. Any reports from the commission on miscellaneous items? If not, uh, there are no more items this evening. Can I ask for a motion to adjurnn? >> Make a motion to adjurnn. >> We have a motion. Is there a second?
>> Second. >> Very good. Motion and a second. All those in favor? >> I. >> I. Any opposed? Thank you. Motion carries. We are now adjourned.