Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

and call the meeting to order. Uh the first action item is to we need a motion to approve the agenda. Motion to approve. Second. Uh thank you Sher and Jim. We have a f motion um and a second. All in favor or any all those in favor? I I opposed. Motion carries. Uh we need a motion to approve the December 12th minutes from the planning commission. I need to make There's an error in the minutes. Should we do that now or Okay. Um, in the public hearing section, uh, item number four within the cannabis, it's got Commissioner Thomas closing, making a motion to close and second. And it's actually um, Billy, sorry, Commissioner Thomas made the initial motion and Commissioner Godell seconded it. Did you watch it back? I did. Wow, that was so nice of you. I didn't want you to do it. Well, we wouldn't have caught it. So, um so yeah, if we can just make that. Yes. All right. With that change, I will make a motion to um approve the minutes from the December 12th meeting. I'll second. Thank you, Sherry and Jim. Any further discussion? All in favor? I I opposed. Motion carries. So, new business. We need a motion to appoint the planning commission chair. I'd like to make a motion to appoint Christa Godell as our chair.

You guys are good at this today. Uh taking the screen. Jim and Sherry, thank you. Uh it just seems natural that you fall into the chair. You're sitting there. Um any further discussion? All in favor? I opposed. So that motion carries. We also need a motion to approve the planning commission vice chair. So I will make a motion to approve Sherry as vice chair. Second. Thank you for that quickness. Um, any further discussion? Uh, all in favor? I opposed. So, motion carries. So, Aaron, uh, will you present for us? Yes, you bet. Welcome to a couple new members and new seats tonight. We did interviews and such in March, so we have a couple new members up at the DES tonight. Uh, congrats to Chrissa and Sherry. That means I'll just be calling you more often, which I'm sure you'll look forward to. So, tonight we have a pretty big agenda. We have two concept plans and then a side code discussion. I told a couple people in the back of the room that if they want to leave after the agenda item they're interested in, please feel free. It's a beautiful night. Basketball is on. The sign code is going to be thrilling, but you don't have to listen if you don't want to. It's free cone night at the Dairy Queen, too. Oh, man. That's maybe the best one mentioned. Okay, so let's get started on the Enclave at Carver Creek. So, we are looking at a concept plan tonight. So, some details. We're not looking for a recommendation from the planning commission tonight. It's just feedback and comments to the developer who is in the room tonight. So, they will take notes, feedback, uh take it into consideration. We'll come back with an updated plan should they choose to move forward with the planning process. I also want to note and highlight that this is step one in the process that there are many unknowns with a project.

So, you might have a great idea that we think about tonight and we might not have the answer of will it work, will it not work. We don't know just based on what we know about the project right now. So, we'll take your comments, take your feedback, try it, see if we can figure it out, report back either way. And we're looking tonight for general feedback about a project. So, things you want us to think about should the project move on to preliminary plat. So again, it might be something that we look into and it doesn't work, but I'll be able to say that at the next meeting if they move forward with applications to say, "Hey, we checked it out. It didn't work for XYZ." So any feedback that you have, we'll take into consideration and work with the developer on. So thinking about the Enclave specifically, it's proposed by Dr. Horton, who is in the room tonight. They have a couple projects in town, Meridian Fields and Hawthorne Ridge. Both of those projects started I think in 2018. So it's been a couple years since they've been through our city process, but we're happy to have them back. And the properties we're looking at are formerly the Lensin and then one of the Hammers properties. So if you're familiar with those pretty carver names, those are the properties we're talking about. So there are city utilities available via several stub streets at our current city limits. So one of the steps this project will require is annexation. But we have planned for this project for a long time. All of our utilities are sized appropriately and there are several streets that they can hook into to connect to our greater city system. Project location. So north moving south it's directly adjacent to the preserve which is the Brindle Anderson product and then Timber Creek which is the LAR product. So everything is west of Jonathan Carver Parkway, west of Carver Elementary, Quicktrip etc. The major collector going into the street is Monroe Drive but there's additional accesses. one in the preserve off Old Oak Road. Then Balsam Lane and Timberlane and Timber Creek also connect, but Monroe being that main collector to get traffic in and out of the site effectively. So general

location is there and then the smaller map is our comprehensive plan. So the properties are circled in red. The really light yellow is low density single family. The darker color is higher density single or higher density residential. So this project is residential. I do anticipate that this project will likely seek approval for a PRD or planned residential development because there's likely a mix of housing types with some town homes and then single family homes. So much more to come on how that all shakes out, but I do anticipate that it will likely move through the process that way. Concept plan is on the screen now. So highlights that you might be looking for really quickly. In total, the proposed project tonight is 530 lots. There are 123 45 foot lots into the preserve and old oak road. There are 178 65 foot wide lots. So that's the purple and the orange color moving south. And then the property directly adjacent to 212 on the far west side is 129 town homes. So thinking about our comprehensive plan, you saw single family on the two uh properties, the two lens properties and then higher density on the Hammers property. So in general what we know right now the project is consistent with our comprehensive plan with those two different housing types meshed together at different densities. Some other things to note is that in this project we are uh thinking about a park. So right now it's on the far oops I dropped my pen far south culde-sac here. So, thinking about this area, as you'll recall in Timber Creek, we have that rustic trail similar to the Hawthorne system that's going to loop down on the south side of this project and we'll hook in here and then loop around the park. So, here that's a better view of it. So, this would be that rustic trail from Timber Creek getting people into this park area. So, again, tonight everything is concept.

What is on this plan? Might move forward, might not. We might scratch it all, but you can give us feedback on it. So, a couple park uses are included here. So, it's like a hockey rink, two pickle ball, half basketball, a play structure, and then an active area. So, we'll take some feedback on what you like, what you don't like, what you think could be added. Um, so just general feedback about the addition of a park in this project would also be great tonight. So, like I said, this is step one in the process. The city council is going to do this similar review at their April 7th city council meeting. We need to move through annexation which requires review by the township and review by the city council. Something that the planning commission does not consider but something that's important in the process is an environmental assessment worksheet. So depending on a project size, an environmental assessment or an EAW can be triggered. So if there is believed to be a large impact by a large number of housing units, we need to do an additional environmental review which is called an EAW through the environmental quality board. So it's a state-run process that goes through I say this at city council a lot but it's 21 questions but they are deep questions and they take a lot of research and work. So it looks at things from traffic to air quality. So it studies the built environment and the natural environment. So if there is an endangered species on the property, we'll figure that out. If there is an old burial ground, we will learn about that through the EAW. So I know that one of the first things we always ask about is traffic. So part of an EAW is a traffic study. So they'll get information about numbers of trips, how traffic's anticipated to flow through the the project. The planning commission doesn't review that, but the city council does, and they make a resolution. uh once the city council has made that resolution, I'll bring it back to the planning commission so you can take a look at it, look at the city council's resolution, too. So, an EAW will be part of this process and then we'll move through the typical platting

process of preliminary plat reszoning. Again, I think it'll probably be a PRD, but that's I was going to say TBD, that's too much, but we'll see how it goes. And then final plat. So, I'm going to invite Deb and Mike. Do you want to come up and introduce yourselves? Can you hear us? Do we have to talk really close? You do have to talk really closely, Mike. I'm Deb Rididgeway with Dr. Horton. Hello, I'm Mike Su with Dr. Horton. So, I'll open it up for comments, discussion. Feel free to hit them to me, Erin Schmidt or Dr. Horton. anything opening. So, what's the cut out on the north end in the middle? Uh, it's a property that's not looking to develop right now. Sorry, I stole that one from you. No. Are you talking about this right here? Yeah. Yeah, it's the viller's property here. But you're planning to develop that at some point since you No, we don't we don't have it under contract, but as part of the um layout for the site, the city wanted us to do what's called a ghost plat. And so it plans where access could be if that site were to develop. So on a larger scale, that allows us to size utilities correctly, too. So if we know there's going to be five houses or 200 in a ghost plat, we can think about utilities that way. So question I have is if you're able to disclose how much of the land you actually own this we don't own any of the land right now it's under contract with both the hammers and uh the lens and uh parties

we will not close on the property until we have preliminary plat approval which then would allow us to start grading potentially and um so it would lock in the land use that's what we need in order to close and that's typical. Developers don't typically close until that preliminary plat approval. So, let's say there's a delay in closing of one of the the transactions. Would you wait for both transactions to close or if one closed begin work and then when the second one closes to finish the build out? Currently, they're set up not to close in together. So we'll probably close on the lenses first and then move to the hammers a year to 18 months later. I don't remember the exact dates in the contract, but they're not set up to close together. So we need we need to get lenses obviously to get street and sewer water to Hammer. So there's a little bit of gap in between the two of them, but we want to have an approval over all of it. We know which direction we're headed long term with the city. Do you generally have a phasing plan? Like do you know how many phases it could be? Uh not today, but that's our tomorrow discussion because part of our phasing plan and we're going to meet tomorrow with our engineer acquaintance with James Hill is also here. So we have really tough questions along with us. So we're going to lay out a phasing plan. We'll share that with you. But my guess from his history of doing these there's going to be five to six phases because That's a lot. 500 something is a lot of home sites. We certainly can't bring that much on at one time. So maybe 80 to 100 a year. That gets us somewhere in the five to six year ballpark. Can you just explain um I'm looking at the 45 foot wide lots. Can you just explain to me visually like what those

structures look like because 45 ft to me seems pretty narrow considering our setbacks. They are narrow and it's the mic is off. Thank you. I must have hit it by mistake. Um they are narrower. Um and it's a way for us to to be able to get a more affordable product. Not really affordable, but attainable for a different price point. They generally have two stall garages. So that's how we get the narrower. And we're currently building those houses in Shakipi in High View Park. which is off of 78. 78. Okay. So, twocar garage, couple bedrooms, four bedrooms. They're still four bedrooms. Two story. They're twostory. Um, and these that we are planning right now, we haven't really got into the details of grading, but would be probably slab on grade, which oh, brings the price down even to more attainable when you don't put a basement in them. Uh, so they're four they're like three and four bedrooms. Um, probably about just under 2,000 square ft maybe. Okay. And Aaron, are those 5 foot or 8 foot setbacks from the sides? We don't know yet. We don't know. Ideally, we'd like to go down to five. Um, so we that'll be part of the preliminary plat process. So, those are not considered a villas. They're still considered regular houses. They're just regular detached single family homes. Yep. Okay. Okay. I do have a couple um comments around the bottom left of the parcel. So, my first question is there's like a the black pond there and it looks like there's a street coming into that. Yeah. Is that just an error of the map? No, it's an old railroad corridor. So, I suspect that the pond has changed significantly

