Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I declare this meeting open. Our first point in the order of the day tonight is the open forum. The open forum is an opportunity for anyone to turn to the Commission on a point not in the order of the day and that there is no request submitted to the Commission on a future date. Is there anyone among the public who wishes to turn to the planning commission on a point not in the order of the day and not presented as a request that will be submitted to the future commission? Since there is no one, we will move on to the approval of the order of the definitive day. Officers, our next point is to adopt the order of the definitive day. Can I have a motion to adopt the order of the definitive day?

Motion presented. I have a second. So Otterstadter and Kleinter have presented the motions.

All those in favor? Some are against. Motion approved. Our first regular point is 4.1, the approval of the verbal of the meeting of the planning commission of August 5, 2026.

Can I have a motion to approve the verbals?

Present.

So I think there are two P, so U shower and U quad have presented those, so all those who are in favor.

Someone is against. I do not hear anyone. Our first point of discussion tonight is point 4.2. Examine a preliminary plan and the relative request for a victory. After the staff presentation, I will open the public hearing for those who are present in the room tonight and would like to speak on the request.

Anyone who wishes to speak will have three minutes available and I will kindly ask U to move on to the next speaker until everyone has had their opportunity.

Then I will ask the planning commission for a motion to close the public hearing.

I ask you to note that the planning commission and the city staff do not engage in discussion of vote and response during this public hearing. Now I pass the word to the urban planner, Brian McKenna, for the presentation of the staff.

Thank you, President and Planning Commissioner.

I will take a look at our window to see if we can put our presentation on the screen.

Sorry for the wait.

No, thank you.

