City Council - Regular Meeting

It's regular meeting of the Victoria City Council to order. Uh it's our tradition to begin with the pledge of allegiance. So if you're able, we invite you to stand and join us. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

The first item on our agenda this evening is announcements. All meetings of the city council are open to the public and held in council chambers at city hall unless otherwise noted. We encourage anyone wanting to attend or interested in speaking at a council meeting or workshop to contact our city clerk in advance for more information and she'll provide the protocol for doing so. In other announcements, the Victoria Firefighters Relief Association is hosting its annual ice fishing contest on Stiger Lake. We invite everyone to join in the fund and support our fire relief association. The contest starts at noon on February 8th on Stiger Lake. More information can be found on the city's website. We're also currently accepting applications to fill open seats on two citizen advisory boards, the planning commission and the parks and recreation committee. There are no openings for our senior advisory committee this year. For more information or apply, please visit the city's website or contact our city clerk. Beyond this, we have no other announcements this evening. So, we also have a proclamation this evening, which I will read now. So, we have a proclamation honoring February 2026 as African-American history month. So whereas in February 1926, a historian and scholar Dr. Carter G. Woodson established Black History Week to commenmorate the achievements and enduring legacy of black Americans, an observance that has grown into what we now celebrate as Black History Month. And whereas the African-American community has profoundly interest in influenced the cultural, political, social, and economic fabric of our nation through strength, creativity, perseverance, and leadership. And

whereas African-American History Month offers a meaningful opportunity to honor the countless individuals past and present whose vision, courage, and contributions continue to shape and enrich our society. And whereas learning about African-American history deepens our collective understanding, fosters respect, and strengthens our shared commitment to inclusion, equity, and unity within our community. And now for therefore be it resolved that the mayor and city council of the city of Victoria do hereby proclaim February 2026 as African-American history month and encourage all residents, schools, businesses, community organizations to observe this month through educational programs, commemorate events, and meaningful conversations that celebrate the lasting contribution of black Americans. The city of Victoria further invites all Victoria residents come together this month and throughout the year in reaffirming our dedication enduring principles of justice, equality, dignity for every individual. Our next order of business this evening is to adopt the final agenda. Council, is there a motion to adopt the final agenda?

Motion to adopt the final agenda. Second. Is there a second? All in favor? I I opposed. The motion carried. Does the clerk have those noted? Robert and brief. Yes. Yes. I believe we had council member Reefe make the motion. Roberts a second. [clears throat]

Opposite. Moving on. Our next uh topic is open forum. Open forum is the opportunity to address the council on an item that is not on the agenda and not in an application form that will be coming before the council in a future date. We ask the comments be limited to three minutes. Please do not expect action from the council this evening regarding your comments. Council members may ask clarifi clarifying questions, but open form is not intended to be a back and forth discussion. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address the council on an item that is not on the agenda this evening and not in application form before the city or that will be coming before the city in a future day.

Great. Good evening council. Good evening. Would you would you state your name and address?

Cardino 750 Kings Road uh Excelster, Minnesota 55331. president of the Kings Road Neighborhood Association. Uh not speaking to anything on the agenda tonight, but uh there were some allegations raised last week on the 20th at Planning Commission. Some of you may seen a copy of that. Uh I'd call on the city to launch an independent investigation into the establishment of an easement for drainage and utilities across the Tamarack properties and also investigate the value of the land used when selling the land. I've completed several data practice act requests. Uh I have the output of that data which I'm happy to share with council. Uh provide to the clerk. Uh a copy I think exists in the record. The facts are these right. And from an investigation perspective, where did I go? Uh on March 10th, 2025, it was intimated that an easement would be established across the uh Tamar properties for future development. Uh when Councilman Peterson asked, is there a purpose of this? Uh the statement was well future development or maybe sewer needs and that conversation further went on maybe in 50 years there might be future development. Uh question for Mr. Peterson, right? Uh what that withheld and what the concern was is there was an active plan for development to come forward and use that easement. And the results of that data practices act show that in the days prior to that meeting, March 2nd through March 4th, there was active coordination with the developer uh and city staff to plan that easement and an indication from the developer that they had full plans to bring an development proposal forward for 15 homes with sewer and road infrastructure. Later commentary from uh Mayor McMillan indicates that there was no inclination to city council that any development was potentially planned for that site. Uh and that was in June of 2025. That left me kind of asking like why withhold this? The city would typically approve a development and easement would