since the railroad has been removed from that area. Okay. So, that's a pond. Yes, correct. with no road. No road. Okay. It's It's an easement that we can probably clean up through this process. Uh it's actually owned by the property to the west. Tell me that. So it's not it's not as easy. For some reason when the railroad vacated that land went to the property owner to the west. It's strange. So that's an actual property line. Yes. Yes. Oh wow. So they can have a nice little dock. All right. Okay. Um, and then I it's hard to visualize it, right? Because unless you're out there walking on the land to see what this looks like, but um I'm concerned about the location of the park. So, I feel like it's just kind of down at the bottom and it's an it's a it's just an add-on, you know? It's like the property we got left over and we're just going to shove it down here is what it feels like to me. But I also don't see how the streets are built out for car auto car traffic. If we've got a hockey rink, we have pickle ball courts, baseball courts or basketball courts. We don't have any parking. We don't have the roads designed for car traffic because I think what's happening between these two lots down here seven here 77 and 89. Thank you. Um is a walking path. Correct. So I'm not sure how we're addressing traffic to the park. Uh we're not we're not to be honest with you, but when we laid this out with Kurt, we talked about we probably need a driveway and access to parking, but we thought it'd be better to get feedback from the city and from you folks on what type of programs or facilities are going

to be in the park. Sure. Then we can talk about what makes most sense for a park, parking lot, or drive. you guys will tell us and your staff will tell us as we work through um to better answer your question that you think we just put it there. It used to be up along the highway out there and you walk the site and then and then when you scroll down to the souththeast there's a finger that goes out along the bluff. It's quite beautiful and we thought it would make better use if more people could get out there and enjoy it. And it's I mean it's it's a spectacular view sitting there in that parkland. So we had houses there at one time because they' make some really nice lots. But I was going to say but we I we just think there's some soils stuff down there that makes houses a little bit harder. So we think it would make a excellent park location. I understand it's not as central, but maybe someday we can figure out a way to get some of you out there with the staff and you then you'll understand why the park's going there. I think at least I think. I don't know. We'll see what staff thinks this spring when we go for a walk, but there's no Are you guys thinking like baseball fields or anything like that? No. No. And we don't even know if a hockey rink makes sense, don't maybe from the city maintenance standpoint, it may not make sense. Maybe it's more playground and more open area and place where young folks can go chase butterflies and look at the ravine and do things that aren't so program. But things we need to work out between now and the pre-plat with staff. So my personal opinion is like I said I just feel like it just shoveves. So you've got 530 homes and you put the park down here at the bottom. So it seems accessible for maybe 150 homes and all the

rest have probably a good mile to get there, right? So it feels to me like if we're going to make an investment in a park, especially with, you know, things like that, we would want to have it a little bit more central uh for the benefit of the larger neighborhood. Well, even piggyback on that comment, too. um instead of a centralized park, uh some pocket parks, you know, basically distributed green spaces that allow kids to have a place to go. As of right now, of most of the subdivisions in the city, kids are have to play in the street because there's nowhere really for them aside from the the big centralized city parks to go kick a soccer ball around or something like that. And my my frame of reference to that is I used to live in a Dr. Horton subdivision in Arizona that had that. And pretty much every house in that subdivision was a twob block walk from a green space that was suitable for kids to play. So it's just a personal preference. I'd like to see, you know, little little spots here and there distributed out through the neighborhood where kids can go throw a ball around and still be within walking distance. you know, this the folks in these northern uh roads here, they can't really as a park is placed right now, as referenced earlier, you have to get in a car and drive down there to use that facility. Okay. And we may between all the green space for ponds and other places, we may be able to ways to incorporate that pretty simple. We just we got to work out maintenance and access and such. those discussions that we'll have to have with staff just to make sure we're all on the same page. I have a couple questions. So, is the neighborhood park in addition to the park dedication? So, we take when it's a combo, we take the amount of investment they're making in the park from their cash donation of park dedication

dollars. So, in this case, with as many units as it is and the size of that park, I anticipate it would be park and cash. Okay. But this isn't this park isn't in our master plan? No. Okay. And then how far away are the town houses from the highway? They are labeled to the best of my knowledge. I thought they're 50 ft roughly from the rightway on the east side and about 120 on the west side. Okay. The right can. So there'll be some kind of buffering. Mhm. Yes. I don't know the land that there like is it flat or is it This was risky. Okay. Oh, no. So, just a question on this map here. We can zoom out. Just trying to Eric, I'm gonna We're gonna get Chris's question quick. Yeah, it's hard to see. All right. Okay. Chrissa, did you have more? Okay, go ahead. So, just with the uh basically the key the legend down there with the purple and the orange obviously light sizes are the same. I'm trying to decode the uh sew and is that slab and walk out and versus R L RO. I'm just trying to figure out the differences between the the purple and the orange lot since the dimension. So the the purple lots are what are called our premier homes and that's what we did in Meridian Fields and they're more like a split type home. So it's not a full depth basement. Um so we the SE stands for split entry. It's not technically a split entry, it's more like a side split, but um that's what that means. R would be rambler or like a full basement. RO is a full basement lookout

and then RW is a full basement walk out. So the the orange is our tradition series, excuse me, lots, which is what we did in Hawthorne Ridge. Hey Christa, I had a couple questions. Um and so um following on the traffic um the culde-sacs down by the park. It would be interesting if we could maybe connect that culde-sac and that culde-sac in the lower right to maybe that street there to kind of get some more access. It seems there's a lot of houses kind of stuck down around those uh on the it would be the south southwest side there, right? those kind of four culde-sacs, but only one one way out. Um, and then also on the land going to the west. Um, is is that the ravine? Is there a ravine kind of behind there on the next property, Aaron or Aaron? Or would there be a through street through one of the culde-sacs kind of in the middle there on the west? No, the topography is really challenging. Okay, that's a ravine right there. Yep. Okay. Um and then about the orientation of Monroe Drive around uh kind of curving north towards the the freeway there is is that that again kind of driven by the train where if we you know prefer to have it more continually west right kind of pushing that right if that's going to be a main collector um and then having the town homes by the freeway again that's going to kind of get road noise again with having a collector and a freeway if there's any way to kind uh I don't know, have it more straight west versus kind of curving north a bit I think would would improve the sound for the town homes there. And again, um with the town homes, right, no buffering or burming again to try and reduce as much uh noise from the freeway as possible.

I'm sure those homeowners would appreciate that. Um let's see. And then again with the park, um I think the current hockey rink in community park is fairly old, right? Uh been here as long as long as I can remember. So I I think that is an interesting idea and I think we're definitely could use a new hockey rink. But I am definitely concerned about a lack of parking in that area again with again having my house next to a a park with virtually no parking. I would not not enjoy that. having, you know, a lot of traffic down there. And again, I think maybe finding a way to get those streets to connect um would again be helpful just getting traffic. I I think I do remember looking at the satellite view and that that is a pretty beautiful um you know, like you said, we have that trail coming in. So those are my initial thoughts slashconerns. So, um, Reed, with respect to the Monroe Drive alignment, um, early on we we kind of did a mini alignment study of of Monroe going all the way out to County Road 43, which is kind of the ultimate goal of that uh, frontage road system. And, um, having it further to the south, there's a lot of topography constraints and bluffs that we'd be impacting. So, um, we kind of have this in a spot where we think it's workable as development would continue to the west. Um, still probably will refine it some, but if we go further south, there's just a lot of constraints that are going to be problematic. So, okay, that makes sense. Yeah, I I assumed it was something. I was just double-checking. Um, yeah. And then um I know I watched

the city council meeting. Um did they get uh a decision or on the uh right of way for a potential bridge over 212? Did we decide that um as I recall that they were going to um kind of potentially leave that in there? Um is could we maybe get the next one a mockup with with that on there if that seems feasible for next time. I don't know if the city council has Yeah, we're working on that at a staff level right now. So, put a pin in that for now. Okay. Can you just tell me where where that is? Sure. So, in our comprehensive plan, uh we show an overpass over 212 in this general area. We have been doing an extensive amount of work thinking about traffic counts and how that will connect north of 212. when um that overpass has been in the last two rounds of our comprehensive plan, the land use on the north side of 212 has changed pretty drastically. Um so at a staff level right now we are working through if it's warranted or not. The cost would primarily be borne by the city and it would probably be several million dollars to get an overpass over 212 and it would take a significant amount of rightway that would impact the property owners in this ghost plat along with several um areas of this project too. So, we're working with the county right now and Bolton and Bank to see if it's warranted and trying to nail down some of the costs because it is not a casual amount of money to put an overpass over 212. Would that hook up with potential residential on the other side on the north side then? Yeah. With 530 houses, maybe you could give up

on 8 89. Give them access to the park. Do you mean down here? Parking. Yeah. Okay. 528. So, this is a question I guess more for the errands than anybody. Um, uh, to South obviously got Dogorn Road. Is there any plans in the future to build that out? So, and maybe tie in to this subdivision because right now it looks like Monroe is pretty much the only way to get in and out um for the full subdivision. Obviously, there's property owners and stuff that have to be amendable to tying in uh building out the road and then tie into the subdivision, but I'm just curious what's in the works for for Dog Drive in the future, how it relates to this. Yeah. Um that would be a great connection to make, Eric. Um unfortunately we're not seeing a great route to get down to Delgrin u just due again to those topography constraints and the bluffs and such. So right now um like the comp plan for example doesn't contemplate a north south connection just because of those issues. Again, it would be great to do that, but we're we're not really seeing that as a viable option, at least at this point, like in in this phase. But it doesn't get much better as we head west either. So, um that's kind of one of the drivers of it's such a small area that we're we're having a hard time seeing that the overpass serves a big enough purpose um to make it worth the the future expense um of putting something like that in. and maintaining it forever. So, that's what we're all kind of evaluating right now at a staff level. I wish this project could connect down. I wish Timber Creek could too, but it it's so steep that we can't find a