Yes, thank you Josh. So the request in front of you tonight is for Ratoria Victoria. We are in the preliminary plan phase, which is the second phase of the development process. Here is where we examine the most detailed requests and we focus on all their revisions, zoning, leveling, public services and also where we grant the main authorizations. Usually in this phase you do not receive only a preliminary plan request, you get any conditional use permits, amendments to the general plan or things like that. So these are the authorizations for the exam tonight. Moreover, if they receive approval from the Municipal Council, scheduled for the meeting on Monday, August 24, they will proceed with the preparation of the final plan for the revision, which will not pass from the Planning Commission, but only from the Municipal Council. Tonight we have four requests relating to this question. We have the preliminary plan, as I have already mentioned. They also require an amendment to the general plan. A preliminary revision of the planned unit is a question for the area plan and the necessary building materials for any new commercial or residential development at high density in the city. As for the location and the current conditions, it is located at 22105 Arburi d'un Boulevard and the property is made up of four lots, the largest one here and three smaller lots indicated on the screen in the image on the left. The site currently consists of two existing single-family houses, one here at the end of Sky Drive and another in the center of the site towards the wet areas. The two southern lots here, this long corridor, actually have a passageway service with the city for a future dedicated to the corridor of the regional path of Lake Minnetonka. Currently they have complete access to Highway 5 here in the north. And then there is also complete access to Sky Drive here. There is also a significant coverage of wet areas, as you can see in the image on the left, with a stream that connects Lobe Lake to the north, to Calcrae Lake to the southwest off-screen. This site was also part of the previous Amira project, which you may remember as a 147-unit structure for old people. They were not able to take off that project. That's why tonight we have in front of us the request of Ebenezer Development. Here is their preliminary plan proposed. They show three lots, with a large outdoor lot here that would be dedicated to the city for wet areas and the conservation of ecological cushions. Their project, however, focuses mainly on lot 1, which would consist of a building of 76 cooperative apartments for elderly people and then two single-family lots, here indicated as lots 2 and 3. For the cooperative site, they plan to make 140 car seats. You may remember that at the Sketchplat they initially planned 167 seats, but there were some concerns about the impermeable surface. So, regarding the need for so many car seats for a structure for the elderly, or a life scenario for old people. They have reduced their need for parking by 27 places with this new proposal that you see tonight. 40 of those places are in the parking lot on the surface and the remaining 100 places are all inside the building in the ground floor. They also do not offer any direct access to Highway 5. Everything would be transported by SkyDrive to then go back up along Lake Spark and connect to Highway 5. So, one of their requests was a reclassification of a planned development area, PUD, with R4 as a destination, provided that this project or this property had previously received approval as a planned development with the Central Commercial District as a underlying destination. The reason why they are not using that zoning is that they propose about half compared to the previous project. therefore they are not able to meet the required density for the Central Commercial District between 24 and 75 units per acre. Their project provides for about 17 units per acre. This is why they require reclassification in their request. As you know, the planned development process allows for innovative, creative and flexible development. The contribution is provided during the Sketch Plat, which the Commission of Planification and the Municipal Council have done. And this is where we define some details in the preliminary plan, with a final order that will be considered in the final plan for formal reclassification for planned development. Having said that, on your screen, this evening, I have divided the three types of products that they propose with their question. For the family units, a reduction of the 30 to 10-foot backrest is proposed. You may remember that during the Sketch Platt, the municipal staff requested or contributed to this proposal of deviation due to the impact on the cushion of the wet areas. simply there was not enough space in the rear cortices so they require a reduction of that alignment from 30 to 10 feet they also require a reduction of the minimum size of the lotto from 20,000 square feet which is a requirement for coastal areas to 13,000 square feet for single-family houses and an increase in the impermeable surface from 25% to 35% partly due to the reduction of the minimum size of the lotto And as a note of margin, I think I will talk about it later in the presentation, we have added this question to our hydrologists in the DNR area. They did not provide any comment within the 30 days expected for the review. So I contacted them a couple of times and we did not receive any comment from them. However, they examined it during the plan and declared that they had no objections at that time. As for the rear villas, they propose a small reduction of the front detachment from 25 to 24 feet. The lateral detachment, specifically compared to the end of the lot for the unit of the villa closer to the property line shared with one of the single-family houses, is 9 feet, in view of the requirement of 15 feet for the separation between the buildings. For the rear detachment, the scenario is similar, there are 25 feet compared to the passageway, but in this case they propose 20 feet compared to the edge of the lot, which is not adjacent to the service, but it is a deviation that must be noted in the unit development plan. Finally, for the high density building of apartments and condos, they propose a deviation from the maximum limit of 25% of the impermeable surface of the coastal district, bringing it to 50%. You will remember that our order on coastal areas establishes that any project in the central commercial district can reach 80%. So it is the change of zoning to lower the percentage from 80% to 25%. The applicant proposes a halfway line fixed at approximately 50%. As for the maximum height of the building, they propose 60 feet. It is a specific measure between the height of the higher ground floor and the actual top of the roof. So 60 feet is the proposed measure or the rendering of the building further ahead in which I can highlight these 60 feet. As part of this ITER, they also require an amendment to the general regulatory plan. Currently, in our Regulatory Plan 2040, the area is intended for a mix of mixed use for the center, open spaces and parks. This goes back to the previous M.I.R.A. proposal. As I mentioned, their project currently provides about 17 units per acre. This actually requires an amendment to the Regulatory Plan to allow a lower density than what could be done here. That said, the proposed residential uses are in accordance with the R4 district and the residential district at high density of our regulatory plan. Here is the part related to the coastal overpass district. They are within a thousand feet of the Six Mile Creek and the Auburn Lake. This requires a revision by the NR, which, however, has not provided comments on it. With this and the unitary development requests, it will be necessary to develop a cost-effective residential unitary development plan for the deviations from our requirements, i.e. 20,000 square feet for single-family homes and 50% of the maximum permeable surface for the cooperative site. They have provided a level analysis and indicate a maximum density of 84 units according to the RSPEED requirements, which is exactly the number of units they propose in their project. We now pass to the construction materials, lighting and signage. These are some renderings of the cooperative building and the left-hand houses proposed for the project. Their external materials exceed our minimum requirements for residential areas. Once again, we are outside our business district, so they are not subject to those high design standards, but they have incorporated many of them in the projects of these buildings. They are also providing sufficient road lighting for the public cul-de-sac. They have shown one at the end of the cul-de-sac in their plans. At the moment, as far as we know, no monumental sign is expected. In their plans there is none, but they proposed a small adjacent wall sign at the entrance of the building. This would require a permit to build in the future, but it would also satisfy our minimum requirements for the signage. Regarding the landscape and the conservation of trees, in general, they are meeting all our requirements. They are providing about 50% of open space for development, in addition to the minimum number of plantations. They have planned perimeter plantations around the left-hand houses and the cooperative building. The cushioned areas have been a difficult aspect for this site. For our cushion areas we require a high ceiling of 8 feet, which requires about 50 feet in width to be made. Making it between a single family house with a low R1 density and the living units on the left, as requested, would be difficult to obtain. so they incorporated some plantations here to help isolate those lots. They encountered the same problem with Highway 5, at the north end of the site. They are providing many trees at the north end, but they also have some bushes adjacent to the parking lot to shield vehicles. As for the trees along the road, one is provided every 45 feet along the public cul-de-sac, as indicated in the image on the left. For off-road parking areas, they do not have trees in the islands inside the parking lot, but this is because there are users who pass in those areas. We do not want trees on the lines of public services. We do not want those radical devices to have an impact on our water and sewage services. So we are also at our age with this deviation. Their obligation to replace amounts to 333 inches of replacement for the total removal of the trees existing on the site. they are providing 129 replacement trees and our minimum requirement is 2.5 inches per tree so they are surpassing such standards with all their substitutions then moving on to the streets and parking lots as I mentioned they have here the public cul-de-sac highlighted in blue as well as their private entrance to the complex and parking lot and access to the underground garage highlighted in red In the image on the left, our code requires that for old people's accommodation there is a car seat for a living unit and an additional seat for every five units. So with the 76 unit building they propose, they are expected to have 92 car seats for their project. As I said before, they are providing 140, so they are well above the minimum requirements, even in this case. In addition, it is expected that the single-family houses and the rear houses have a length of the dial sufficient and garage two places to meet the minimum parking requirements even for those units. Then passing the pedestrian connections they have a section of public sidewalk indicated in green here along sky drive. It is expected that once entered the area of the cooperative everything else will be private. will ask the residents of the cooperative to decide whether to allow external visitors to cross their areas or to use this private path, shown in blue, towards the future Lake Minnetonka Regional Trail when it will be completed. As for the park destination, speaking of the Lake Minnetonka Regional Trail, this would satisfy their obligation of park destination. Old people accommodation get a credit of 50%, so they have to provide less than 1 acre of land. They are providing 7 with this area, so they are going well beyond what is required. Are there any questions about the possibility of buying additional properties along this corridor from private owners or if they have to build the path?

The regulations are quite clear, they must only cede the land and not build the infrastructure.