kind of make sense. The other facts that really matter here are in parallel on March 10th was the sale of the Tamarack properties 26 acres for $240,000. So, I looked at the appraisal and the appraisal says this land, yes, there's some buildable lots. There's five, but because there's no infrastructure and no road, they really would be inconceivable that a developer would actually build a road and a sewer to get to just five lots. What that withheld was that there was an active plan dating back to January of 2024 to build that sewer and build up to 22, if not more homes adjacent to that Tamarack property. That information had have been shared with the appraiser would have materially increased that appraised value. And the appraiser states in his appraisal, this land, if buildable with lots could sell for 200 $2,450,000. Now, that data uh looking back through more data practice act request looking at the communications the city had with the appraiser uh and with Bolton Bank indicate that the appraisal actually began in July of 2024. uh Bolton M the highway engineer for highway 5 that was trying to acquire that land to offset easements for univer the arboritum and department of fish and wildlife needed to acquire this land they say through their appraisal agents and their subcontractors hey we think can we get a value from the appraiser and he comes back in June and says yeah about $240,000 before doing any appraisal work so we've got a what looks like and this is an allegation needs to be factually vetted, but it looks like there's a predetermined value in July of 2024. This doesn't hit city council workshop until October 14th where city engineer comes before you saying, "Hey, there's an opportunity to sell these Tamarack properties. I haven't seen the appraisal. Uh the land isn't really buildable. We can't get it developed."

Meanwhile, from July to that time, city staff is working with the city of Chanhasson onou for sewer access to make that land buildable and have a developer come and bring facilities and infrastructure to that site. If you look at the establishment of the easement, other emails indicate November of 2024 that Bolton Bank was instructed to prepare utility easement for proposed development at 7050 Kings. If you tie that data together, you see a concrete plan to build this easement for a dedicated private developer. The concerns are these. One, what was Victoria's true value of that land that was sold? if in fact it was developed and we have an inaccurate appraisal that potentially cost the city $2 million. Um what potential misrepresentations were made in the appraisal regarding the easement? What misrepresentations were made to the public and what's the lack of transparency mean there in terms of how that easement is used in the future? The public and data practices act. If you look at the history of data practice act, the public has a right to know what the government's up to. And what's clear from looking into this is not just the public, but the city council didn't know what was really going on uh in this situation. And I think uh these allegations are serious. I'm happy to share more data. There there's more than I explained that's here. Um I'd ask the city to conduct a full independent review.

And you've deposited your packet that you brought with us this evening with the city clerk. Yes. CL, I think you have a copy. There's an email attach. There's a supplement attachment that details this. Email. Yes. Okay. Okay. I'm happy to stand for questions. I'm happy to answer follow-up questions. Um, thank you for addressing the council with us. We'll have the clerk distribute that to us council members and we'll evaluate it. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, is there anybody else in the audience that would like to come before city council this evening? Seeing none, we will move on to something I personally look forward to each year. Oh, I'm sorry.

Sorry. Uh Jeff Recker. I'm at 279 Tristan Drive. So, I'm actually adjacent to a number of those properties that are in question. Um and kind of related to what was just brought up. Uh I reached out to the mayor, city man. I think that's your snow. Um anyway, I made a phone call, an email, and some inquiries because those properties were right next to my house. Um and it asked right if there was any development planned and was told absolutely not. There was no development planned as part of any of the land swap. So definitely feel like what [clears throat] was shared is very concerning as a taxpayer and homeowner who's next to these properties. Great. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other members that would like to come before council and open forum? Uh, seeing no no one, I will now move on to something that I personally look forward to each year, and that is our new firefighter swearing in. This evening, we have two individuals who will be taking their oath of office with Chief Shoger tonight. Uh, Chief, would you like to do some introductions and say a few words before we have our city clerk and minister the oath?

Good evening, acting mayor and council. Yeah, actually, we have four this evening. So, um, we have five new firefighters that we've brought on, uh, four of which were able to make it this evening and I will bring them up and they'll quickly introduce themselves and then we'll do our oath of office. Good evening. Nice to see you all again. Eric Kmenth. I am currently a public works employee with the utilities department. Um, previously I did serve a total of eight years with St. Bonnie and Watertown Fire departments and my kids are at the age where I'm able to get back into it again. It has been missed for quite a few years and thank you for this opportunity to join the Victoria Fire Department.