spot that we can make it. Erin, uh, about how far is it to 43 from like the western edge of where Monroe would start? Is it reasonably close or I mean, I guess, you know, it's still off the map a little bit. you don't happen to remember off the So, this is the outpost if that gives you any reference for it. So, it's actually not too far. It's probably 2/ird of a mile. Pretty close. Okay. So, yeah, maybe that would alleviate the right you said if there's no way straight south here, you go at most a mile, two of a mile, then you can hit 43 and go south. And again, that may alleviate the need for the overpass again because presumably that that already has access already from the Okay. Yeah, that makes sense to me then. And the the future county plans, there's additional improvements at 43 and 212. So, that's it's it's all kind of building the case of we're having a hard time seeing this being being an option we want to take on as far as an overpass goes. So, good good observation. And then on on this map basically where the dotted yellow line and all those trees are those are trees because that's the ravine right where otherwise it would probably been farmland. Correct. Okay. Another question for the I guess Aaron Smith on this one. Uh this may be too early in the process but we started thinking about the impact to fire service adding 500 homes. We have to build another fire station or grow the one we have to accommodate this. So, the fire department reviews all of our plans. So, yes, we are thinking about it. Um, the city council is just starting a process on a space study to think about what public services looks like long term. Public services and the fire department both need more space right now. So, the long-term goal is to

take public services out of that half of the building, create new a new campus for them. The fire department takes over the entire building. So, essentially doubling the fire department's space in that building. So yes, the fire department reviews everything. They give us comments. They have it on their radar. It also brings lots of potential new volunteers for this is true. Any other questions, comments, feedback? Just just one more. Again, this is personal preference. Um, have we explored a possibility of of larger lots? Obviously, smaller lots more economically profitable for Dr. important. But um there's a feeling in the city that we essentially have two types of lots available. We got town houses and we got minimal setback lots. And personally, I'd like to see a little bit of diversity in the offerings. Uh different price points as well. But uh you know, something quarter acre, half acre, even larger. Obviously, it's probably not feasible to go full acre or whatnot, but just uh some diversity in offering is kind of something I would like to see. Yeah, I I think that's a good point, Eric, too. It does seem like there I do definitely appreciate the idea to make smaller, more affordable, but it would be uh you know like like you think some more I don't know executive or or fancier kind of upscale or just more property, right? I think that would be a nice especially like you said with with such a big area and maybe even those culde-sacs bordering on the back of the uh the ravine there would be a nice spot for a more majestic home or something.

Thank you. Erin, do you want to move on to Somerfield? Yeah. Thanks. That's it. Oh, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Wrap that up. That was a Cindy move of you. Get out of here. Thank you for coming. Thank you. [Music] We look forward to having you back. Yeah. No, we look forward to being back. We do really enjoy working with staff and just the city general. Thank you. No, we got ready. Yeah. Okay, let's move on to Somefield. All righty. So, this process is going to look very similar. So, moving on to Summerfield, which is the project south, which I think most of you are interested in. Cool. So, again, tonight we're not looking for recommendations. The feedback you gave to Dr. Horton was exactly what we're looking for. Big picture things that we can think about, work through as we move through the process. Again, this is step one in the process and their process is probably going to be even longer. So there are some steps um that summer summergate and summerfield will need to work through. So again, answers might not be a available tonight. Looking for general feedback that we can bring back should the project move forward through the process. The project is proposed by Summergate. The Summergate is typically a developer, not a builder. They've worked in Carver both in Oak Tree and Timber Creek, which are both LAR products in Carver right now. This property has a lot of history. Casey with Summergate can probably sit here for a while and tell you all about it, but several of the properties that are contemplated in the project area have been owned by Summergate or Toliffson since 2006. Through market changes and a city utility gap, the project has not moved forward since then. So, we have

come to some conclusions about the utilities with the city council. So in a couple slides there was a utility gap from the bluffs down to this project area that one developer could not bore b like they could not take it on independently. It was so expensive that the first developer but the first developer in would not be able to cash flow a project if they had to install this the utilities independently and there was a gap in our city system. So right now I think I have a map of it. I'm going to go to this one. So squint your eyes a little bit, zoom out. Carver Bluffs is here. So our city utilities stop at Carver Bluffs Parkway, not Overlook Drive. So it's this area here where there's a gap in city utilities. So directly adjacent to city limits, but not something that a developer alone could afford to extend the utilities and still have a project be profitable. So in starting in 2025, the city council added a trunk fee to their um city fee schedule. So what that means is that every lot that comes in 2025 on any lot that gets platted. So Dr. Horton would be be part of it. Somefield would be part of it, there's an additional fee of $3,300 that goes into our trunk area fund that funds largescale utilities to help development move forward throughout the city. So, this is the first example of where we'll likely use that fund, but it's definitely not our last. So, it could be used for upsizing city utilities or creating connections that uh we can't figure out with a developer alone. So, it's an additional fund of money that allows for us to think about utility projects on a grander scale. That only affects lots that are coming into the city. So, you all who live here now will not pay that fee. It's lots that are coming in to be platted. A trunk area charge is also really typical. We're not the first city. We're not the only city. Most developing cities do have them. So, the city council worked through the process with a fee schedule and added

that $3,300 that will allow us to bank that money from several projects coming in to make that utility connection. So, that cost will not be um to the taxpayers right now. It'll be from new platted lots to make that utility connection. That was like a three-year process dialed down to like 35 seconds. So, if you have questions about it, let me know. It was a long process but we got there with the city council a lot. Correct. Yes. Okay. So the project area if you think again about the bluffs they are here. So this is Overlook Drive. So this is currently our southernmost property or city limit line. So there and then it's hard to put a shape around the entire project area because it's large and kind of oddly shaped. So uh it's generally here south of city limits. Mueller's Pit is another good uh benchmark to figure out where you're at. There are some streets in here that are pretty well known like Mount Mount Carmel is one if you need to get your bearings as well. So, in the city's comprehensive plan, which is here, the really light yellow is single family. The darker the yellow, the higher the density for housing. Red is commercial. So obviously with the two county roads converging in this area going to Jordan and Carver, there likely is some opportunity for some commercial development. Whether that be a quick stop gas station, a coffee shop, something that uh is appropriate with the number of traffic volumes that could travel in that area, a commercial node is likely appropriate with the two county roads coming together. So generally the project is looking for residential users which Summerfield and Summergate is proposing. So this is uh one of the very early sketches we saw. You see the date on here is 2020. So we've been working towards this project for a while. Uh just some property owners and then the Talison Toliffson land is outlined in red. So that's the property that Toliff Center or Summergate has owned since

2006ish. So there's that trunk area utility extension that we're working on. And then the concept plan. So this one is large. So something that I appreciated that Summergate did is that there are estimated units at low, realistic, and high. So we haven't nailed down what the actual number of units is going to be, what the spread is going to be, but it gives us a general range of how it could shake out as we learn more about the project. So I'm typically moving forward right now with estimated units. So the realistic at 2355 total units in this entire project area. So you'll see there's a wide range of uses here too. So I'm going to start north and move my way south. So the blue on the northern portion is shown as an active adult community. So that would be a community with a hefty HOA with some uses in there like a community space, a clubhouse, um private uses in that neighborhood for typically active adults that are uh downsizing, looking to build community in an active adult community. Moving south is the light yellow, which is low density residential. Again, the darker the yellow, the higher density. And then a couple commercial notes. There's also a really substantial park here. So, we've been planning that park for a while in our parks master plan. The parks master plan in this area calls for the ball fields and community park being pulled south. So, uh, as you all probably know, the Black Sox are a pretty popular team that play on a field that's probably not appropriate for them. So, we've been thinking about what it would look like if the Black Socks pulled to this area. Um, community park is limited right now with an XL power easement. So, the amount of work that we can do in community park is really limited. So, when the Black Socks want to make improvements, we typically they typically can't. So, they u have wanted to make some pretty big improvements in community park, but due to the easement they're under, they're not able to. So, thinking about this park with uh like

really substantial parking, several ball fields for tournament play, the Black Socks, and then some other additional users for city uses. And then maybe crossing all of our fingers and toes, but we also are starting to think potentially about a school site in this area. So, as Carver continues to grow, as Carver County continues to grow, uh we want the school district to know that we're thinking about it and that there likely is a need for an additional school in Carver. We have We're talking elementary school. No idea. Well, elementaryaries need about 25 acres. Well, I think I know that middle schools and high schools need more area. The middle school I think the next school project on Eastern Carver County Schools radar is a middle school. I don't know where it's going to happen. It could happen here. It could not. So, we have no idea what it's going to be. Um, but just want the school district. How much area is blocked up? you you know off hand it's 20 acres right now but that is a round number don't take that as anything we have no information about it so it's an idea right now but something that we're thinking about letting the school district know hey we're continuing to grow there likely is a need we'd be happy to support an additional school in our community so looking through all of these it's a lot to take in so as you will see they have come in with phase one for the concept plan so this would be the first phase of the development uh breaking it down from the 2300 lots to a smaller scale project. You'll see at the intersection of County Road 40 and County Road 11, there's a proposed roundabout with the county. So, that project will happen in conjunction likely with this phase one. And then phase one is showing a mix of single family homes and town homes. Here it is on our comprehensive plan outline. So, you can see that it is consistent with the comprehensive plan most likely. We'll learn more through the platting process to figure out densities, what that looks like across

the whole project and phase one. So, next steps, you're looking at the concept of the entire project tonight. City council looks at it April 11th. The project requires annexation, which again, review by township, resolution by city council. This size of a project, we are taking a different approach. We are looking for an alter alternate urban areawwide review or an AUR. So an AUR is an environmental assessment worksheet and an environmental impact statement bundled into one. So the purpose of an EAW, an environmental assessment worksheet, is to determine if an environmental impact statement is required. So an EAW takes a look at all the information. If something pops up that is an issue or something that we need more information about, you move into an EIS or an environmental impact statement. Those two together form an AUR. So, it's a ton of information about this entire site. Uh, that document would live with the city. Uh, we've been thinking about it a little bit like a small version of a comprehensive plan. So, we would look at land uses, how they would impact different areas of the site. The AUA would also live with us so we could update it. So, as this project continues, we'll learn more about it and we can update that portion. But, it really does feel like we're doing a little bit of pre-work for our comp plan, which is going to get started in a couple years. But the AUA asks us to contemplate a lot of the similar things that are in a comp plan with some additional environmental review. So after that, preliminary plat resoning and final plat also included. Oh shoot, I had a whole slide and I just talked about that whole thing just from my brain. Great. All righty. So I know that this project is big. It's tough to wrap your head around at first, but I'll open it up for questions. Do you mind introducing yourselves to the group? Yes, I'm Casey Walsher with Summergate and I'm Brian Tucker with Summergate as well. So, similar process we will

