Get rocking. >> Okay. Good evening everyone. I'll now call our meeting to order. Our first agenda item tonight is open forum. Open forum is an opportunity uh for anyone to address the commission on an item that is not on tonight's agenda and not
scheduled for a future uh meeting date. Is there anyone tonight that wishes to address the planning commission in an open forum context? Okay, seeing no one, we'll now move on to adopting the final agenda. Commissioners, our next agenda item is
to adopt the final agenda, which you've all seen. May I have a motion to adopt the agenda? Motion to adopt the final meeting agenda. >> Thank you, Commissioner Rias. And second, second. We have a second. All those in favor? I >> I. >> Any opposed? Thank you. Motion carries.
Our first and only item tonight, um substantive item, uh anyway, is item 4.1. Uh excuse me. Uh second, uh the first of two is to approve the planning commission meeting minutes from our last planning commission, which was January
20, 2026. Commissioners, may I have a motion to approve those minutes? >> Motion to approve. >> Thank you, Commissioner Bean. We have a motion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. Motion carries. We'll move on. So, our
next item is item 4.2. Consider a minor subdivision reszoning and comprehensive plan amendment for 8675 County Road 3. This item does include a public hearing. So, after a staff presentation, I'll open the public hearing for those in the
chambers this evening that wish to speak on this request. Anyone who does wish to speak will be allowed three minutes to address the commission. And I'd ask you to identify yourself and your and your address. Uh we'll give everyone who wishes to speak a chance to um to have
their time. Um and then I'll ask the planning commission for a motion to close the discussion and then the planning commission will have a chance to discuss. Um for for the benefit of the audience members um that is not an opportunity for a give and take as much
as for members of the community to express their views on a on the public hearing. Um so with that uh I'll turn it over to city planner Brian McCann for a staff presentation. Thank you chair and commissioners. Tonight we are looking at
8675 County Road 43. They are coming forward with three requests this evening. A minor subdivision which is actually an administrative approval. So you guys don't typically see those. Uh but it is relevant to their other two requests tonight for the resoning and
the comprehensive plan amendment for the location and existing conditions. Uh as I mentioned it is at 8675 County Road 43. It's about 23 acres in size consisting of significant wetland coverage and tree coverage as well as
some small pockets of elevation on the site. Uh it is adjacent to the Deer Run neighborhood to the east. You can see here near Ridgewood Drive as well as Wasserman Lake to the south, the Big Blue area. Then the Gallery at Victoria
to the north and county road 43 to the west. Uh there is one existing single family home on this property down towards uh the shoreline with Wasserman Lake and they share a private driveway
access with the adjacent property owner for the minor subdivision process. Their first application that I mentioned this is taken directly out of our municipal code. It has to do with these highlighted portions portions here as
it's relative to the request tonight. Uh a relatively small and minor subdivision in a locality where conditions are well defined and the intent is to create four or fewer lots uh that do not cause any other portion of the zoning code to be
in violation. And that the city as the acting body shall not approve more than four new lots from a parcel in a three-year period. So this is the overall minor subdivision that was submitted consisting of uh the
existing parcel here, parcel 5, three new buildable parcels, parcel one here adjacent to county road 43, then two new parcels here, and then parcel two, which consists of those wetlands, which is intended to be deed to the city um as a
non-developable lot. So there'll only be two home sites on this subdivided property in addition to the existing one. >> Three. >> So Yep. So one parcel here. Uh that's a new one. >> Then this will be basically an outlot.
>> Yep. >> Then these would be two additional new lots. Parcel three, parcel four, and then the existing home parcel >> five. Missed parcel three. >> Got it. So yeah, that's just a zoomed in version showing those parcel breakups of three,
four, five, each being 2 acres or larger. And then looking at the zoning and comprehensive plan, it is currently zoned agricultural and guided low density in our 2040 comprehensive plan, which you're well aware requires a density of 2 and a/4 to six units per
acre. As I mentioned, they are proposing three new units um or three new lots. the existing lot and the two new ones are proposed to connect to sewer that's available near Ridgewood Drive and then
the one parcel up near County Road 43 would connect with septic and well so private utilities up there as we look at our comprehensive plan and sewer extension specifically with the metropolitan council we have to look at the density for that area um as I
mentioned there's a lot of tree coverage on this site So the only disturbed area for these new lots and the existing lot that would actually utilize the sewer extension is about.8 units per acre. So
3 and 75 acres of disturbed area. Um and then a resoning is required. So, I do have a draft ordinance that was attached to your case this evening to reszone it from agricultural to R1, which is our typical single family lowdensity district.