Good evening. Uh I'm Dylan Lmark. Um grew up in Shockby. Just recently moved out here to Victoria. Um work at Methodist Hospital full-time in their emergency room. Um, I'm excited to get things going with the Victoria Fire Department, learn more about the city. Um, and I thank you guys for the opportunity. Welcome, Bill. Uh, hello, Ryan Clever, um, from Chask, Minnesota, and, uh, I'm, uh, finishing up my, uh, welding certificate at Duny. Um, I'm excited to be a Victoria firefighter and, uh, serve and protect the community.

Thanks, Ryan. Good evening. My name is Clayton Mechal. I grew up across the street from the fire department watching big red trucks go out every [laughter] day. Now I get to be on those trucks and I'm very excited and very honored to be able to serve back and give back to my community. And thank you all for having me.

It's welcome. I do. I Clayton do solemnly swear. I Dylan Lmart do solemnly swear.

I Brian Clever do solemnly swear that I will humbly serve all customers response to their crisis with compassion, sincerity, concern, patience, kindness, and respect. I promise that I will at all times conduct myself in a manner that reflects positively on Victoria department as well as the city of Victoria. I recognize the badge of my office as a symbol of trust and faith. I will honor and respect the mission, goals, purpose, and policies of the Victoria Fire Department. Finally, I promise to uphold the laws of our state, nation, and ordinances of the city of Victoria. I will faithfully discharge my duties as a firefighter to the best of my abilities. [applause]

Gentlemen, before you leave, I know your oath says customers, and in reality, these are our residents. And it's a noble pursuit that you guys have just signed on. you're going to be relied upon in our our residents probably worst moments of their lives. And that's a huge huge burden and responsibility, but it's a very noble thing. And I I would just like to say on behalf of the council, thank you for serving the citizens of Victoria. Thank you. Can we do a picture with everyone? Sure. Of course. Come around. Stay back here. You want to come around?

My hair. [laughter] Three, two, one. Beautiful. [applause]

Well, thanks everyone. We'll we'll now move on to our next agenda item, which is the consent agenda. Items on the consent agenda are routine, administrative, and do not require deliberation or housekeeping items as required by law. Consent agenda items are approve approved with phone mode unless someone requests an item to be considered separately. Miss Hardy, does staff wish to pull any consent items for separate discussion and vote? None from staff. Mr. Acne Mayor, I would like to pull item 5.6. Six. Councelor, are there any additional items you'd like to see pulled for separate discussion and vote?

Is there anyone in the audience who would like an item pulled for separate discussion and vote? Step forward. State your name.

This is Nick Gardino, 750 Kings Road, uh, Mil Creek Lane in Excel, Minnesota. Uh, I'd like to pull I believe it's item 11.15 the $29,000 contract award to Bolton Bank. Uh, and I'll state the reasons why. So, the city engineer for the city of Victoria uh is an employee of Bolton Bank and has been since at least January of 2025. Uh, I believe this and other items that are also going to be before you in the record create a substantial conflict of interest. uh that I think uh there's I know there's a conflict of interest requirement in Bolton mix contract with the city but I think that the presence of this even though small dollars do tie to much larger dollars at the city and I think a full transparent record and uh awareness of how is that conflict of interest being mitigated is not in the record is not before us and I think that the city should strongly consider that and that ties to some of my earlier comments that that relationship with Bolton Bank while they prov provide I think valuable service to the city and the county and other rate regions that tie back to the city and being able to make it influence city practice and city decision should be taken at least a slightly closer look at to make sure that there is uh something that crosses that conflict of interest so that there's not concern.

Thank you Mr. Gardina will pull that item from separate vote. Uh clerk, would you let the record reflect that item 5.6 and item 5.15 have been pulled for further discussion? Yes. Council may I have a motion for the balance of the consent agenda, [clears throat] please? Motion to adopt the balance of the consent agenda. Second. We have a motion made by council member Reef and seconded by council member Pettison. All in favor?

I opposed. Motion carries. Council, I pulled item 5.6 for transparency and to avoid any potential view of a conflict of interest. Um, I'm recusing myself from the vote as I made a donation that appears on the report. So given that council, may I have a motion from you on item 5.6? Move to approve item 5.6 on the consent agenda. Second. All right. Um motion made by council member Pettison and seconded by council member Roberts. All in favor? I.