That will depend on the city, the county or whoever else is interested in developing this path. Let's move on to the management of rainwater in wet areas and site services. It is subject to the rules and regulations of the MCVD. They are mapping the external lots that contain the wet areas and the respect areas. This blue area is the one I mentioned before that was going to impact on the borders of the previous lots for those single-family houses. Initially they showed the borders that were coming. Up to the inside of this area marked by the respect zone, the code requires us to include the wet areas and the respect zones inside the external lots. That's why they are giving us this area inside that external lot and they require that reduction of 10 feet of the rear trailing link. They also proposed an underground system for rainwater, highlighted in green, with the rest of the water and sewage services that come from Highway 5 and Sky Drive and cross the entire site from east to west. so with this you must have a public hearing this evening it was published in the edition of the 6th of August of the Waconia Patriot we also sent a postal notice to the people within 350 feet from the boundaries of the property it was published online and at the municipality I forgot to update this slide previously but we received two public comments in opposition to another high density project in the city in the city I provided you with paper copies I have also sent them to you by email and they will be part of the municipal council package for the meeting on Monday 24. And as I have already mentioned, this will go to the council on Monday 24 August if the planning commission gives a recommendation tonight. So if anyone is interested in watching from home or in the classroom to advise tonight, know that you might want to participate or also watch the meeting on the 24th. You are invited to participate but will probably not accept any public comment. So this is really your time as residents to get up, talk and provide comments to our planning commission that will then be added to the municipal council for evaluation. With this I have some approval conditions proposed on the screen for the evaluation of the planning commission this evening. None of these is atypical compared to what you would normally see only generally approval of revision according to the personnel review all the other standard conditions that you usually see but with this I have a drop of emotion on the screen for you if you decide to approve I also have two subsections here both with the conditions of the staff and with any additional conditions that you would like to add at this point I am available for any questions also a representative of the request is present among the public tonight

All right. Does the applicant want to speak tonight? I think so. Please go ahead and declare your name.

I don't know. So I'm an architect. Yes, I'm open to any question you may have. I think someone has a question for you.

I have a question for Mr. Jensen. Has a complete environmental assessment been carried out? Not yet.

Yes, we are preparing a geotechnical report and it seems that everything is in place regarding the conditions of the terrain and the aquifer slabs. Brian said that we have not had news from the hydrologist of the DNR, but I think it would be appropriate to have a comprehensive assessment of the environmental impact given the proximity to wetlands. This is my only contribution. I appreciate the fact that this is one of those rare cases in which we support the need for fewer parking lots.

Usually we go in the opposite direction.

but we thought that in the initial phase there was too much space for parking, so I am happy that this change has been made, but I personally would feel more at ease if there was a complete assessment of the environmental impact.

If there is nothing else, well, thank you. We will discuss it later. But now I would like to take the opportunity to open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the room tonight who would like to comment on this particular point? If you want to approach, declare your name and address. I think so.

So, my name is Bistami. I live at 2441 Bincidiero.

I'm going to increase the angle by as much as possible.

The first is the planning of traffic. You know, the planning of traffic for the FIVE has been discussed both in this meeting and in the previous session of the Municipal Council, due to the impact on viability and the fact that we do not yet have answers or clarity regarding the development and the other impacts in the Carver county and the workload imposed on Highway 5, both for the residents of Lakeridge and for those of Harbour Drive on the north side of Fyre. I was worried about the idea of ​​accepting traffic at that intersection without having information or indications from the Indot on what the impacts will be. This is the first concern I wanted to share. The second concern I would like to raise concerns the ambiguity about access to the LRT. So, there was a meeting organized in June with the residents, and I don't think it's clear to the residents of Lake Bridge what will be public and what will be private, even if the LRP was developed. It is important to clarify what the public benefit is, if things should expand on such opportunities. I don't know, but the neighborhood of Lake Bridge has wanted it for decades now.

My third concern about what has already been asked, there are many reactions very close to the wet areas in an area that is developing with the expansion of the center, and I would really like to understand what the impact is on our lakes and parks with this development.

So these are the three concerns I wanted to share. Thank you for your time.

c'è qualcun altro tra il pubblico se volete farvi avanti dite il vostro indirizzo buonasera mi chiamo Larry Martin 2080 Kelser Pond Drive quindi appena a sud di questo complesso ho inviato anche alcuni commenti a Brian credo sia questo che si riferisse dicendo che sono stati condivisi con voi nei vostri plichi I imagine that my main concern concerns the distances from wet areas. All the variants seem rather significant for left-handed and single-family homes. Moreover, when I look at the impermeable area that we have established, I am thinking of putting a pool in my garden and with the limit of 25% I am very limited in what I can do considering roof, toilet, etc. And then see a 50% variant here. For this wet area it is somewhat disconcerting. However, I also looked at the paths and, while I was sitting here tonight, I thought about pedonability. As a complex for the elderly, one would like to have the opportunity as an elderly person to be able to walk to the center, but there is no way to do it. So I understand the path that is potentially heading south, but without the development of the LRT, which seems unlikely to be realized, I would say that the possibilities are rather scarce, without significant changes or costs to modify the route. and collaborate with existing commercial properties to create an exception around the lands where, I imagine, there are the evaluations of those on which Lotti originally ran the path. So I imagine that this is my main concern, in addition to water and the permeability of the property well thanks for sharing these reflections I will ask again if there is someone else among the audience who would like to speak this topic I don't see nor hear anyone Then I will proceed to make a motion or I will ask the commissioners to make a motion to close the public hearing.

I propose to close the public hearing. So I have Kleinfelter who proposed and Steader who supported. Can we have a motion about it? Those in favor say yes. Some are against. No objection. So this leads us to the next topic. Well, commissars, now that we have done it, excuse me, commissars, not having other interventions, we can have a motion. To recommend.

There is still a section in which we should be able to speak.

If you have questions for the staff or for the applicant, feel free to ask them now and we will do our best to answer them.

So this is what I would like to ask. I'm a little confused.

I will open the discussion to the planning commission to discuss the topic.

My apologies. Any thoughts about the staff?

To start, there was a comment in one of the articles that we received in the package regarding the more than 55 years, I believe, on how many apartments we have had in general. A question I had is how many apartments have been built recently, but they are specifically for 55 and intended for that group of people.

Of course, Commissioner Shaw was an excellent question. This would be the first concept with age restrictions in the city. And I will note that the AMIRA project was previously for over 55. I believe that this project is actually for over 62, just to clarify.