As part of a resoning, we look at the bulk standards of all the newly created lots. So, as you can see, this proposed subdivision well exceeds our minimum requirements in our R1 district. The only thing we don't know is the size of
the homes, but 1,800 square ft is a fairly modest sized home. So, it's expected that any homes that go on these new parcels would be larger than that. For the comprehensive plan amendment, as
I mentioned, we're only looking at areas that are impacted by the sewer extension. So, that involves parcels three, four, and five. That's where that 3.75 unit or acres of disturbed area comes into play. So with that, they need
a comprehensive plan amendment for a lower density than what could be developed out there at 8 units per acre where our minimum guidance for that area right now is 2 and a quarter. So they have to get the comprehensive plan amendment to get the sewer extension
from the metropolitan council. Um, and that's subject to their administrative review process, which would occur generally about 75 days after council approval. For the shoreland overlay district, it
is within 1,000 ft of Wasserman Lake. As I mentioned, it has an area that shares shoreline with it. Single family homes are permitted uses within the Shoreland district as long as they meet the minimum requirements listed here of 20,000 square foot lot size, 125 ft
minimum lot width, and a maximum 25% impervious. Uh based on the plans that staff has reviewed, all of those requirements are being met for the new lots. They're also not proposing any impacts to steep slopes or bluff lands. And these would be custom graded lots
trying to disturb uh the minimum amount of area as possible for grading and tree clearing. Moving on to tree preservation. Uh as I mentioned, they're trying to limit tree removal as much as possible. So the red
trees within this area are the only trees being impacted. You can see there are still a significant number of trees being retained um in this area. So they are removing less than 20% so there's no
additional mitigation required. Looking at our fire department review this is where it gets a little interesting. So Ridge Ponds Drive as shown here in the red is essentially one long culdeac right now uh without an
additional access point. So, our fire department needs an additional access in this area for this proposed subdivision. And the way that we can require that is due to the resoning and the comprehensive plan amendment. Those are discretionary items. So, the plan
commission and city council have the authority um to make that decision as long as it meets all of the city's minimum requirements and uh anything additional that we're asking for. The emergency access would be one item in
this case. Uh and then Ridgewood Drive, which terminates here, where they are proposing two of those homes would get access from, was always intended to be a public street extension that somehow connected to County Road 43 in the future. Due to the wetlands out there, a
full public road just isn't possible without extreme wetland um impacts. So this is the viable option that our fire department was comfortable with to get necessary emergency access out there. And then that access would be gated and
only used in the event of emergencies. They also did have two additional comments. Uh one regarding the orientation of the temporary turnaround they have here. They just need to have wider ends to meet the dimensional
requirements for their fire trucks. And then also the way that it connects to the private driveway would also have to be reoriented so it comes in at more of an angle so that it's easier for fire trucks to make that turn. A 90° turn
just isn't as easy uh as shown here. So for the private street and access, as I mentioned, they have a private stub shown here coming off of the public street, Ridgewood Drive. Uh the proposed Hammerhead would only service those
parcels three and four. 8675 County Road 43 would still retain their driveway connecting to County Road 43. And then parcel one, this one up near County Road 43 would just utilize that shared driveway for their access as well. Um
the public works and engineering staff are taking a closer look at this. there's potential that they may prefer this to just be a public culde-sac instead. Uh so that's something that we are working in uh future comments for the applicant to consider moving
forward. Then for parkland dedication, these are for single family homes that haven't had parkland dedication required in the past since they haven't gone through a platting process. um the applicant is
not exempt from parkland dedication even though they are splitting their lot because they're creating new homes that will use parkland in the future. So um as part of our standard review for that, we've determined that they would have to provide less than a fifth of an acre or
about $19,600 in cash towards parkland dedication for this. And they're not proposing any parks with this. So it's expected that a cash fee in lie of land would be coming for that. Then for wetlands and storm water
management, it is subject to Minhaha Creek wershed district's rules and regulations. So impacts to some wetlands are anticipated. So the applicant will need to work with MCWD. They are aware of the project. Uh they just aren't um
fully involved with MCWD yet. So that has to be worked through before the city would sign off on the minor subdivision. And then as I mentioned earlier, parcel 2, that large wetland piece would be dedicated to the city for preservation.