Motion carries. All right. And then uh council, may I have a motion for Did you look at item 5.15 for any discussion? Um I guess I mean I would just ask our council if he can speak to the comments made by Mr. Gardino.

I [clears throat] again this is with respect to the contract that we've pulled from the from the consent agenda. Is that right? Yes. I gather what the leadin was. Yeah. Well, uh, so I viewed, as I suspect some of you or all of you may have done, I viewed the planning commission meeting, uh, where some of those allegations were made. Um, you've separately then, uh, after the planning commission meeting, received a letter from an attorney who presented at the planning commission on behalf of the Kings Road neighborhood group. Uh, she submitted a sort of lengthy memo that I think tried to outline what the comments were at the meeting. Uh, so I've sort of heard once and then read once what those allegations are and they don't make sense to me, just to be blunt about it. Um, I don't track the argument that's being made. Um, either the verbal argument or the written argument. Um, so I I it's hard for me to speak to it because I don't understand what the allegation is fundamentally. Um, I would say that um, unlike lawyers, I mean lawyers have a duty to represent clients and not represent clients that have conflicting interests, right? Lawyers have a conflict of interest rule as a matter of professional responsibility. Engineers don't have that. Uh engineers aren't bound by a set of professional rules about representing one client that's engineering interests are somehow in conflict with another client. I mean that sort of almost doesn't make sense. That's not an engineering thing. That's a lawyer thing. So and and the allegation seems to be something about a conflict of interest. Um, so putting aside that I don't really understand the allegation, it doesn't really make sense with respect to engineers. Um, so, um, but I'm just kind of prattling on because I really fundamentally don't understand the allegation. What I can say that might be of some use for you is that although the lawyer's letter, um, you know, I I I'm not sure if you've seen my response, I responded to the attorney, Miss Khan, I believe it is,

um, via an email. Uh and so I read her submission. The submission wasn't again submitted to the planning commission. So it's not really in the official record about the development that you're going to talk about in a little bit. But uh in in her letter, she you know reiterates these allegations uh and then says at the end of that that uh she wants some body with grand jury or subpoena power to investigate. You don't have that, right? Right. I mean, the city council, the city of Victoria doesn't have subpoena power or investigatory powers like a prosecutor does. So, I guess the request is that not that you investigate this, that somebody else, a prosecutor or police officers or you know, somebody in in that end of the world uh investigate this. It's not something you can investigate. So, I don't think there's anywhere to go with this. In addition to not understanding it and not thinking it applies to engineers, I don't think there's anywhere for you to go with it. Uh and so I think you you'll need to make a decision tonight about what you want to do with this proposed contract uh with what you have in front of you at this point, not with some results of an investigation that you're not going to conduct and you're not going to be involved with. Could I ask you, Bob? So, if let's just say there was something that needed to be investigated, that'd be done by the Carver County investigative attorney, or how would that work?

Yeah, Mayor and Council, I mean, obviously the elf in the room, we've got a lot of this kind of stuff going on in our greater Minnesota community right now, federal law enforcement, state law enforcement, local law enforcement. I don't know the answer to the question. um

that that what's going on just sort of highlights that it's a little bit complicated who investigates what and who does what level of law enforcement. I I because I don't really fundamentally understand the allegations and they don't really seem to apply to engineers in general. Uh it's hard for me to understand who would investigate, but it's not you. That much I know who it would be appropriately investigated by. I'm not uh you know sort of in a position to answer that. I don't know. So, in a world where we're innocent until proven guilty, would there be recourse if, let's say, approved 51 5.15 for whatever $29,000 for mill overlay um work down the road? Would there if there was some wrongdoing that was that surfaced, is there a way that we would most likely be able to claw that back or get out of the contract or or move on from them?