I think it's really important. I think it's a milestone that the city is missing. You know, I want to make sure I create space for residents who maybe want to leave their own house, but continue to live in the area, perhaps at a slightly more affordable rate than a generic apartment. But I definitely agree with the fact that the mobility is very important. I know we talked about it the last time that the issue came to the urban commission to see if there was a way to get a foothold towards the new west center.

You have further discussions with the president, commissioner Schauer, we have sent these plans to Mendot as soon as we received them. One of the comments received by the Urbanist Commission and the Municipal Council during the draft plan was to want to know if Mendotta would have granted an extension of the road or access. Then I sent them three separate emails and left a message in the Secretariat without getting an answer even after 30 days from their revision period. So unfortunately I don't even have their comments about it and we have to elaborate this request within our 60 days provided by the law that expire on Monday. So unfortunately we are short of time.

I think the only other thing I had to do was the parking lot. I am happy that we reduced it, but my only concern is that I counted only four handicapped places in the garages and two outside. And I just want to make sure that there is adequate space for the disabled so that

A comment related to your question. I don't know if a study has been done on the impact of traffic, but I am very worried about the neighborhoods because suddenly we will introduce a huge flow of additional traffic through residential areas towards Highway 5. It would seem more sensible to have a direct access point to Highway 5, if possible, to reduce at least the impact of traffic in the neighborhood.

President and Commissioner Otter Setter, I know that it was one of the things that the urban commission hoped to know from the Mendot and it is something on which I specifically asked for clarification, since they did not show any access proposed by A5. So we wanted to know if it was an option. I would just like to give a little context here on Lakes Parkway. This road has always been thought of as a residential connection road. So it has always been designed to manage higher traffic volumes and this SkyDrive was specifically intended to serve this site. Cara can probably talk about it better, but the past comments of the members have always been that they will not allow access to the 5. So this has always been understood as their main access point. And I don't think it's very likely that people turn left towards the road of connection and get lost through any future development towards the west to get to the 5 when there is the access point.

I didn't realize it was like that.

And in second place, with the M.I.R.A. proposal made a few years ago, they actually did a study on traffic and with 147 units per elderly, it generated only 30 additional shifts during the hours of morning, noon and evening. So the elderly simply don't drive that much.

Especially at that time of day.

So traffic volumes are typically lower with that type of use.

That's right.

Last question, why 60 feet? That deviation is really necessary.

We worked hard to keep Victoria with a smaller atmosphere and for every project that arrives in the area of the center we always ask the question, did you manage to stay within the maximum height?

President and Commissary, I could turn to the architect for this question, but I wanted to highlight the 60 feet only for reference. This is still a four-story building. The 60 feet are measured from the ground floor, which you see here near the main entrance, reach the middle point between the roof line and the actual top of the building. So 60 feet are about here. I don't know if it is possible to reduce the tops of these two sections of the building to conform to 55 feet, but this has always been reported to the developer for this project as a requirement of 55 feet. Emergency.

Thank you for the question, I think it ends up being a valid point. Part of the reason or the architectural motivation is that we point to a modern Nordic style, with perhaps a touch of American craftsmanship, if you want to use a specific technology. But the main building ends up being, you know, a four-story building, we see it everywhere, so working with the owner we asked ourselves how we could, in a certain sense, break the schemes, so to speak. And so we end up with these very inclined Nordic tympani that we have at the ends and at the center. This ends up being the point where, you know, we frame the rails a bit. But the main thing is, you know, once again, not having the usual standard development that you see for this type of application, you know, just to make everything a little more interesting, a little more articulated than the norm.

So it's useful.

I would say that my comment is that I really appreciate the fact that it is not the usual flat roof, it is simple as we see everywhere in the country, not only in Minnesota.

What did the municipal staff do to verify?

Great question! So, can I actually show the exposure of the levels? It was included in your package this evening, but the process of evaluation and analysis of the levels is actually established in our municipal code. Once you know how to do it, it's actually a fairly simple process. What it does is measure every 250 feet from the ordinary high tide line of the lake and then you take that total area within that level that extends from the lake and divide it by the meter allowed for a lot within the coastal district which is 20,000 square feet. and repeat that process for levels 2, 3 and 4 and each level gets a special unit for the first level you get a bonus of density of 50% for the next you get 100% then 200% for the four levels sorry I'm scrolling trying to explain all this at the same time so basically here they have the table that shows what is done and required in our code And in the end, this is what brings you to the maximum density with the final entity. It's a bit blurred, but that number 84, which is the exact number of units they propose, with the cooperative building of 76 units, the six left-handed houses and the two single-family houses.

I note that this is marked as preliminary, and I believe that in the formal statement there is...

President and Commissars, since tonight we can grant the right to use the land for a project of 84 units, I hope they are almost definitive. If they intend to exceed 84 units, they should go back, repeat the process, obtain new approvals. Just to clarify, 84 is the number in question. Is that the maximum number of units allowed? If they want to exceed it, they should get a variant, which they did not ask for.

Is there any possibility of putting a path along Highway 5? Or is it back to the question of the M-Dot you were talking about?

Unfortunately, yes. Yes, I did not receive comments from them, but that was my question. Would the access path allow something at all? And I did not have an answer. And unfortunately we cannot simply add it.

You can put the image that shows the profit of the building.

Oh yes, let me go back to the case. It's probably simpler. So this would go well, or would you like to have a different one?

What? Can you go to what's on the right? No. Yes, right here. The roundabout of which, as soon as the construction is finished, you can put your...

It's here.

So there's a single substantial area between...

Correct. So a feeling there is highly unlikely and would have serious impacts on wet areas, but we asked the MINDOT in case they had allowed something like that.