discuss. Ask us questions. Let us know what you're thinking. I have a question about the existing housing that I'm assuming is not in the development. Way up. I'm interested in the existing housing that's off Mount Carmel. What's going to happen to them? Are they going to be annexed into the city? No. So, annexation happens at the time of development. So, are you thinking about like exception properties throughout? Well, one of the questions would be are they going to be particularly right off of Mount Carmel? Are people going to be forced to connect to to the city utilities? We don't force anyone to join city utilities. So, it's their choice when they petition for annexation. It's the property owner's choice. Typically comes with development. Uh it's can occasionally happen if there are well and septic systems that fail, but to have that be uh something that we move forward with, it likely would need to be a group of residents that are looking to make that choice, not just one person out of the group. But no, annexation is not required should a property owner not be interested. Do you have a comment in the back? You might have to come up to the microphone. My name is Dean Stewie and Can you grab that microphone? My name is Dean Stewie and we're me and a couple of my neighbors here are part of exactly where you're talking about. In years ago, we had signed um kind of for a petition for lack of better expression that we wanted to be included in the study but not necessarily making any commitment one way or the other. Just trying to keep our options open because as you might figure, are you in this area here? We are right here south of Mount Carmel. This group of land owners right along there. And so ultimately, again, not making any commitment, just want to keep our

options open given the fact of it's there's going to be a road there running behind most people's property. So, what Dean just handed to me is uh just a message from 2006 to the township board requesting that the area that he just mentioned with his neighbors again be included in the area with some property owners included. So, I'm impressed that you still have this from 2006. I was like, "Wow, good record keeping." But again, it's it's just that we wanted to be included in the study in the hopes that, you know, if keeping our options open that we do not necessarily want to be annexed into the city, but um just want to be proactive. Yep. I think that's appropriate even as we think about utilities to figure out how we could extend someday. So, absolutely something we can think about. Appreciate it. Thank you. Erin, can you point on the map where we're talking? Yeah, generally here. Okay. Hi, I'm Dave Dwalter. As one of the property owners right in that gray block of of four lots there, I'm concerned that we have a road right adjacent to us and right across the road, pretty high density housing, I believe. And back in 2006, there was just a a thought that well maybe there would be a burm or something between the new development and our properties. So it this is a significant change from the concept that we had because I'm a little bit concerned about what the density of housing does to us in terms of we become the playground where lots of kids. Yep. That's something we can think about definitely with um might be a little tricky since Birmingham would probably make the most sense on your side of the road, but it's definitely something we can talk about and think about.

Um Aaron, has this concept been shared with the county since it's county road 11? Yes. Okay. So, they're part of this like master plan and Yes. and we've been working with them a lot on this roundabout project since it will be on a county road with city participation and developer participation. So, it's a lot of folks needed in the room to make this project work. But yes, we've been working really closely with the county. Is the county thinking about extending the fourlane down the hill through the roundabout past somewhere? I think right now they just have it planned as a resurfacing project, but that's something that we'll look at because obviously when we do the utility extension, the roadway is going to be getting disturbed. So, I don't know if they're going to maybe try to do some upgrades at the same time. So, we we haven't gotten to that point with the county, but as Aaron mentioned, it's we're we're all going to be going through this together as the process unfolds. though. So, um I'm I mean I development is great, but I'm worried about adding another 2,000 homes on County Road 11 where you're coming down the hill and it narrows down into two lanes and then you've got Carver Bluffs Parkway exit to the left and a pass on the right and cars are going 55 miles an hour and you're praying that they see you got your left turn signal on. So, I think there has to be some pretty serious conversations with the county to make sure that they're addressing the safety at County Road 11, not only for the new this new development that's coming in, but for the developments that are already there, i.e. Carver Bluffs and Outlook Overlook Drive or Overlook because that's a lot of traffic um that probably hasn't, you know, it's not it's not built for that. in in the

mornings I can tell you it's almost impossible to get out of car park. Yeah, it's impossible to get out of Mount Carmel. My my understanding is Mount Carmel will dead end and go to the roundabout. Correct. Which is fine, but I mean the amount of traffic already is insane. So it would definitely be nice to consider that and adding Yep. That's definitely the AU that will be part of the process too. I'll get traffic counts from this development, but we can definitely engage with the county too. By the way, the main reason this project was killed earlier on was you was the recession. Yes, this is true. I said market conditions. I kept it light. You hated him. That's not very nice. Um, I have a couple of questions. So, this one does not include the active adult community, but that is something interesting because it's not something that Carver has right now. Um, so I think it expands to help meet our goals. Um, and this development again seems like a a normal lot size. So, in consideration, you know, trying different things, maybe you want to do larger lots there. Um, the same thing on County Road 11, you know, 50 miles an hour might need to be looked at also based on the number of houses coming in. And also, not just Carver Bluffs and Overlook Drive, but I don't County Road the downtown. Yeah, it it's a lot of stuff going on at the same time. Um, this one there doesn't appear to be a planned park. So, this would be park dedication. Uh, just phase one. There is a park here, but that was a community park, correct? Yep. So, that will count towards our park dedication, but again, based on number of units, I anticipate it will be a mix of both. Okay. And then how do we solicit feedback from It's great that you guys are here, but there's obviously a lot of others that

are impacted by this. So, how does the city gather feedback from all the other property owners? So, as it moves through the process, uh, everything goes on our social medias and the newsletter typically has Courtney does like a review of the past meeting. So, we've started doing an a city council like roundup after the meeting. So we push out the information that the city council has reviewed. We make project pages on our city website and then as we start moving through the process, there will start to be public hearings. So they'll get mailed notice about project location. So all of those ways we hope to get to most people. What is the timing on this? I know you showed the slide that talked about when it's going to council, but realistically, so working with the the county on the road and annexation and those two pieces are not the ones that will likely take us a while. The AU is going to take a significant amount of time. So, as we start that process, um, we'll get more information, but I would say uh, utility start 2026. Yep, that's that's what we've been talking about. Now 2025 is probably going to be a a planning year with all those processes that Aaron talked about and then um utility construction possibly starting next next year. So that's the general goal I believe that's been discussed at this point. The other big concern is pick and the kind of traffic they have. Agreed. I didn't know that was actually a lake. I've only called Miller's Pit. It is deep. It's actually a lake and actually agitates. I think some trumpet

or swans have spent the win. So, uh, this probably for Aaron, uh, Schmidt, um, or actually maybe um, so when if we go back to the the initial just phase one concept, right, with the on the smaller smaller picture. Oh, thank you. Yeah. So, so there's a little stub uh that is presumably the old access of the property owner, right? That little green stub there coming down in the middle kind of on the north. Yeah, that that that weird thing there, right? Or that green line. Yeah. Thanks. Um and then and then what what's the typical city plan for like Mark Mount Carmel Road, right? If we build out the current phase one, um that would stay with the township or is that part of the city now that we would be bordering it on two of the sides or I guess you know uh right coming out of Jonathan Carver Parkway and then obviously the new development with with the new collector uh going north south between Maplewood Road and Mount Carmel. Would those become become the city's property or road to deal with or how how's that work as we phase out the rest of the plan? So related to that north south piece um that appears Casey I don't know if that if you drew that in as right of way or if that's already existing. Uh it's actually just part of the parcel the first parcel of land. Is it a cart? I don't know what happened. Ryland developed something years ago and

somehow because it's called Ryland Edition. So it's Ryland because they always called their stuff Ryland Edition and it was left as a it's a good makes sense that it would be that good fairway for practice. Okay. Yeah. I mean it would be a normal extension of Carmelane. Yeah. But I through some conversation we've had they weren't really looking trying to extend Carmel Lane directly down to it and that's the only reason it's not showing there. Okay. Maybe that changes if the parcels he mentioned were be included in development then it makes sense that that gets extended or something. Yeah. The the Mark Mount Carmel would still be a township township. Yeah. So they would stay in the township until the rest of the adjoining propert. Right. So, um I know if we look at the wider scale, right, what's kind of the traffic, um I guess more Aaron Schmidt, um when we're when we're looking at the whole project, right? Um you basically kind of have to plot out part of the traffic study and figure out where the roads are going, right? Do we see that those roads are going to remain relative to where they are or do you still have a lot more work to do going forward? Right? Because I guess I'm I'm thinking we don't want to lock oursel like for example that culdeacs uh in the kind of lower south point of the new concept plan right where if if that other property comes into the city eventually obviously that would be nice to have access through there without having to go through the connector again. Right. So, um, kind of where that exception there is in that corner, right? If if that was goes plotted as a as a street. Yeah. They're kind of going down. Again, why I was kind of asking about Maplewood Road, would we assume that would be upgraded to another collector or stay as a city just trying to get traffic flow? I know as we build it out, we're kind of limited on what we can do, but just

thinking ahead, not, you know, bottlenecking traffic. the the long-term connection for Maple Road onto County Road 40 will go away. So Maplewood Road will not be a major collector. Okay. More than likely through the process over the years on this one through County 40 just like someone asked earlier road up at the north end that axle will be eliminated through the process. This is Dave Dewalder with comments basically about the roads as well. Um whether Mount Carmel is closed down at Jonathan Carver early or later, we we will have issues with fire department access up there because the only real uh way to get in there will be off of the culdeac at least early on. So, how long will it take before there's another connection either from Mount Carmel or from your new road south of of us to get back out of that neighborhood. Today, the only other access is through a farm, right? Through Lake Larry, Larry Wells's farm. Yeah. So, it's it's a concern for us and a lot of the folks that you're going to put in there. One of one of the benefits is our our first phase plan will bring direct connection from that roundabout that's going to get put in on 4140. It'll bring that connection right up to Markwell Road. It's actually kind of where Larry Wellins driveway. It's like a quarter mile further east from Larry Wells Driveway. So looking at this is that the green landing strip right behind behind this is Larry Wells driveway. This is what he's talking about and it kind of goes down here to Maplewood. When we put this connection in, it comes across and this is going to be a major collector. If you notice, it's hard to tell from this picture, but these aren't driveways that jump onto