Yeah, mayor and councel, you know, it's hard hard for me to speculate about that. I get the principle council member that you're and yes I mean the short answer is if somehow you have been duped into entering contracts with Bolton and Bank including this pavement management program which has literally nothing to do with the development that you're going to talk about later tonight. But if somehow something is a miss with how Bolton Mink got a contract, I'm confident that you could get out from under that contract. Whether you could literally get money back is another I mean you're kind of taking it layers of iterations deeper into where I'm prepared to go. But yeah, I mean the general principles right I mean if

uh I mean it's quite a thing to allege that that's the case here. I mean let's not let's not kid ourselves that's a potentially defamatory thing that's being said about Bolton and make a very reputable firm. So, I don't want to I don't want to poo poo that, but I mean, if so, I don't mean when I say if you've been duped into something, I think that it's extraordinarily unlikely that that's the case, but it's not for me to investigate. It's not for you to investigate. And I think you need to make a decision about what you want to do with your pavement management plan. And by not approving it, just in my opinion, I think it sets back the pavement management plan that we have been doing and dealing with for over two decades. I think it sets it back potentially costing the city more money to try to reestablish it down the road if we deny it at this point. That would be my two cents.

Agreed. And also I don't see the connectivity and you brought it up between this and the development. So I just don't see the connecting of the dots there. I don't have anything else to add. I mean it's Yeah, I agree.

Okay. So council, I think it's fair that we're aligned that these are mutually exclusive pieces that the contract for the Milan overlay is a tool that is used to guide staff to have more favorable outcomes for the city's resources in driving a plan that is objectable, actionable, and is efficient as opposed to dedicating staff time. Perhaps that would maybe perhaps take three to four times and cost the city more money. Do we feel in agreement that we can move forward with approving 5.15?

Yeah. I mean, I'll make a motion. Motion to authorize Bolton, Inc. to provide professional services for developing a 10-year pavement management plan in amount not to exceed $29,000. [clears throat] There's a motion. Do we have a second? I'd second it. Right. All right. So, we have a motion made by Council Member Roberts and seconded by Council Member Patterson. All in favor? I opposed. Motion carries. Our first item on our regular agenda is item 6.1, which is our year end strategic plan review for 2026. Presenting this evening is assistant city manager Alyssa Nelson. Miss Nelson, welcome.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. Um I am back again to present the strategic plan report. This has been a while since we've done this and actually during your consent item tonight you approved the strategic plan for 2025 2027. So um we took a gap of doing these strategic updates for um a little bit but we're bringing it back to you and we'll plan on presenting these quarterly to you moving forward. Um but just to highlight uh the screen probably looks familiar. Uh this is our high level uh strategic priorities. We approved, you approved eight of them. Um going from infrastructure, transportation, uh housing and community character, recreation, culture, and everything in between. And what we do during these quarterly updates is we pick um some initiatives out of these priorities. Um we present them as a high level highlights for you, highlights for the public of some projects that have been going on. And then in the packet, we have a comprehensive spreadsheet of every single one of these initiatives, how we're doing on these priorities for for further review. Um, so with that, some updates for you. The first item I have is under the engagement and communication strategic priority. The specific initiative that I pulled out is engage uh community members who did not typically participate through traditional ch uh channels. Um and the way we which the way we measure this item is um how often and the number of events we bring our new mobile city hall trailer to. Um this item I'm specifically proud of. This is a lot of work that our communications team as well as our senior advisory committee works on actually at the senior advisory committee level. um your committee members spend countless meetings talking about ways to um engage residents that don't have the means or or don't have the technology to engage in city through traditional methods or digital methods. So this is a way um the mobile city hall is just one of the ways that you know

we're able to go out into the community and connect residents with city services, different events, different programs and and just share the work that the city does as well as our community partners. Um, so I will say that under this we did have a minimum of four events that we were supposed to go to annually. Um, we knocked that out of the ballpark. We went to over 10 this last year in 2025. So that included uh classic car nights we were at farmers markets. Uh, this picture is from Victorian Bloom, which is a new event that we uh worked on with our local downtown businesses, park after dark, and of course our favorite truck rodeo. um when we're excited for 2026 to bring the trailer back out and present this uh and have this out and and share all the resources we have for the community moving forward. Our next update uh is infrastructure and transportation. And this we wanted to highlight that we did complete the permit requirements for our MS4 permit. The MS4 permit is through the pollution control agency. It's what gives the city the ability to to manage our storm water, have our storm drains, have storm water ponds. Um, and the requirement, the state requirement is continuously getting more rigorous on the requirements that they're making cities do. And one area that we specifically um bolstered in the last year or so is the engagement category. Really trying to educate um our community about storm water ponds and the impact of storm water ponds and the importance of them and just the importance of runoff um and even just saving water. Um, so you saw us if you were out in the community showing off our water drop campaign where we just pulled water from different areas across the city. That could have been a the lake right outside um our back door here, Stagger Lake, a creek, uh some wells, and we had the community guess where the water came from. Um just to showcase, you know, how important storm water and those runoff ponds are for our drinking water in our community.