We have asked many of these same questions with the first proposed site. I remember when you mentioned the 30 cars. A large part of this has emerged to understand where it came from. Passing the question raised by... ...the plan for access to the metropolitana... ...we certainly cannot force it...

Yes, it's another great question. Commissari. In reality there is an access to the path inside the Lake Bridge neighborhood shown here. This is the end of that corridor. The city is owned by this property. So a connection is certainly possible once these particles are obtained and there are some areas of private property in this area that unfortunately have hindered the creation of a complete path, but there would be direct access to the Lake Bridge neighborhood once that segment has been completed.

I'm sorry if I missed some details on the water retention or on the mitigation... ...on the impermeable surface.

would pass through that treatment system of the rainwater that I identified in one of my previous slides. I had that big green area at the bottom left, I think. It was in the southwest corner. It was under the parking lot in front of the building where that system is located. So it would flow, it would be collected in the roadside, it would pass through the grounds, it would pass through the system and then it would be scattered in the Six Mile Creek. I'm not an engineer, so dear, please intervene if I'm saying something wrong.

I still think that the deflation from the parking lot will not matter much.

That comes only from fertilizers.

Fertilizers.

So we're worried about what we're going to do. We simply start using fertilizers on the road.

Instead of trying to impose a minimum distance that would not do anything to eliminate.

I do not know the common practice on the use of fertilizers in landscaping areas for projects, if it can be harmful, and the use of phosphorus.

It could have already been dealt with. Phosphorus generates. Is it used? I do not believe. Nobody.

Nice to see you. I think most of you know who I am, but only for the chronicle, dear Garen, a municipal engineer. So Brian asked me to be here tonight for these two points, this is the next one in case there were any questions. But just a little bit broadly, since there have been some environmental-related questions for the members of the public. This development is subject to the regulations of the Miniac Creek Watershed District and the way in which the process works is that the Miniac Creek Watershed District will not examine or release permits until the city has approved the preliminary plan. So once the applicant will have the approval of the preliminary plan, he will have to follow the ITER of the Miniac Creek Watershed District, which requires standards for the protection of rainwater, standards for the protection of wetlands, standards for control of erosion. They have a lot of rules. So they will complete a detailed review, in addition to that of the new staff, to examine the protection of wet areas. Therefore, the management structure of rainwater, which you see highlighted in green, will have to collect all the flow from the site and their standards include both the quality of the water and the control of the volume and the range. So those standards protect both from floods and from the quality of the water. to protect the wet area. That wet area is of high priority for the Hydrographic District. They have invested a lot of money to improve Six Mile Creek and the entire wet area, so they have a particular interest in this area, although they have all those requirements for all the projects. So when will I come back for the final approval of the plan before the municipal engineer, that is me, gives the final approval to the project, they will have to have all the approvals in order from the hydrographic district. It is a matter of sequence, so the hydrographic district will not give the approval until the local entity has approved the use of the soil.

useful it is very useful I think it was a missing piece in the discussion so thanks for this I can ask a related question therefore as regards the houses with the three meters of arreterment which is quite close the hypotheses will be subjected to that analysis so this as well as present I assume this is the reason for the arreterment of the flow as well as any public services

So if we reduce the deflation here, it would still be good that there is sufficient control of the deflation and sufficient space.

So, is there any other discussion? We have expressed many opinions about it. Is there anything to conclude? We want to verify one last thing.

We had a slide on what was proposed, like the plants. How close will they be to the building compared to the wet area?

Are you talking about trees or plants for the foundations?

Landscapes. Exactly.

So this was also included in your package. All the circles you see on the whole site are the trees. In fact, there are more detailed plans in the package, but I didn't want to go too far. in the details with you they are also showing the foundation plants around all the left-handed villas and cooperative buildings so part of our analysis when we examine the landscape is to determine if there will be impacts on the service lines as I said before that's why they didn't put trees in the green islands because that's where the services pass under the parking lot as you can see here So we carefully examined the landscape positions as part of our forecast.

I just wanted to confirm. So on that south side of the plantation, rather close to the building, to try to preserve the wet area more. Correct.

Part of this is that they are also adding other trees only for aesthetics and to meet their replacement obligations. So they are careful where they place the trees. And then, since you offer another opportunity to speak, I wanted to clarify the comment on the final plan that I made at the beginning that will not return to you. This is a preliminary revision that you are considering tonight. The final revision will actually arrive with the final plan. So you will still have another public hearing. So public, you will have another opportunity to speak on this request if they will receive approval from the municipal council on Monday. I just wanted to clarify that comment for everyone.

Brian, I know that when we examined the sketch of the plan, both the planning commission and the municipal council were curious about the response of the people on the road of connection around Sky. And I know that it was the fact that they had not responded to those specific requests given the change in traffic.

There is a plan to continue to ask for that feedback to the MDOT and find out if there are any.

We can assure ourselves of continuing to ask for it.

President and Commissioner, I have a good question. I will continue to disturb them. I want an answer.

You know, it's a friendly idea.

Add it as a condition to the motion we are about to present, which is a qualifying element. I mean, this means that you can contact them. It does not mean that they will give you a favorable opinion.

We have a condition here. I would just like to point out to point 6 that they will have to comply with any necessary permission and regulatory approval. So if the MDOT has requirements for them as part of this request that we are examining, they will have to respect them tonight. If MDOT says they want to allow access to the path, I think it would probably be useful for the applicant to go deeper and maybe come back with a question to be asked in the future. So I can't guarantee it. As you all know, we are subject to the requirement for a 60-day review and, as I said, the time is tight. But if there are requirements, MDOT will have to meet them.

and you know for me to understand that vnr starts its process after the preliminary phase it means that we cannot obtain those answers until this does not happen so there are other ... okay great ... officers not having other discussions I ask a motion

Propongo di raccomandare al Consiglio Comunale l'approvazione della richiesta per la vittoria subordinatamente alle condizioni dello staff mostrati.