Then I broke up the utilities here into a few different slides to take it parcel by parcel because each one is unique. So, this very first one up near County Road 43, technically there are utilities available off of Gallery Parkway to the
north, but you get here and it is a steep drop. So, it's not possible to actually get the utilities down the hill engineered appropriately to service um a property here with utilities. So, that's
why they are proposing a septic and well lot here. And then looking at parcels three and four, those would use city sewer and water. So the sewer um this is the private stub here. The
sewer is actually down the shared property line further to the south. So they're proposing to bring the sewer up uh which would service the existing home at 8675 and the new two new homes. But the water is available on Ridgewood
Drive right now. Uh it's my understanding the applicant might not be interested in connecting his home to water. Um so only parcels three and four, the two new ones would utilize water. And then last one, existing 8675. As I
mentioned, they're only proposing to connect to the sewer, not the water. We do require in our code that if sewer is available, they have to connect to it. um because of public sanitary safety reasons, but water is not a requirement. That is up to individual property
owners. So, since this is adjacent to Carver County Road 43, we also did submit this to Carver County Transportation for review. We're awaiting formal comments. We haven't got anything back yet, but we
did receive a general note that they don't anticipate any large impacts from the additional single home that would utilize this access. So, we'll see what they say, but uh it's anticipated to be minor.
So, why are we looking at a minor subdivision instead of a preliminary plat? I thought it would be helpful to highlight for the commission uh what would need to happen if they were interested in developing at those 2 and a/4 to six units per acre per our guidance. They would still need to go
through the reszoning process to guide it from egg to R1 low density. In that case, there actually wouldn't be a comprehensive plan amendment required, but they would have to have a formal review with a residential shore land
planned unit development with the DNR. And um for that to happen, they would need to lower the standards most likely uh to create the number of lots that are necessary to meet our comp plan guidance. So, for example, they have a
bunch of 2acre lots out there. Those would probably be reduced to a third of an acre lots with 80 foot lot with. So that would be a deviation that the DNR would have to approve in that case. And then there would be additional homes being generated out here. So additional
traffic for the deer run neighborhood and some additional tree loss and grading activity would also occur. So tree preservation standards would be higher elevated. they would have to plant more trees or provide more in the
city's tree fund per our fee schedule. And then just generally additional costs for the private uh property owner and for um anyone who they work with to formalize a formal preliminary plat application.
And then also just worth noting that emergency access would still be required with anything else that did come forward. So, we did advertise this in the January 22nd edition of the Waconia Patriot for public hearing this evening. We also
mailed it to property owners within 350 ft of the property boundaries. It was posted online and at city hall. We did receive one comment prior to the agenda being publishing stated opposition to the proposed subdivision citing concerns
of reduced property values, deforestation, and potential danger to the existing neighborhood residents in Deer Run. We also received one written comment after the agenda was published in support of the request and simply asking to retain the existing driveway
easement that is shared with the property owner at County Road 43. So with that, um, we do have some things that do need to be worked out still. These aren't formal conditions, but these are things that staff has to do on
the back end as part of our minor subdivision review. As I mentioned, it's an administrative action, so you guys aren't making any formal recommendations on the minor subdivision. Only the reasonzoning and the comp plan amendment tonight. These are all just things that we have to check off from our list,
including the reasonzoning approval by council, the approval of the comprehensive plan amendment by the Met Council, and then those fire comments that I mentioned earlier regarding the hammerhead size, the emergency access orientation to reduce those sharp turns.