Our next highlight actually takes two strategic priorities. Uh the first is economic vitality and the initiative under that is partner with at least one business organization association or governmental body annually on community beneficial projects or initiatives and the second one is under environmental sustainability which is host at least one sustainable initiative annually. In 2025, we partnered with two separate agencies, Carver County. Um, and with Carver County, we provided cardboard recycling bins and organic waste collection sites for Victoria residents. And we did that at our old compost site in downtown. Um, and we continue to work with the county to provide that um program, but also educate the community and our residents on how to utilize those bins properly. And then in fall 2025, we also partnered with Bridging, which is a nonprofit organization. Um this partnership created an event where um well it was at the recreation center and residents could bring slightly used furniture decorations um to them and they would bring them to families in need instead of throwing them away in dumpsters or or having to bring them to a secondary site. So it's a great partnership and we look forward to bringing both of these back for 2026 for another year. And just as a quick update, as I noted that we have a giant spreadsheet in the packet that goes through each one of these initiatives. Um, but just as a quick highlight, uh, we have 120 197 um, initiatives that are in the strategic plan total. Um, so far just in one year down, we've completed 83 of them. Uh, for on track, we have 43. We haven't started 55 yet. And the reason for that is usually there's another initiative that has to be complete first before we can start the next. Um and then we're we're behind the eightball on 16 of them and hopefully that number will be lower by the time I meet with

you next on this topic. With that council um mayor prom I am happy to answer any questions for you. Great council I'll open the floor for discussion and also direct any questions at Miss Nelson. You guys did a great job on the plan. I like being behind the eightball because it gives me a chance to fix things. Us too, Council Member. So, thank you.

Well, I'll add that this strategic plan is something that um we we take very seriously. I mean, we've we have it in our workshop. It gives us an opportunity for us to meet, crystallize our ideas, get input from staff, and really form a direction that then staff is able to take that and really turn it into actionable items for the um I I can't say enough about the effort that goes in there. Anybody who wants to get a flavor of it, just um put yourself through the mind-numbing activity of even looking at the spreadsheet, let alone trying to understand it, document it, and execute on it. And um if we just look at the raw numbers, they tell a great story. And even as council member Person says, hey, if we're behind that, that's motivation. The number of items are are minuscule, I think, in the grant thing scheme of things. And then when we look at just all of the things that staff does, um you you really need to look like no further than what happened this year at Lightup Victoria and how they adapted from being down at the the Banchel and had to bring that in in what would be brutally cold weather over at the uh over at Lions Park. So, um, [clears throat] I I I'll say from my seat as council member, thank you so much for all your efforts and really delivering on what Victoria expects from us.

Thank you. Yeah, I'll just add one one example. You said with the trailer, four events and you have 10 plus. I mean, it's just you're knocking it out of the park in some of these areas and the residents in the community say so. So they're uh talking about it and excited about it and it's great to see. So awesome job.

Well, thank you council. I have the pleasure of presenting on this item, but I cannot take any other credit myself. There's a huge team of u my wonderful colleagues that make all this great work happen. So I will happily share um your words tonight with them. Thank you. Thank you for kindly for being our embudsman to the staff and let them know that we I know that they you know the first thing that they're going to do is watch the video on this and they'll [laughter] and be excited about. So uh council seeing no further discussion we'll move on. Uh the next item on our agenda is item 6.2 which is to consider a preliminary plat a compl comprehensive plan amendment and an easement and right-of-way vacations for Bell Maple Farm residential development. Presenting this evening is city planner Brian McCann. Mr. McCanna Milum.