this road. So, this is a non-driveway road. It's a collector road. This road is a collector road, too. This east west, and they're kind of like a corridor, the artery, the whole road system is everything feeds into those collector roads. So, once this collector road gets put in, everything off Mount Carmel will be able to feed over that way. the county we won't be we won't be closing off Mont Carmel's access to the county road and the county can't cut it off until there's adequate road systems to support what you have now okay so I is it going to happen next year I can guarantee it's not happening next I don't and the fire department's involved in all of that as well because they have to make sure they've got the response plans correct And we've already started talking about what construction looks like in this area with the fire department since they serve the township area, too. So, uh, should a portion of JCP need to be shut down, the fire department's already thinking about alternate routes to get down to some of these areas. Is it normal to have this many exemptions in a development? Depends. I would say uh this one is a these are larger scale home sites. Okay. So it feels like there's more just because the past projects we've done like Meridian Fields, Timber Creek, Oak Tree, it was one family farm where these are less farm sites and more large residential sites. So I would say it's not atypical but it's different than what we've seen to date. And none of these are ghost plotted. So that means they're not ever going to come in. They are included in our growth area. So we do anticipate someday that these properties will be part of the city of Carver. But uh ghost platting

can be tricky that if someone sees their property with lines drawn on it, we try to be respectful of that if they don't want to develop. The general feeling is that Carver at one point will become the largest city in Carver County because we have the most land available landwise. Yes. So this is not the end. Um so again maybe following on the um so the utilities plan Erin I assume we we will have uh sizing for those exceptions to be developed in the future and all that good stuff and your engineering work and all that. Uh yep. So the trunk utility extension will be planned to accommodate the ultimate growth. So they'll be sized for that. Yeah. And then if we could just flip to the huge master plan. I I will again echo Christa's uh idea of a uh active adult community. Hopefully I uh can can eventually use that in the future, but not anytime soon. That would be cool. Um and then just I think again a large park this far south, right? I mean, I think the nearest city park would be community park, right? And that's pretty far away. So, I think I think having another, you know, very substantial park is a great addition to the development. Reed, just a reminder that Creekide will be completed then. Oh, that's right. And then Bluff Park, too. So, I totally hear what you're saying, but I want to make sure Creek Side is included for it. No, that's excellent. No, it's great to get uh you know the development and again I want to ask the city council that we approved the trunk area charge.

So I'm glad to see that uh one of our concerns was uh if we vote for this uh how quickly is it going to move forward and we're glad that or at least I'm glad that it's literally within a month. So um you know great. So that's all I had. If I just have one other question so I understand the developer, you guys are like land developers. So you're getting the land ready and then do we have to find builders to come in or are these going to be custom or how does that work? Generally what we do is we master plan the the properties. Then we move to the phasing plans like you kind of saw. Again this is just a concept of a first phase. This is not the first phase plan just to be we were asked to kind of create something. What would it look like? Um, but as we go through the process, we'll work with builder groups. We've talked to a number of them who are interested in being in the project already. Uh, but that builder groups are probably a year away from the process. We have to get through a lot of red tape first to get there. You know, like a lot of environmental issues to consider, but once the the plan is more baked, then it's easier to kind of find the builder groups uh that are interested in being, you know, in the community itself. Thank you. So it's entirely the developer's responsibility. Got it. I will I will tell you from past experience that I like large develop if you get a somebody comes in and just as a development of 60 or 70 houses they're interested in building those houses and giving you nothing that community needs. Overall, that's a point, too. It could be a variety of builders. So, it could be one group that takes down the entire project. It could be five different builders in the same project. So, thinking about that, too. As we move forward, we'll learn more. But someone might do the active adult

and then another group does a single family. So, another thing to consider is kind of 40 having the walkability. um ensuring the trail is connected so they can go to those other parks and not get hit by a car. Agreed. So there's a question for Summergate. Are you able to share which builders have shown interest in this project? No, I fig I figured as much. Yeah. So I guess uh since there's a law I'll just go through my comments real quick. A lot of these comments are very similar to what I shared with Dr. Horton as well. So, uh the the large centralized park in the south there, you know, a lot of amenities that could come along with that, but um with previous comments, pocket parks, little green areas dispersed throughout the uh the different uh different phases would be would be great. Uh so we're not have to load everybody into a car and drive to one of the major parks. Um, you know, is it feasible to have a green space within a couple blocks of every house? No. But just some dispersal where you can ride your bike half mile down and meet your buddies and throw a football around or something like that. Some of these would be great. In the same vein as previous comments, um I feel low density is a little bit of a misnomer. Again, a whole discussion out that council is driving a lot of our decisions with this, but uh I'd like to see and again personal preference uh some some platting with densities less three or less per acre. I don't know if that's feasible or if it's been explored as a the dead horse at this point, but um kind of new discussion. So something not necessarily executive because I think that's kind of a a false tie in that a larger lot necessarily means an executive house but just

something we're not having 10 feet in between houses. I see we got 16 and 50 foot lot lines already on the map there. But uh if we we got wiggle room to work in some lower density three or less per acre that would be something I'd really uh be looking forward to. Did you want a little feedback on that or I I can tell you that less than three units an acre lot sizes? I don't want to say there's no chance. You know, I guess there's a 1% chance, but I'm telling you it's very difficult you've ever studied it. But if cities don't have really three and a half or even four units per acre, the cost of the residents is higher than like they can't produce enough taxes to pay for the services like the parks and all the different things. So it's a math equation, which isn't what you want to hear, but I'm saying there's a math equation out there that says they can't financially. When developments first happen, they get all these great fees and there's development fees and all this stuff that kind of money flows in. But 10 years later, when things start having to get replaced because they're broken, you know, for whatever reason or worn out there, if you don't have really almost five units an acre, there's a I don't have that study, but there's different studies that'll tell you exactly how this works. But if the if the number isn't high enough, literally when the city goes to replace it, they don't know there's not a way to generate the cash. So fast growing cities are always have plenty of money. They build all these cool stadiums. They build all this cool stuff. But when they get to be older communities, all of a sudden they start running bankrupt practically because they literally do residential development if it wasn't done dense enough. You can't pay for the repaving of the road right in front of the houses even. I mean, that's a a long-term problem, but I'm just saying that's kind of how the Met Council is figuring things out. Like, hey, we need to stack them a little bit closer because we

can't get enough money to maintain all the sewer pipes, the streets, and stuff like that later. Uh, as any city person will tell you, there's a big problem when you come back later and say, "Oh, yeah. We're just going to assess everybody in this neighborhood. $5,000 a house so we can put in the new curbs and streets. People aren't planning for that 5,000." So, they can't afford it specifically because their payment was whatever they figured out. So, I I the density number gets extremely difficult to get as low as you want. And then generally what the biggest driver in density isn't somebody I heard a comment earlier like, "Hey, Dr. horn wants to make more lots to make more profit. I guess there's there's a portion of that, but profit to even be obtained, you almost have to hit the three or four units an acre to even be profitable period, let alone more profit because the city fees and just the cost, you know, nothing's gone down in the last 5 years or even the last 30 years really. So, uh, being involved in the when we had a concept plan in front of the city 20 years ago for this project, which you you were obviously around for, uh, when we brought when we brought that into the township and into the city and talked about it, uh, we were talking similar kind of this similar to this kind of plan, but the cost to bring the sewer from the where it was at the time, which was a wastewater treatment plant down the bottom of the hill to bring it up, that cost was like a million and a half bucks. I wish it now it's like $7 million. So if if we just look at you know what it costs to do things and that doesn't include the probably a million when the county gets involved but it as it gets you know put through those costs and at some point there's going to be water towers and satellite out of out of whack and the only way to really do it is to put more units in to cover those costs. So I I'd love to build oneacre lots, but really the only way you can really do that now is when people sell acreage lots, literally acreage lots using well and septic. Otherwise, you're just

you're stuck having much smaller much smaller lots inside the city areas. Townships is where you can get some of that. And now they made so many rules stopping people from de developing in townships, it's it's even hard to do it there. I I I think if I said, "Yeah, okay, we'll do it." But somehow we got to get some subsidy from the city to do it, everybody would be like, "Wait a minute. We need those fees to cover all the other costs." So, it's it's kind of a circle that double for you. Yeah. It's it's tough. I mean, I if I could get 500,000 for that wider lot to make up for the three lots or whatever that I would have to give up to make that wider lot. But that's difficult because the money you get back for that lot unless someone builds a $4 million house. It doesn't the taxes don't work because now that lot is hard to ser it's expensive for the city to service it. There's not enough residents coming out of there paying taxes. So that's part of the problem. Not that it answers your question other than it's super hard to make it happen. I I'd love to have lower density stuff. I just the math equation doesn't work. And through the process we'll try. We'll see if we can figure it out. If there's a pocket that it maybe makes sense for some reason, we'll absolutely explore it. I mean, that always happens where there's things corner weird. Yeah. Where a culde-sac or an area where street where it just you can't do anything different. Any other questions, Eric? Um, so Erin, for the commercial part, is that really focused on the people that are going to be driving through there and living in that development? I just don't want to see like how Chaza is very split. How you have the downtown and how you have we're going to call it uptown. I don't know it's called like target area. That you have two separate areas. This is more neighborhood commercial. Yeah. Because we're not anticipating big box. Okay. Or anything like that. That's all going to go along 212 someplace. Yeah. We already have I know that's what I was going to say, but I didn't want to