We also want to make sure that the newly created lots have our standard uh 10-ft front yard and rear yard drainage and utility easements and our 6-foot uh sideyard easements in place as well as any proposed utilities placed within
drainage and utility easements or public rightway. Then also verification that septic and well will work for that parcel one. Um and then execution of an access easement for the fire department to use that
emergency access in the future. Uh also further review of those public private street connections. As I mentioned, it can be potentially tricky with snow clearing out there and they also are showing a proposed retaining wall within the right of way on Ridgewood Drive.
Also the Carver County and MCWD review and approval. They also will have to do a development agreement with the standard development fees and letter of credit because they are providing public utilities out here. So, um that's all
that I have really. I have some next steps for consideration by anyone who's watching the meeting or attending in person tonight. Our plan commission is making a recommendation this evening. It goes to the city council. Uh the anticipated meeting is for Monday,
February 9th, beginning at 6:30. The public may attend, but comments will likely not be taken during that meeting. The public hearing tonight is really your opportunity uh to get up and state opposition or support for this request. Uh and then lastly, if they do receive
approval from council on Monday, it still has to go through our comp plan amendment process with approval by the metropolitan council. And then after that, uh, staff will go back and make sure all these items are being addressed as part of our minor subdivision review.
So with that, I have a sample motion for you on the screen. Commissioners, and the applicant is in the audience tonight if you have any questions for him or myself. >> Thank you, Brian. Appreciate that comprehensive presentation. Before we open the public hearing, does the
applicant wish to speak? >> Introduce myself. >> Sure. >> I think he covered it pretty well. Neil Clinkitz, owner of the property. Um, basically we were trying to preserve trees just like uh well, not everybody else, but anyways. And so we connected
down. We could have had way more, you know, eight, nine lots in there. And then basically what I'm trying to do is get two of my kids want to move up there. So I'm going to split it off and get get a spot for them to build a house. So hopefully it works out that way.
>> Very good. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Um, I'll now open the public hearing. Is there anyone in chambers this evening who wishes to comment on this agenda item, >> please? And again, please state your name and your address. >> Something just to read.
>> Sure. >> And I appreciate what he's trying to do for his family. Um, my name is David Stark. I live at 8820 Ridge Pond Drive, uh, directly adjacent to where all this work is potentially going to be done. Um, I here respectfully to ask commissioners to consider potentially
denying the requested comprehensive plan amendment and resoning. Uh, this property has reached its residential carrying capacity and adding three additional homes represents a potential overdevelopment of a sensitive site that threatens potentially threatens our local environment. The applicant uses
the property's total 23 acres to claim a low density project. However, the agenda report clarifies that the actual distributed area, the only buildable dryland, is just 3.75 acres. By adding three new lots to the existing homes, the developer is adding a five home cluster onto a tiny footprint. This is
not necessarily a true conservation. It is a high density cluster hidden behind a wetland. We should not amend our comprehensive plan just to accommodate a project that's uh that the land's natural constraints can't necessarily support. Uh I am also concerned about
preemptive clearing that has occurred over the last three years. The report claims 8.2 18.2% 2% removal rate which is uh below the 20% threshold for mandatory mitigation. However, the applicant has already really removed a lot of stumps and burn debris and
standard ground survey is no longer reliable. Uh we've observed this over the past three years. I would ask that the commission potentially consider delaying the vote till independent audit is performed using 2023 satellite imagery as a baseline. Further, I'd like to ask the city to verify if the
necessary open burning permits were were obtained for the massive clearing that has already been conducted over the past couple of years. The property is within 1,000 ft of Waserman Lake as was stated and contains significant wetlands and serve as a vital habitat cluster development on the only dryland
fragments of the corridors pro sorry cluster development on the only dryland fragments of corridors used by protected wildlife. I'd like to ask the commission if a formal national heritage information system review has been completed to check for rare or endangered species. Additionally, the report admits extending city services to
the northern lot is not feasible. If the infrastructure cannot support the full site, then this subdivision is potentially premature. In conclusion, the loss of mature canopy, inconsistent utility planning, and the overcrowding of a sensitive site potentially outweigh any benefit. Um, I'd like to uphold our
original agricultural zoning and consider denying the request. Thank you, Mr. Stark. Appreciate your input. Is there anybody else who would like to speak? You're welcome to if you have.