Thank you, acting mayor and council members. Yes, tonight we have three requests for you to consider. The first being a preliminary plat, second, a comprehensive plan amendment, and then third and lastly, a easement and right-of-way vacation. So, you may recall this uh proposed development went back through the sketch plat review process back in July of 2025 with our planning commission and city council to provide general feedback to the developer. So, since then they have formulated their preliminary PL plan set and have submitted it to staff for review to bring forward to the plan commission city council. So, here we are at the middle step in the process. This is where the major entitlements are granted and as I mentioned city staff does a review of the full plan set in detail for the location and existing conditions. The property is located at 750 Kings Road which is about a 8 acre parcel and also in with this development is a 33 ft strip of rightway just to the east. This development proposal is directly adjacent to the Chanhassen border. Uh this road that you see here and these homes to the east are all within Chanhassen's boundaries. The site itself has generally flat land with some small areas of elevations on the borders and tree coverage on the borders as well. It's also within close proximity of the Lake Minnitonka Regional Trail, which I'll cover later and within 1,000 ft of Lake St. Joe and Lake Tamarak. So the shoreland overlay district comes into play here. So for their proposal, they are proposing a 15 single family lot subdivision with a temporary turnaround at the end of the proposed public street. They are also proposing with this an extension of Victoria Public Utilities from Interlock in which

terminates here in the Culdeac to the west just past the Lake Manitona Regional Trail. Their proposal also includes a lift station and a storm water basin down in the southeast corner of the development as well as an additional 60 ft right of way uh to service properties to the south. So here is the plat that is being proposed with the 15 homes shown here and then outlot A would be for those uh storm water basin the lift station and then that 60 ft right ofway here to provide public access to properties to the south for the zoning and comprehensive plan. It's currently zoned R1 lowdensity residential and guided that same category in our 2040 comprehensive plan which allows between two and a quarter and six units per acre. As I mentioned, they're proposing single family dwellings which are a permitted use within our zoning code. It's allowed by right. So if a development proposal this evening is meeting all the minimum bulk standards, there's a legal obligation to approve it in that sense. So looking at the bulk standards for their proposed development, they are meeting or exceeding every single one of the requirements and our bulk standards for the R1 lowdensity res residential district for single family homes. And then as part of their request, they are asking for a comprehensive plan amendment. As I mentioned earlier, the density in our a quarter and six units per acre, they are proposing a lower density than what could potentially be constructed out here. So, they're asking for less houses. Uh to do that means that they have to get a comprehensive plan amendment with authorization from the city council and final approval by the

metropolitan council to allow a lower density than what could be constructed out here. And then I just include a note that that does require a super majority. So we have four council members this evening. Uh to approve that all four of you would need to vote yes just for reference when we get to motions at the end of the presentation. So for the shoreland overlay district as I mentioned it's within a th000 ft of two lakes. You can see down here at the bottom of the image on the left this is where they intersect. Uh so Lake Tamarak is to the west. This is the thousand foot border from there and Lake St. Joe is to the east and this is the thousand foot border from excuse me that lake. So we have to look at stronger requirements per our shoreland overlay district including a 20,000 ft lot size with lots that are within the shoreland area as well as a 125 ft minimum lot width and a maximum 25% impervious. staff's review of the development shows that they are compliant with all of these requirements for lots that have a majority of their area within the shoreland district. We also did pass this along to our DNR area hydraologists and they did not express any concerns about this development. Moving on to their building materials and architecture, they did provide some general renings renderings of what could be expected out in this development. These will all be custom home lots, so they're not all going to look the same. They're going to have different uh interiors and different designs. They're also going to have all custom interiors, um LP smart siding and real stone veneer on the outsides. And then uh just as a note that they explained in their narrative as well, these homes they're uh predicting to be priced between 1.7 to 2.5 million.

Looking at the lighting and signage, they have two public street lights proposed that would be within the city of Victoria's boundaries. There is also an existing street light within Kings Road in Chanhassen's boundaries. They do not have any proposed signage for development, so that is not applicable here. And then moving on to landscaping and tree preservation, they are required to provide a minimum of 50% open space throughout their development. There's about 30% of total hard cover throughout this development. So, they have 70% open space provided. Uh for plantings, they need to provide three trees per home. They've done that. Um I will note that we have a requirement that states there needs to be two trees in the rear yard. So, that's something that we expect to come back with future revisions that a second rear yard tree will be added for those lots that aren't meeting that requirement. And then for boulevard trees, they're required along front or side yards for corner lots like this one specifically um every 45 ft. So they are meeting those requirements as well. And then lastly, uh as you know, you can remove 20% of existing trees on a site uh and not be required to provide additional trees for mitigation. In this case, they are going over that 20% removal. So, they have 285 in that still need to be accounted for. That could be included with additional trees in future revisions or a contribution to the city's tree fund in accordance with our fee schedule at $100 per inch. Or alternatively, they could seek an exemption from the city council to try not to oversaturate the development site with trees. Moving on to streets and parking. They are all single family homes. The