Quindi abbiamo una mozione di standard e un secondo di posto. Tutti a favore? Qualcuno contrario? La mozione è approvata. So, our next point of discussion tonight... Our next point of discussion tonight is point 4.3. Consideration of a preliminary plan proposal associated for the fourth edition of Downtown West. After the staff presentation, I will open the public hearing for those who are in the room tonight and want to speak about the request. The public hearing process will be similar to the previous one. And now I pass the word to Brian, urban planner Brian McCann, for the staff presentation.

Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. You will probably see a lot of similar information at the previous point, precisely because these two projects are very close and are following similar approvals. We are in the preliminary planning phase. It is here that the main rights are granted, such as the permits for the use of conditioning that the applicant is asking. This evening, differences are presented with a direct zoning for this project. so you probably won't see this project again because it does not require the approval of a re-zoning with the final planimetry if they receive the approval from the council on Monday evening so tonight we have three requests in front of you the first is the preliminary planimetry the second is the permission to use conditioned by three different uses provided by our code and finally a question for the site plan and building materials so the site here is at 2000 are 20 of arboritum boulevard It has a size slightly less than an Acro. It currently hosts the former Dairy Queen building and 37 parking lots. It is also adjacent to the future development of the center-west. This particle just east in the image on the left currently also has access to Highway 5, as well as access to County Road 11. The site is currently waterproofed for about 66%. This is the preliminary plan that was presented to the city. It provides an extension of Main Street from the development of the center-west towards the east, which would connect here to Victoria Drive. They are eliminating access to Highway 5. and in its place they propose two structures the lot 1 here would consist of a building of 900 square feet with a drive-thru capable of serving up to 15 vehicles I imagine I can go to the next slide to show you all this and then in second place the lot 2 would consist of this other building which would be 2,300 square feet It is expected that both will be used in a restaurant style. The western building would be similar to a drive-thru coffee shop, while the central building would be a fast food type of transport. Both provide external rooms for the restaurant and the entire site offers about 40 car seats. As for the zoning and the general plan, the current area is the central district of business, intended for mixed use in the center, which is our urban district in the general plan. The commercial uses proposed are in accordance with both the zoning and our general plan, but the drive-thru and the permanent outdoor storage areas require those air conditioning permits that I mentioned. And then the third air conditioning permit regarding the requisite of the coastal area is within a thousand feet of Lake Auburn, therefore they must comply with the customs regulations, which means that they need a conditional use permit for any commercial proposal in this area. Being in the central commercial district, they are subject to a maximum limit of 80% impermeable surface. The previous project required the zoning R4, that's why they had to comply with the 25% limit. Here we are at 80%, their current proposal is just under such a threshold at 77.8%. So no compensation is required for this. then examining the conditions we have evaluated them according to our requirements in the code they are according to the general standards of the city's conditions and we also have specific conditions for the drive-thru you may remember that last year there was a project that had to evaluate these standards We then checked if there were structures or parking spaces within 100 feet of residential property and they are suitable. They are not found within 100 feet of any residential area. A minimum of 150 feet of road surface is required, with two access points. They show Main Street, from here it is possible to exit to the west on County Road 11 or east to reach the rest of the center of West and Highway 5. In addition, their proposal provides for a front landscaping courtyard. They therefore meet all the requirements for a drive-thru air conditioning permit. Passing the external materials of the building, they are in accordance with the high design standards of the Central Commercial District, which include variations of facades, improved entrances and high quality external materials. They have listed some of these in the images here on the left, indicating where such materials will be found on the structures. They have aluminum windows, composite wood, wavy metal panels and metal roof, vertical conjunction. As for lighting and signal, you can remember that the previous planimetric diagram provided a monument sign approximately here, near the highway front. It was later removed due to the links of the site and the position and arrangement of the west building, so at the moment no monument sign is proposed. have a sign on the wall, as you can see in the last slide. These will be subject to any building permits and revision by the staff. We will have to verify that they are in accordance with the requirements of our code, but at first glance they seem to be. A lighting plan is also planned. We are still working on some of the plans for the center-west. We therefore want a complete lighting plan to understand the full light impact here. However, there should be enough lighting on Main Street with the 8 lamps provided in this project. As for the landscape and the conservation of the trees, they show trees in the vicinity of the site, in addition to perennial plants adjacent to the building and in other areas, and some plantations to screen the Nido asylum in the north. They also included a seed plan that includes sections of herbaceous mantle and seeds of native meadow. I would just like to point out that the central commercial district is exempt from the requisites of open space and minimal planting. This should be our urban environment where we usually don't want many trees. and with this they propose to remove four significant trees already present on the site. They therefore propose a total removal. The trees they provide do not meet the full requisite, but given the nature of the city center and the position of the site, the staff believes it acceptable to reduce the request for total compensation for the replacement of the trees. There would simply be too many trees for this area. Passing to the parking lot and to the maneuvering lanes, they offer a 26-foot wide lane as our prerequisite. As for the parking lots of the restaurants, as mentioned, it is expected that both will be used as restaurants. We do not make distinctions between drive-thru and grab-and-go, which usually require fewer car seats. propongono 40 posti auto per il sito ma il regolamento ne richiede 77. In realtà, il nostro codice prevede una flessibilità per una riduzione del 50% soggetta alla revisione della Commissione Urbanistica e del Consiglio Comunale. Il personale ritiene che questo sia un buon esempio in cui tale riduzione sarebbe giustificata dagli usi complementari. We have mainly early users for the coffee building in the west while this will be more oriented towards users for lunch and dinner. So these complementary uses should be able to meet the site's parking requirements. In addition, this building, as you will remember from the downtown west floor, was a restaurant with drive thru. It was then converted into a commercial space, so there could be additional capacity as part of the development of Downtown West, if there were concerns about parking for these two buildings. Looking at the pedestrian connections, they show sidewalks throughout the site, highlighted in yellow, that go from east to west with a pedestrian crossing that would connect to the rest of Downtown West. and there will be a path along Highway 5 and County Road 11 with the non-future rotatory, but already existing. So UU, for commercial projects with land in the park below 1 acre, no contribution is required for the green areas according to our code. So this site is below 1 acre, so we do not provide any land or tariff dedication in this case. With this, the Downtown West project provides a public square and also connections to the central green from the Olivine project. So there are already other areas to be found within this development that have been planned. then the management of the rainwater of the wet areas and the users of the site as mentioned by cara for the last point this is subject to the rules and regulations of the mcdavd if there were wet areas they should map them within the external lots and give them to the city a regional connection is also proposed for the rainwater towards highway 5 specifically for this site in addition to another regional proposal that I highlighted in green And then the users of the site would come from the Downtown West and they would connect to some of the existing services we have in this area for land and water infrastructure. Having said that, it is necessary to hold a public hearing on the subject this evening, similar to the previous one. It was also published in the August 6 edition of the Waconia Patriot, sent to the owners of properties within 350 feet. Published online in the municipality. And I did not receive any comment on this point before the discussion of tonight. And then, again, this will also go to the Council on Monday, August 24, for a evaluation. The public hearing this evening is the opportunity for the public to express themselves, since they will probably not accept comments during the Monday meeting. Having said that, some approval conditions have been indicated in your package. The two typical ones, I would say, are the approvals of the CAP that extend to those three requirements I talked about and the reduction of 50% and the parking for those compensatory uses within the site. And I add something more, if the buildings were converted into a different use in the future, a CAP modification could be required to evaluate the new user who will occupy that building. In addition to this, the rest of these elements are your typical standards of conditional approval. And with this, I have a drop of emotion for you on the screen. I can answer any of your questions. Tonight we also have some representatives of the project among the public.