go there. And one's on the hill. One's uptown. Uptown. Downtown. Got it. Groceries not too easy to buy downtown. Anything else? Sorry, I got one more question. Uh, regarding the the big park down south there. Um, I believe it's across the 40 there is a natural gas station. Is that correct? Yep. How is that that uh location that natural gas station? How's that affect this uh plan here? I mean, was that park potentially put there just a does it need standoff distances for residents, residential properties from the the natural gas station or is it not a factor at all? Yeah, I didn't consider that at all. It's going through different parts of the development. You can see if you go further west, just goes right through neighborhoods and everything. That's pretty common with gas lines. Okay. They're not that I don't want to say they're not that big a deal, but they're not that big a deal. Sure. I don't understand the gas the gas station the station itself is that impact the city if maybe Aaron you could provide that to them like a link to the plan that you guys put together a few years ago. The city developed a parks they already have a concept plan for what a park would look like here. Yeah. That they did through the parks board and stuff like was that six eight years ago or whatever. Uh and they identified this general general area for the park. It we I've got about 12 versions of this. So, uh, and the park was here, then it was over here, it's over here, and it's all kind of just moving around trying to match road connections where the county wants, like the kind of road we show coming off of 40 there. Uh, we call it summerfield road, but we it's no name really. Uh, that road is about spacing from County Road 11 roundabout down to this connection. You have to have certain spacing meet county guidelines. So, that's how we know Maplewood Road can't stay there permanently because it doesn't meet the spacing guideline. So it everything's about hitting the guidelines for the county. As you redevelop, you're forced to follow the guideline. Older neighborhoods like Maplewood Road right now, they can't do anything about it because it's already there. But as we

redevelop, we have to meet kind of like the code, so to speak, for the county. So just understand that that natural gas substation didn't really affect much of the calculations. Yeah. It's on the other side of the road. So I guess I we didn't think anything of it. Cool. And and part of the considerations for the park location would be as you guys talked earlier about having good access to a large park where you're going to have community members from all over coming rather than just, you know, local uh neighborhood folks coming. Uh so good access to that and then some adjacency to a school should that end up being located, you know, where we where we have it shown. So couple other factors to have have a park at that particular location. Dave, did you have something else? Yes, I do. And this is really a left curve, but we talked about all the traffic problems on Jonathan Carver. We're going to add some more to it. One of the big issues as soon as we got our nice freeway access up here, we became a connector from south side of the river. Are there any significant plans of foot to try to get that traffic onto a different type of connector? Because this wasn't with stop lightss and things like that. That's, you know, we want to be sort of residential, but people are whizzing through here on the way to work every morning. And that's why we can't get out on off of Mount Carmel Road very well. And it's not going to improve. So if you look at that intersection, people coming across the Jordan Bridge just one after another. Anyway, that's just a comment. I hope that in the long range county plan or something, they're going to come up with a way to get people across the river without putting it through our little city. Yeah, I think they've been talking for 25 years on adding another

bridge. I I don't know where it's going to go, but we can definitely share that feedback with the counties. as we start working through the process. Thank you all for your input. We good? Let me know if you have questions or comments. Thank you. I have a quick question. How would we get access to this? It's on our everything's on our planning commission packet and then we'll get project pages set up. Um so the city website will be the best bet. If you can't find it, just shoot me an email and I can link you to it. Yeah. Again, this is where we're probably going to get kind of boring. So, if you want to leave, feel free. Oh, man. Thank you. What could be more exciting than science? Oh, even Aaron's packing, including the city engineer. No, you can leave. There's got to be engineering questions related to sides. Go for your family. Aaron, I need you to be calculating square footage. You have to stay. No, you don't. Please go. I'm kidding. This is like you can guilt him into giving you anything. Like I could be like, I really like your backpack. And he would say, you could have it, so do not make this harder for him. Oh, good. Well, I do have a question. Started with him for signs. Yes. Wow. Okay. Okay. Fine with me. Okay. Let's get through these. Okay. So, this is a little bit funny how we've worked through this process because the city council has done a ton of the work already, which is usually the opposite way with the zoning code. So, the city council requested staff review and revise the sign ordinance. A lot of the information was outdated and wasn't applicable to how the city runs today, how we want to run, how we want to support local businesses and community

groups. So, a lot of the information was related specifically to temporary signs for the shops downtown. As you all know, there's not many occasional shops anymore. Most businesses run more typical schedule. So, there was a lot of information in there that felt outdated. I'm also going to talk through this process about an additional policy that was created by the city council. Your role is not policy review. It's a city council's. So, I'm going to give you some FYIs about it. Not something you need to think about. Um, but the policy that we have created will allow for groups to apply for permits to put signs on city property. So, if the lions are holding their pork chop feed and they want to put some signage around the community, they can come into the city, apply for a permit. we can allow them to put signage on city property, which typically has not been the case. So, anytime a sign goes up along Jonathan Carver Parkway, along Fourth Street, along Sixth, we sweep through the community periodically and pull all of them. So, through the policy that the city council has created and is moving forward with, you could come in and apply for a permit that would allow you to put signs there. So, uh that's like a $10 fee. It would set the amount of time you could have the signs there and then you'd be responsible for removing them. So, we ran into some sticky situations last year with some community groups who we wanted to support and say, "We are grateful for the work that you're doing, but then we quickly said like, but you can't put signs anywhere." And that was just a tough conversation. So, the city council worked through it a lot. It was a lot of long conversations about temporary signs, but um moving forward with a policy that would allow that to happen. So, the draft that's in the packet tonight has been reviewed by the city council several times. The planning commission is reviewing it now because it lives in the city code. So, uh, the zoning section of the code that you are responsible for, that's why you're seeing it. The next step in this process, I hope to bring this back to you at an April meeting for a public hearing. Since it's a change to the

zoning ordinance, you are responsible for that public hearing and then making a recommendation to the city council. So, the city council started this work in March. They reviewed it a couple times in April as well. As part of our discussion at the city council level, we also went out and got some information from local business owners and community groups. So the people that we were having to say no, you can't have signs to, we went out and asked for their feedback. How can we make this better? How can we support you? What type of process would make it more helpful for you? So we got a lot of good feedback um from business over owners via the Carver Business Alliance, which is our business meeting on the third Friday of every month at city hall. and then community organizations that frequent Carver. So the city council's discussion primarily focused on temporary signs, especially on city property. And then we also covered commercial signage versus community event signage. So what's the difference between someone advertising to put up your Christmas lights versus little league tryyous at community park. So we talked a lot about that. And then enforcement strategy. My team is responsible for sign enforcement usually. So, it's the building official and the assistant building official that are out there plucking signs usually, which is um good and fine until it's summer construction season and they are booked up from the start of day to end. So, we talked about enforcement strategy, what the council would like that to look like. At that point, staff um council requested additional work to be completed by staff, which is the draft that's in your packet tonight. So, some of the headlines that we thought about um the cleanup ease of use. So, signs has essentially been rewritten and it's included in the packet. It was general cleanup and clarity for sections that have been challenging for staff. So, there's some old definitions like one of them was a swinging sign and we could never figure out what a swinging sign actually was. So, obviously it was probably time to take that out if that was something we didn't understand. Like we can't enforce it if we don't know what we're talking about. So we took out a lot of the information that we didn't understand or

believe to be pertinent any longer. So we deleted outdated language, removed terms and definitions that were confusing. We tried to streamline it, make it more user friendly like we typically do. And then we also had it reviewed by the city attorney. So signs are pretty hot topic in the legal world. So we had to make sure that we were not regulating what someone can put on a sign, but we can regulate the size and where a sign can be. So you're going to regulate what sign looks like, but not what it says. So, the city attorney has also reviewed this draft several times and found it to be legally sound. So, then again, the temporary event signage, the policy that the city council reviewed, I will say I'm excited about this because it's unique to Carver. So, when we were drafting this, I went out to our cohort cities and asked, "What do you do for temporary signage?" And no one had a sound process of how they were able to support these groups outside of like we just turn our head and we don't look at their signs, which is like frankly what we were doing to a degree. But this actually sets up a process where we can track who's coming in for a permit, tell them they're a-okay, we won't mess with your stuff, and then you need to take it down. So, I'm really excited about this policy. It's been great to say to the business owners and community groups that we're working on it to say hopefully by the time summer rolls around we can have some guidelines of where signs can be. The temporary sign locations are city hall, Gazebo Park, Community Park, Carver Station, and Depot Park. You can have them there for 14 days. Can be a government entity, a nonprofit to apply for signs in those locations. You can come into city hall uh three days before you need to install the signs. $10 processing fee and then the permit requires that the permit removes the signs. So I'm going to go to just the draft of the sign ordinance. We can talk through it. Eric, do you want to ask Erin your question soyg?

So my question is related to the stress sheets. So if you go to uh section three permits and number nine sub bullet uh for the permitting the way I'm reading it all signs uh require a stress sheet. So it's been forever and a day since basically when the dinosaurs room when I was doing my civil injury stuff. Uh my my recollection of stress sheets are just basically calculations of moment arms and how stresses are transmitted through members and all that stuff. You know loads are moved around. Um so first question is that a correct kind of generalization of a stressy stress sheet? Yes. And is this what what section is this in again Eric? It's in the permit section. Is this for permanent signs? Yes. Yes. Y So it would have to be basically engineering calculations to prove that the sign is structurally designed sufficient suffic sufficiently. So my understanding is fairly correct at least in the ballpark. Yeah. Okay. Uh is there an industry standard that kind of goes with what size or weight of a sign that these stress sheets have to start kicking in? Because you know on the far extreme. You know, you got a 4 foot by three foot cardboard sign or a breadboard or something like that. Having a stress sheet seems a little bit overkill. Is there kind of versus like a billboard or monument or I can take that one. Okay. So, depending on the type of sign, it either comes in on a zoning permit. So, if it's like a temporary sign or if it's like a temporary construction sign, it's a zoning permit. If it's a permanent sign, it goes through our building department and they do a full plan review. So, they check the footings against the weight of it. So, I would say it's the footing size that determines the amount of stress that the sign can handle, but that goes through the building permit process. So, they do their full review.