All right, last call. If not, I'll ask for a motion to uh close the public hearing. >> Motion to close the public hearing. >> Thank you, Commissioner Sakura. Um, is there a second? >> Second. >> Have a motion and a second. All those in favor of closing the public hearing,
>> I. Any opposed? Thank you. Motion carries and the public hearing is now closed. I'll now open the floor for the planning commission to discuss. Commissioners any questions or comments including any questions for the applicant? >> I have a couple um Brian
parcel one that has I mean that's got a house on it now, right? Am I not reading it right? uh chair and commissioners. Uh parcel one does not in the images here that's just some
vehicles and equipment. Um the actual house itself is down near the south end of the property. I'm trying to get to an aerial. So here's the house all the way down at the end. This is parcel one all the way up here which is vacant.
>> So the well and and sewer would be new. >> Correct. put on that prop to to service a house that would potentially be built on that. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Is is there not a way Sorry to interrupt. Is there not a way to get um
the water and sewer from Duck Trail across Church Lake? >> Across 43, you mean? >> Right. >> Yeah. >> Um chair and commissioners, I'm not sure that we evaluated that. That's something
we can certainly look into. Uh we just looked at this because this was the obvious connection without having to go through a county road to do that, but maybe if they are available there, there's some potential to do that as well. >> Elevation may be more advantageous. And
is there uh city water and sewer at the uh is it the blessing house or that next >> establishment down there? >> No. Um chair and commissioners, this is another private lot. Charlie, it's further west. It's across from the duck trail connector.
>> Uh it says the blessing house on my map, but I don't know if that's >> I think that's this property right here that you can barely see. Let me pull up a map. >> I think you're right. >> Um yeah, it would obviously cost more to
bring utilities further for them to do that just to serve a single parcel, but that's certainly an option as well. >> Yeah. And that's a public boat landing. >> Correct. >> Ryan, am I correct that um if if we
were, for example, to deny the applicant's request, he could go back and sell the land to a developer who would put far more houses on this property. Is that correct? >> Yeah, chair and commissioners, that's
correct. Someone could always come back and um work with the property owner to purchase the property to put more homes out there. Uh staff did see earlier renderings of a possible seven or eight lot subdivision out here. So, there's
always potential that plan could work. Um obviously that has higher utility costs and the applicant doing this on his own um obviously wasn't willing to take on that much financial responsibility.
>> Understood. And the private road as it exists now that would remain in roughly the same place. >> Correct. >> And would it remain private? >> Correct. >> Okay. And and not paved or paved? >> Paved. >> Okay. So, they are going to pave it, which would seem an upgrade over what it
is today. I don't think it's paved, not mistaken. >> Are um commissioners >> driveway going in? >> Oh, the driveway going in. The private driveway will remain gravel as it is right now. I thought you were referencing the private street
connection here. That would be >> um paved, but the remaining emergency access road and the driveway would be gravel is my understanding. Okay, that's useful. Thank you. Um, and do we have any indication yet from the Met Council
on whether they're likely to to approve the comprehensive plan amendment? >> I do not have any insight. >> Seems like a big question mark uh to me. Although I think given the sensitivity uh of this property, as Mr. Stark indicated, we want to do everything as
that we possibly can to preserve the natural beauty of this of this place. And this this is outside the scope of the of the planning commission, but um I find it gracious that he's donating the wetland
area, a large chunk of the wetland area, uh to the city for preservation. And my question uh which may be in scope for the planning commission is whether that would satisfy the park dedication requirement or could be used to satisfy
the parkland dedication requirement even though it's not technically going to be used as a >> public park. Jon commissioners, that's a good question. Um two sections of our code come into play there. The first one is that any proposed subdivision that comes in has to give the city the
wetlands. um because we work with the local watersheds on preservation activities or water treatment activities. Um so that's just a standard requirement that we have in our code. And then secondly,
um it cannot because our code explicitly states that wetlands cannot be counted as parkland dedication areas. >> Is that not discretionary for the city council to excuse that requirement? >> Not to my knowledge. Other questions or comments, commissioners?