The applicant wishes to speak. Well, then, uh, thank you. Uh, now I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the classroom tonight who wants to comment on the subject? I don't hear anyone. Um, I'll ask one last time. Well, okay. Um, since there are no other public interventions, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? we propose to close the public hearing or the motion has been made by artist or supported by shower or all those who are in favor or thanks the motion passes and the public hearing is closed now I give the floor to the urban commission to discuss questions or comments

A question for the technical staff of the city regarding the significantly reduced campaign value. I want to say, I think that if you were the authors you would have raised concerns about whether new plans have been presented.

You don't want to, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Therefore, the report of the municipal engineers warns that the proposed elevation near Highway 11 is, I quote, in a vertical profile, substantially more accentuated. This is noticeably inferior to what is foreseen by our citizens' regulations. Which raises concerns about night driving and safety.

Specifically, right there in that area. Well, the first thing I want to say is thank you for reading our pro-memory. What an emotion.

This is our first complete analysis of the plans after a detailed review. So, when we complete the initial review, we identify everything that does not meet our standards. Mr. Pavok, here among the audience, can examine those comments and look for solutions to address the criticisms in the next round of presentations. If he is not able to meet any of our standards, then we will discuss whether we think we can accept or reject them. I often find a way to make adjustments to the leveling in order to satisfy them, so we have not yet addressed the issue, but we usually solve these details with 4, 5 or 6 revisions of the plan before reaching the final approval. So I don't know if you have already had the opportunity to examine it, since we have just commented on it recently, but I leave the floor to you.

Commissary, I'm Matt Pavok from the Civil Society Group.

So that particular value k has a lot to do with the vertical curves and the roads. In this situation it is a parking lot and at certain points, on the margins, it is not necessary to have that curve because you do not travel at 30.

This is the kind of technical detail that we will deepen with Cara to ensure the answer is yes we will work with cara to solve it I understand that we are exactly in the middle of two turnstiles so regardless of everything people do not walk at high speed but we are talking about the area inside the parking lot so it does not influence it has nothing to do with the entrance and exit of the provincial road it is just an analysis of the central line through the area of ​​the parking lot I would like to reinforce the point raised by Brian in the presentation of the staff if the use of these two structures of commercial buildings A and B should change I would like to review the parking lot because I think the places are limited. I think this is perhaps the perfect example in which to grant a lease, but if, for example, someone wanted to open a restaurant with a table service, I would like to... Well, it's a good point to add an express condition. Exactly.

By the way, Brian, those east lots are additional parking lots that could be used.

for these commercial activities.

President and Commissioner Kleinfelter, you probably have not examined any of the previous approvals of the Downtown West, but this is a combined project or a joint effort, I would say, not only between the former site of Dairy Queen, but all the other 12 acres behind it. There will be more commercial, residential and multi-parking spaces. I think the last numbers indicate about 250 additional car seats here. So there will be a lot of parking for this whole area. I would say that my comment is more about the grass on a personal level.

I would prefer to see grass and native seeds rather than any type of lawn, precisely because it is so close to the Carver Park Reserve and to all the wet areas nearby.

I would say that we had more grass, pollinators, wildflowers and all the rest. Was there a bass?

I don't know if I understood the bass well.

I hope it was heard. To those in the audience, are there any other ideas or comments? Well, commissary, I don't hear any other discussions. I will ask the commissioner to proceed.

Propongo di raccomandare al Consiglio Comunale di approvare la richiesta per la quarta edizione del downtown West con le condizioni del personale e ogni altra eventuale condizione.