We inspect it. So, essentially, it's like a structure. Correct. So, what I'm getting at is just trying to figure out if a stress sheet is really necessary for all these permitted signs or not. No. So we typically get like a development sign usually does like monument sign for development that comes in on a building permit. So um anything on that scale yes we do review of it. Um I'm trying to think of a sign that we would do on a zoning permit. I would say majority of them come in on building permit. Those are the types of signs of permitting is the large monument signs of development entrances. So, what I'm kind of getting along getting at a long way around is do we do we really need to have a stretch sheet for all permitted signs or do we want to bend that for a certain type of sign or a certain gross way or footing size or height or whatever? Aaron, page. Oh, yeah. Keep going. Number nine. Keep going. Right there. That might be a building official question. if if there's a a code that at at what point is that required like what if there's so much surface area for like wind load or whatever. So I don't I can't answer that question Eric but that's something maybe we could ask Nick about too and I'm going to say internally that's something that we flush out. I just asking the signs that come in when I was looking for like wall mounted ones. So if you think about like the sign on the corner that did require or a foundation for the sign. So that would be a zoning permit. Um if you want to add something, we can. I don't think it's necessary just based on our practice of generally putting signs through the building permit process as opposed to

Eric, are you just suggesting um if required copy of the stress? Yeah. And what what is what requires that? just get cut off because what and maybe I'm reading this incorrectly but bullet three of the whole thing is sign permits right or am I missing it's required and it's saying all this stuff has to be a part of the application so I read this any kind of sign is a stress sheet sure which I'm put on a breadboard in front of a business or yard sale sign doesn't matter I don't think anybody's really know what a stress sheet is what well I'm saving you because they're going to come to you and ask what the hell's a stress sheet Yeah. I do this. You end up doing the calculations for that based on the might crack. What's that? That sandwich board might crack the sidewalk. Yeah. I hope not. I mean, obviously, I see the utility of putting up a billboard on 212 or, you know, large monument sign. You don't want that thing toppling over on due to a wind load or unstable foundation. So, you're just saying cross out number nine. No, I just want to change it. I don't want to cross it out. Okay. Maybe it's add something like if deemed necessary by engineering. Yeah. Or the building department stress sheets and calculations. Something like that. Good point. Please go home. Go home. Enjoy your children. Thank Thank you. Can I have your backpack? Oh, you really have a nice back. I love that back. See, people think these meetings are so boring, but we all laugh at least once. How do you want to do this? Let's start

at the top. I'm on the um proposed language. So, I'm starting on page 12 of 20 of the packet. Yeah, I guess uh kudos to Aaron and the staff because I was at those meetings when we looked at the original signed ordinance. So, it's it's a fantastic improvement. I could have sworn we've reviewed this already. No, we had we had Yes. Then we did it again. Yeah. Did it again. Yeah. But we've reviewed it here. Yeah. Yeah. And this was one that we wanted some council feedback on. So, okay. We're flipping the work around. It's been two years. So, Aaron, just uh in your little presentation, you said the city council does the policy. Correct. So, if we have recommendations to change the policy, you'll take that back to them or no? Um, if it is, if there are small changes, I would say yes. If you fundamentally want to scratch the whole thing, I'd say probably not. Okay. Okay. Anything in section one? Number one. Number two. Yeah. Uh 2A. This is made just creepy grammar thing. But looking at uh the words construct, enlarge, move, alter, convert. Move and convert. Enlarge. Aren't they all basically altering that point? It's my understanding. um after talking with Dave the city attorney that they are of legally different significance. Okay, fair enough. Webster says yes. Any anything else in section two ABC? Okay, section three A took feedback from number nine from Eric. Okay. Okay, hang on.

3A. These indentations aren't quite correct, so it's kind of hard to follow. Yeah. Um, this one wasn't me. So, you jumped to number nine, Eric. But, uh, number three Uhhuh. Um, it looks like it should be two of them. So, the aggregate copy area for all signs of the parcel and then the size of any other signs located within the property should be itself. Okay. It should be number four. Got it. I literally went line by line, old to new. Wow, you're an angel. Um, and caught that. So, in the old version, the size of any other signs located within the property was its own number. Got it. That's not even a sentence. The sign of any other Okay. Oops. That's just weird. It's applications for signs. The application shall describe and set forth the following. Anything on that was A. B is just one. Yep. Uh C. Okay. Four conforming sign non-conforming signs. Yes. Um, so I was just curious on number C or letter C. How do we I was just thrown by the contin not using it for a continuous period of one year. What does that mean? Like what does this whole thing mean? We've got a non-conforming sign that's not being used for a year. So, if you if somehow the doghouse's sign was non-conforming, their like letterboard sign, and they didn't use it for a

year, they then would not be able to come back and use it again if it was non if it was non-conforming. It's not that's not the case right now. Well, it was still it was originally non-conforming, so it's still non-conforming. Correct. And if if something at the time when we update a code, if something is non-conforming, it's a legal non-conforming. So if they continue to use it in the way that it was prior to the ordinance, they can. If they want to change it, they have to make it conforming. Correct. And then are you guys watching if they're using it or not? I would say this would happen in a situation like we wouldn't write a code to make something non-conforming if it was not an issue. Do you know what I mean? Like we try to think about situations where signs are located right now and we want them to be conforming with our code. So I would say this is likely one that we will not exercise but I would suspect we'll be glad to have if something strange happens. Okay. Would it would it more practical like uh a building a a sign is existence that shop closes down then when and we change the code right the sign could thread could be non-conforming and they wouldn't have been using it because it' been vacant right and the new person who opens the business would have to make their sign conforming basically is what it's saying right Aaron yes that would be a more practical okay that makes sense I don't know why you would have a year I don't know why you would have to wait a year. We're going to actually come back to the 12-month piece because there is a discrepancy in another area of the policy. I mean, if if you have a non-conforming sign and you remove it for any reason, it's non-conforming,

right? But this is not if you don't remove it, if it stays, no, it's not used for a continuous period of one year. I mean, why is somebody going to keep track that it's not been used for a year? I mean, maybe make it a week or two. This is permanent signage, correct, correct? Yeah. So, it's not something you're just going to take down and put back up, right? And I hear what you're saying and I want to say like we're so busy at city hall that we would never do that, but Carver is a pretty small place. Like if something if a business changes, we typically have all these developments go through. Well, and you're concerned about the public health of this non-conforming sign. Correct. I mean, I I don't see the reason for a year. Okay. Okay. Anything else on four? Okay. Section five. Um, in the old version it said there was one non-illuminated sign per property, but we've changed it to three. Why? So, thinking about like Hometown Bank is a good example of it where they have signage on a couple different sides of their building. M has it on the front and the back. Yep. So, um, Hometown Bank has their like electronic sign in the front and then they have some directional signage throughout the site, too. So, we wanted to cover that. Lake View Industries also has signs that, um, route truck traffic internally to their site. So, is adding additional signs that someone could put up. Okay. So, then the word sign has to be plural here. Signs. Signs. And then in number four, there's an extra comma. Rogue comma Dan a rogue comma on which number four or number four. Oh

yeah. Okay. Six. Anything on six? Um no. Hang on. Sorry. Um so in the old version we had um public institutional listed as a sign option and we didn't include it in the new one. They fall here. public institutionals other government or other official government signs when posted by a government official officer in performance of their duties. Would that be like school signs? That's what I was thinking. Churches, schools. Well, and these are signs shall be exempt from the permit requirement, right? So, we're going to require public institutional to go. It was ex it was allowed in the prior version without a permit and go through with the permit. Yes, we do have to permit our own projects. Okay. Um sorry, number five. Mhm. In the old version, we had a maximum of two flags per pole. Okay. And now we're not limiting that. Is there a reason why do we really want a flag pole with six flags on it? It says a maximum of three. That's three flag poles. Three flag poles. This is flag per pole. So you can have three flag poles, as many flags on a pole as you want. You could have eight flags on a pole if you wanted it. I don't think the pole would stand in a windstorm, but I'm just I just, like I said, literally went line by line by line to make sure that we're

comfortable with the deletions. I don't feel strongly about it. Do you feel strongly about two flags per pole? [Laughter] Let's go square area. No square. That is something I'm too busy to do. I will not be measuring flags. Okay. I mean, I'm just raising it. Yeah. To the group. And then uh so is there any concern with the number of flags per pole? Okay. And then in number six in the old version window signs installed for the purpose of viewing from outside the premise. In the old version it said however such signs shall not exceed 50% of the available window space and that has been removed. So, here's what triggered my mind on this one is depending on the density of the sign. It could, you know, it it could give a poor presentation, if you will, in the city if they just take their whole sign and cover up their glass. I'm just visually thinking about like if somebody just plastered black all over that window there, is that, you know, with with a sign on it, would that be appeasing to us? And this is going to come back in an signs category. There is no limit. And so, do we want the entire window a little bit careful about I hear what you're saying. I think 50% is Fine. I think that's a good idea. Keep it what it was before. Yeah. Yeah. For number six. Mhm.

You're going to have to measure windows and signs. Well, that should come in on a permit. A flag doesn't need a permit. Done with number five. On to number six. So, permitted permitted signs. Six. Prohibited. Yes. Okay. Past my bedtime. Is there a story about the pylon signs? Is there old discussion about this? No. I was hoping there would be cuz I wanted to say something like yes, there was some grand thing, but no. Okay. So, I'm just trying to understand why we would prohibit a pylon sign versus a shorter monument sign is allowed and allowing billboards in certain districts. But is there any rationale behind prohibiting pylon signs? That's what I'm getting at. Um, we don't allow billboards anywhere. just as a reference that there was some in the 212 section. Do you want to allow pylon signs? Yeah, my understanding the difference is just really height. They're essentially the same thing. Just my signs are shorter than a pylon sign. Yeah. So now we're essentially and then what's the cut off between a monument and a pilot sign then? So now we're getting to definitions we got to flesh out if we're going to prohibit a pylon sign. Yeah, I do know that there has been quite a bit at the time of approval and since there's a lot of feedback about the Fleet Farm sign, the size of it. So I would suspect that we are hoping to avoid an additional sign at that height. But that's my guess at this point. Yeah. Well, my only concern is with obviously