>> Yeah, I would just mention that uh it's good to have public comment. Thanks for coming and stating. Um we appreciate it. You don't have an opportunity to go in front of the council, so this is your opportunity and well done. Um, I would also just mention I I don't want to
address you your comments specifically and directly, but that um the comments about a developer coming in could buy the land and uh put a lot higher density on this parcel and quite likely would do that for monetary development reasons.
So, um, as we look through this and see something in our presented to our, uh, commission that's not super high density, it's actually pretty refreshing. So, that's my opinion. Um, so I like to see something with a little less density.
The the neighborhoods to the sides and around it are much higher density, and we don't have that much uh area that's being developed right now with lower density. So, it's well beyond this the um requirements to have that lower density. Um had the same question on the on the
dedication. Well answered. And then um you said Brian that that was going to be a temp a um like a like a drive-thru barricade for fire to go from one side to the other. >> Correct. Yeah. Um, so it's anticipated that
when we see these emergency access coming through in some of our recent developments, it would be gated on both sides. So there would likely be a gate down here and at the end of the private stub there. And then the intent is that
in the event of an emergency, the fire department would be able to just knock that over and replace it easily without having a huge cost to do so. >> Got it. And as it sits that um the ridge ponds drive, how close are they to the max of being too many at the stub for
the fire? >> They are. They are over. >> Yeah. Okay. And to clarify that, this development occurred long before that thousand foot culdeac requirement and the recent fire
code um updates. So at the time it met the requirement but as codes changed and development occurred over time um getting that access is just imperative. >> It's actually an assist in that >> correct
>> in that way. >> If there were an emergency out here, the fire department would have to navigate through the Deer Run neighborhood with sharp turns, lower speeds. Now, with an emergency access being in place, they'd be able to just take County Road 43
directly and get to immediate service out there. >> I would think that would cut the response time considerably. Correct. The applicant is not selling that. He's granting that access >> correct >> to the city. That's for me a huge plus. Uh >> and then it would be gated still to
deter public access as well. >> Understood. >> Very good. Commissioners, any questions? Any additional? >> No, I would just address your your point on the Met Council. Like I feel like we can do what we can do and recommend what we think is right and if for some reason
the Met Council has a problem with it, we would address it then, right? >> Yeah. No, that's that's not our call. You're right. >> Okay. >> Very good. Any other questions, comments? Uh, hearing no additional um
comments, then commissioners, I'd be willing to entertain a motion. >> I'll make a motion to recommend the city council approve the request for 8675 County Road 43 >> as outlined by staff >> with the conditions as well.
>> Right. >> Very good. We have a motion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> All right. All those in favor? >> I >> I. Any opposed? No. All right. Motion carries. Thank you. Um commissioners, um we'll move on to our
uh next and final agenda item uh which is uh reports and emerging issues. Uh any reports from staff, Brian? >> Yeah, chair and commissioners. So, you may have noticed in the council chambers this evening, we do have some new artwork present. So, if you just fill
out that little slip for me uh in front of you to vote on your favorite one, I will pass it off to our city clerk for her art voting. And then secondly, our next regularly scheduled meeting is scheduled for February 17th. We do not
have any items for that agenda. So, we will be cancelling that meeting. So, our next >> You will be >> correct. Yep. The February 17th meeting will be cancelled. Your next meeting will be March 3rd. Very good. And >> that's all from staff. >> Very good. Thank you, Brian. Any reports
from the commission? >> Very good. Commissioners, no more items this evening. Can I ask for a motion to adjurnn? >> So moved. >> Thank you. We have a motion and a second. >> Second. >> Very good. All those in favor? I >> I. Any opposed? Thank you. Motion
carries and we are adjourned. And thanks to those who attended. Thank you, Mr.