Tutti a favore? Qualcuno contra? La mozione è approvata. then point 4.4 public hearing this is the permission for use conditioned for the enlightened teaching at harland so our next point of discussion tonight is point 4.4 exam of a proposal for use conditioned for enlightened teachings at harland chicken and fish at 1715 of steiger lake lane After the staff presentation, I will open the public hearing. For those who are present in the classroom tonight and want to speak, I now leave the floor to the urban planner Brian McCann for the staff presentation.

Thank you, President and Commissary. I just wanted to make a premise. Travis did all the work on this. He couldn't participate and present tonight. So all the credit for the work done goes to him for this point and for the next. I'm here just to expose it. Tonight we are examining a request for permission to use conditioned by some signs illuminated internally or with halo effect consistent in about 52 square feet for each sign. The question was considered complete on July 29 and, in accordance with the requirement for a 60-day review, the Municipal Council has time until September 27 to make a decision. However, it is expected that this will arrive at the Council much earlier, since it is scheduled for the meeting on August 24. Having said that, we have issued a public hearing on Waconia Patriot on August 6 and we have also provided a notice. at the moment I have not received any comment and my name was indicated on all those warnings as a direct contact so nothing came for this case the location is at 1715 Steiger Lake Lane the former Victoria House building you will have noticed recently that they are working on some restructurations and updates it is the Harland Chicken and Fish restaurant These are the proposed signs that require the permission to use about 52 square feet each, as indicated in the presentation and in the staff report. With this we have rather typical conditions for illuminated signage. Specifically, it should not be clearly visible on sidewalks, nor create dangers for safety. Furthermore, they should not use external lighting methods, such as a lamp that comes out of the building to illuminate it. It should be illuminated internally. And then the sign should be adequately maintained or repaired within a reasonable period of time. Moreover, we do not allow movements or color changes that could distract motorists. And then, simply, the general respect of our municipal code and the sign must be turned off no more than an hour after the closure of the activity for the evening. We will also ask for the proof of registration of their permission to use air conditioning near the Carver county within 180 days of approval. Having said that, I have a motion proposal for you on the screen. This evening, I do not believe that the applicant is present at this point this evening, but I am available for any questions you may have.

Well, so the applicant is not here. Thank you. So I open public hearing if there is anyone in the room this evening who would like to comment on it. I don't hear anyone. Thank you. Not having further contributions from the public. Officers, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? I propose to close.

May I have a second?

Thank you. All those in favor? Anyone against? No one. The motion is approved. The public hearing is closed. Now I open the discussion to the planning commission. Commissars, are there any questions or comments? Everything seems quite simple. Commissars, since there are no other discussions, I will ask for a motion.

I propose to recommend to the Municipal Council the adoption of a bill that grants a permission of use conditioned for commercial teaching illuminated by Arland at 1715 by Steiger Lake Lane.

Thank you. So motion presented by Stadler and supported by Kleinfelter. All those in favor? Anyone against? The motion is approved. We move on to point 4.5 of the public hearing for a permission of use conditioned for the bright teaching of Upstream Financial. So it will be similar. Our next point in discussion is point 4.5. We consider a permission of use conditioned for the bright teaching of Upstream Financial Advisors at 1750 Tower Boulevard. After listening to the staff presentation, I will open the public hearing for anyone in the classroom who wishes to intervene on this point. So I pass the word to the urban planner Brad McCann for the staff presentation.

Thank you, President, Commissioner, MC. Quite similar to the last point, except for the fact that this request is for Upstream Financial. They also propose two commercial buildings illuminated with an internal light of about 48 square feet each. The completion date and the date of the 60 days are the same as the last point. So, complete presentation on 29 July and their 60 days expire on 27 September. But this will go to the council on Monday 24 August. We also published the notice on Waconia Patriot on 6 August, sent to the owners of the properties and did not receive any comment on this point either. That said, the site is located at 1750 Tower Boulevard. They intend to, uh, occupy the ex-site of Tazis, right at the adjacent corner, at Victoria Drive. Uh, specifically the suites 107 and 108. Uh, this is the proposed view of the sign from Victoria Drive. Uh, there would obviously be a semicircle, but the aspect of the proposed sign is this. and the baby and child cup signs will be removed and then this would be the position of the sign inside the parking lot for the area of ​​the restaurant right here so having said that these have all the exact same conditions proposed by the last point quite typical for the light signs. We simply do not want them to be a disturbance or that they are repaired or reasonably turned off within a certain period of time. And then we also want the evidence that was recorded at the Carver County. Having said that, I have a bit of emotion for you on the screen. I can answer any of your questions. A representative of the request is present among the public tonight. And thank you for your patience tonight.

The applicant wants to speak. Procedo ad aprire l'udienza pubblica. Motion proposed and supported. All in favor? Opposite? I do not hear. This motion closes the public hearing. Now I open the discussion to the urban commission. Commissari, questions or comments?

Similar to the previous one.

Commissari, there are no other discussions. I ask for a motion.

Propongo una mozione per raccomandare al Consiglio Comunale l'adozione di una delibera che conceda un permesso di uso condizionato per insegne commerciali luminose per Upstream Financial Advisors al 1750 di Tower Boulevard, Suite 107 e 108. D'accordo.

La mozione fatta è appoggiata.

Favorevoli?

Con tre? Grazie. Approvata. well this concludes our discussion for there is another one in the background I think that was the last one ok sorry so at this point we move on to the various sections of our order of the day there are personal relationships

President and Commissioner, two short points for you. The first is that we have new works of art in the halls. Tonight you should all have a sheet and a pen. Would you mind indicating the one that strikes you the most, so our municipal secretary can count the votes for the favorite work of art of this edition? And secondly, we have given way to our involvement in global planning. There are reports from the commissariats

Since there are no commissars, there are no other points in the order of the day of this evening. I would like to ask for a motion to update.

Motion to update. I agree. Opposed? Opposed.

Motion approved.