sight lines and stuff like that, some signs or some locations if that's the business has to go to that location. If we're limited to a monument sign, whatever that cut off is, it may not be as visible as they'd like. They may just because of trees or whatever hills. doesn't have to be 200 feet high, you know, kind of exaggerating there, but they may want to go higher to get into the pylon sign category just so their signage is visible. And maybe the a helpful route would be we could have a a max height for a monument sign instead of like I don't know the difference between a monument sign and a pylon sign. I don't know if there's is one significant, but that could maybe be what it is. Is that um like a coordinated development monument sign not to exceed X feet? Okay. That's just that's just feedback for the council to kind of flush that out a little bit because I don't think there is an industry standard, you know, cut off between what's classified monument now becomes pylon, right? Um so G Mhm. Um, the word exterior was added. Okay. So, going back to my prior comment about flashing, you know, they can put a Miller light sign in the window and turn it so it flashes outside, right? So, I feel like it we shouldn't differentiate between exterior interior. We're saying no flashing signs, right? Yes. I think what this I think what the intent here was, don't get me wrong, is like Hometown Bank, right? They've got an exterior sign. I would also say it likely applies

to Harvey's, the Dog House, Lisa's where they most of them do have illuminated signs in their windows. I just don't know if we want to be in the business of saying if something happens you can't put it back up because then it would be a non-conforming sign. Well, these are animated flashing intensely light. Okay. So, it feels different to you than what it does. Okay. Than what they you know if they've got like a Miller loudu that's fine. But then it gets to my other comment of the 50% window. Yeah. You know where do you you got to kind of draw a line somewhere. And then in H uh wind activated says that should be its own. Oops. That should be I y um set six. Anything on or done with six? No, I'm scrolling down to Y. Um, so this is where I was saying the abandoned signs versus the nonconforming 12 month. Oh, sure. Six months. This is 6 months. The other one was 12 months. So, I think we just got to pick one and stay consistent. Yeah. It sounds like this group might be interested in six months instead of 12. Does that feel right? So, we're saying if a company leaves, someone's going to go in and take down their sign. because they're no longer here typically. Yes, that's what you want to see that the sign goes with the business. So, this would be if um the non-conforming one would be if someone then moved in and wanted to use that

sign again. They wouldn't be able to if it was non-conforming where this one is abandoned. Then I think we could move forward. If it became a health safety issue, we could likely remove that sign if we deem it to be abandoned. How is a sign health unhealthy or unsafe? Like it's going to fall off the building. Yeah. Okay. I guess a definition of bandit. So, let's say business X location, they have a sign. They move out. M they leave the sign behind but the the the building's still there and maybe another tenant moves in in that transition period where it may or may not get a new tenant with the sign be considered abandoned at that point. So with that kind of line of logic, I would kind of lean more to 12 months because it may take a little bit longer for a new tenant to come in. It'd be a shame to tear down a monument because it hit six months and nine months or 12 months in a new tenant comes in, they could reuse that sign. Now they rebuild it. I mean, there's obviously tradeoffs in both. You got some sign out there for 12 months before we can do anything out of it. It's could be an eyesore or whatnot, but just kind of building some flexibility for new businesses coming in. And I Yeah. And all shape like this would be a route that we would probably take if it were starting to fall apart. So there would there would come. Oh, like to sit back. I know, but we can't hear you. Sometimes that people think that's better. Now, now I've forgotten what I was. Sorry. Um, so there are other venues for taking

down things that are hazard, right? That don't apply just because they're signs. Correct. Okay. I would say go here. Okay. Yeah. I think uh making consistent in a year seems reasonable again with you never know nothing moves as fast as you want. So if someone's moving a new building I think that's reasonable but but this is a little different than the other one. The other one was correct a nonforming sign unused sign. Yeah. I don't think that should have to be abandoned or a year. Yeah. had provisions in the prohibited section for dilapidated, neglected signs that we could leverage. Yep. The sign left behind looks terrible. We want to get rid of it. Yeah. And we could also use zone or um just 71 there is missing a period at the end. Okay. And then number two is a capital W for written. Oh yeah. Who formatted this? Not Natalie. We can start and stuff too if we want. Yeah. Yeah. The numbering's off. Yeah. I was What number were we on? Okay. So, seven's kind of a long one. Anything else on seven? Are you being facitious? It's a page. Okay. In letter E. So, I noticed letter, just so you guys know, letter C, it says reserved on the new one. That's actually all the temporary signage language that was pulled out. So that's why that's blank. Um or why it says reserved because I just didn't want to reformat reletter

everything. Um but in letter E, the very last sentence references temporary signs. So I don't think that needs to be in there anymore. [Music] eight. Sorry, I had a question about 7D6 the uh talking about historic district banners no higher than 10 feet from the the foundation. Is there a backstory or rationale for that 10 ft? I suspect that it's in the commercial guidelines that the HBC applies to a project. So I suspect that it's in there. So this is a reference to their specific design guidelines. They have their own there's residential and commercial districts that lay everything out for them. So I'm suspecting that it's in there to reference it here. Yeah, I should should reference that before the question. Then you don't tend to see a little arbit. You don't have to read those. Yeah. And we mean the top of the foundation from the foundation of the structure. What do you mean? Well, the foundation goes all the way underground. Oh, yes. This is true. I mean, is it where where the ground hits the foundation or the foundation goes up some? I'm going to say the ground. Some cases. I'm going say from the ground and change it. Yes, sir. Okay. Section 8 requirement by zoning district. I'm sorry. I have one question. I'm sorry. Um I just have one question. So in the in section F Yeah. Okay. In the old version it said

um the section was titled changeable copy board and dynamic display signs. What is a changeable copy board? That's why we got rid of it. What's a dynamic display board? Uh Hometown Bank showing the time and the temp. Okay. So, what do they call the like large like where they put the letters in and spell something out? Like the old marquees. Is that what a movie theater triggered my mind? No. Like Well, there there are signs that are electronic signs that change continually, right? But that's why I was I was I was changeable copy board to me felt like one of those signs where they spell the words out those plastic letters or the dog house right across the street so I wasn't sure if that's something we should remove because I don't think we have um any any type of sign like that we would probably want to make sure we're accounting for. I would probably call that a wall sign. Well, they come on wheels. Then I would call that a temporary sign. You got an answer. That's all that matters. Okay. What if the wheels are flat? What if the wheels are on the foundation? Section eight, requirement by zoning district. So, I noticed here's where we put the number five. That's where all the temporary A frame stuff went. Correct. Um, what I didn't see called out here, though, I know we had talked about making sure we had pedestrian safety on the sidewalks. So, are the side I didn't I like reread this three times and really didn't see where we're addressing. You know, we plunk a sign on the

sidewalk and now we're forcing people to walk off the sidewalk. Yeah, I suspect that it is included here. So, the Americans with Disabilities Act ensures clear sidewalks. Do we want to say anything about safety though? because it talks about in the public right away that's prohibited. I just remember a very deliberate conversation about making sure that the sidewalks were clear, right? Which is why we came up with some of this other language. I think maybe we could fit it in a any such sign may not be placed within the actual street within any parking space or on a public sidewalk that would interfere with pedestrian traffic. Okay. in B. Mhm. There's one and then there's no A and then there's a B. Oh, yeah. I see that there's a period there. I didn't catch that. What? I was getting tired. There's a full week besides anything else? on that section. This is a long section. Uh nine, table of sign regulations. I just thought it was interesting that you remove one table but left the other. Well, it says table of sign regulations and there's no table there either. The officials author under nine. Mhm. So, there was a table under eight.

Yep. And there's no table on nine. I don't think nine is supposed to have a table though. It says is authorized. Yeah. Doesn't say has to, right? Yeah. Okay. section two that starts with letter C and the underlined is new text. Correct. Shar, I think you said you had something on this. Nope, I'm done. Comments. Okay, I think we're done then. Beautiful. The end. Great. We'll revise it and we'll bring it back. Okay, moving on to communications. Sherry, anything for you? No. Jim? Nope. Um, I have three questions. D Green Road, how far is that tred or is it tred at all or is it planned to be tarred? So, it right now is tarred to the west side of Oak Tree. As we continue developing along Delgrren Road, each developer will have to come to their westerly property line. It gets tricky where we're at right now because some of those properties likely can't develop frankly beyond what they are right now because it's so hilly. So, it's something we toss back and forth with the county fairly often like a hot potato of who should do it, who should do it, how do we do it because it's a kind of a spooky road. Okay. Actually, it's a township road. It is right now. Yeah. Yep. Creekide Park timing again soon. Yeah. Midsummer it'll be open. And then is disc golf still planned or is that phase two? So eventually. Yep. Is a chicken chicken ordinance approved? Yes. And how many chicken applications do we have? Uh we have gotten several of people who already had coups which is great. Uh new ones maybe two. Okay. Three. Three or

four. Okay. Good. That's all my questions. Are you gonna submit one? No. Okay. I can't handle chickens. Um, Lincoln, uh, two quick questions. The gateway to, um, Carver by Casey's, I see you can submit feedback on the website. There's no timeline listed. Where's that at? Do you know? We are continuing to apply for grant funding. We haven't been successful thus far, but we're going to keep trying. Okay. And then the splash pad, I forget the name of that one, but the one by Getaway and that whole like uh I've seen people posting online their opinions on parking. I don't tend to agree with them, but I'm just curious like that one small kids. I feel like they'll be grown up before it's done. Wondering where where that's at, too. We are planning to wrap up Creekide and then start to focus on that project as our next large scale park project. Cool. That's it for me. Is that park project down here that's moving forward? Uh we have not made any approvals. We haven't gone out for design or plans and specs, but in general, the council is supportive of the project. Yeah, one of the holdups on that is the public works space. There's the currently the public works has the salt grinder for the winter roads in there. So, they'll need to move that first annoyingly. Eric, anything for you? No, happy to be here. Thank you. That was a slo at the end. Go ahead. Go ahead. Yeah. Uh just a quick updates uh from the Carver County Park Board. Uh so we're currently in the review of our uh Baylor Park master plan. So uh the park hasn't had a master plan since 1979. So there will be website feedback and community involvement of what they want to see at Baylor Park. Baylor Park

is on the far western edge of the county by Norwood Young America to the south. So that's it. So I know we approved this agenda, but it goes from 5 to 8. Oh, that was my bad. I'll take that. The agenda numbering. We go from five. The official one only goes to six. Yeah, this is just this was my bad. That's the annotation. Oh, okay. Um, the annotated version goes to eight. Official version goes to six. Can I get a motion to close the meeting? So moved. Thanks, Eric. Second. Thank you, Jim. And the meeting is adjourned. That was our first two plus hour.