renderings that they provide showed it enclosed garages and large enough driveway space to accommodate parking for the minimum requirements. They also are expecting to have parking allowed on one side of the street per per our city standards. And then I mentioned that 60-foot rightway here that they're incorporating which would provide a public access to the properties to the south. Um and then lastly, just of note, the city of Chanhassen did review this with a rightaway permit and they are just awaiting development approval from the city council of the city of Victoria before issuing that permit. Then looking at parkland dedication and pedestrian connections, as I mentioned, it's fairly close to the Lake Minnatonka Regional Trail. Um, as part of that review, we reached out to the developer and asked to coordinate with the area that was recently acquired by the Minnesota Landscape Arboritum as well as the property owner just to the west about a potential connection to the Lake Manitonka Regional Trail. It's our understanding that neither of those parties want a trail running through their property. And then also there's a steep, I believe 30 to 40 foot drop here that would make it fairly difficult to construct an ADA compliant trail to get down to that trail without doing extensive grading and tree removal. So as part of this, they're also not proposing any parks with this. So the uh cash fee in Luan land of in accordance with our code is anticipated in this but we'll finalize the details of that at final plat. Our parks and recreation committee did review this and recommended cash. And then it's also noted that there is a 6 foot wide sidewalk that they will be proposing on the north side of the public street. Then, excuse [clears throat] me, for

easement and rightaway vacations, as part of the resolution in your packet this evening, they're proposing to vacate three easements um or two easements under right ofway. The first area in green is the right of way that I highlighted at the beginning of the presentation. That's the 30 foot 33 foot wide strip adjacent to Kings Road. Um we likely would not put a street next to an already existing street. So, um, that could be vacated with city council approval. There's also a 30foot electric easement that only services the property directly to the west. That's anticipated that their electric service will come with the new development and the public street. And then lastly on the southside, this 50-foot driveway easement uh is also in place for the property owner to the west. he is comfortable with uh vacating that easement and having a private connection to the turnaround on the public street. And then for our fire department's review, that turnaround that I just mentioned, they requested some addition additional depth on the south portion of the turnaround to accommodate their fire apparatus. And then since this road would be parking on only one side only, they've asked for the no parking signage on the other side of the street, they did not have any other comments regarding access or fire and then I will pass it over to Cara for a couple slides.

Good evening, acting mayor, members of the city council. Uh first just covering wetlands and storm water management. So, um, this property is located within Minhaha Creek wershed district, so is subject to district rules and regulations. Um, they are anticipating minor impacts to wetlands within the site, but they're working through that process or will need to continue to work through that process with MCWD as the LGU for wetland impacts. Um, but they are proposing a stormwater basin on this parcel here in an outlot deed to the city. So that's consistent with city requirements for um doing so. And then next moving on to utilities. So as Brian noted um the utilities would be extended to serve this area from Interlockan located over on the west side of the property um because of grades. So there's like 40 foot of elevation change between this parcel and the topography through the site. This sewer line over here isn't deep enough to provide gravity sewer to serve the area. So a lift station needs to be constructed. I just want to go back to here. So they're proposing to construct the lift station to serve the property down in this area. And then um what would happen then is they would have a force mane that would come up through the roadway, turn to the north, and then come through an easement back to a little piece of force mane that exists over in Interlockan. So that's a 4-in diameter pipe um that would be installed in that location. And then they're proposing to parallel the water main extension adjacent to it. um with all of the topography here. One more thing I want to note. Um to do so, they do need to obtain an easement from the adjacent

property owner to locate the sewer and water within that location. It's my understanding from Brian that that property owner is agreeable to the easement, but we haven't seen easement language or anything to that effect yet. Um, one thing that I did just want to highlight is that the assistant city engineer is working with the developers engineer regarding the constructibility and feasibility of making these extensions within the available easements or rightaway that exist. So, as an example, there's like 25 ft of elevation change from interlockin down to the trail. So needing to understand how they would get boring equipment into the area in order to be able to construct the extension is something the two parties have been talking through. And that is it. And then back to me. Um I know that you've received some comments from some adjacent residents out in this area. So, I thought it would be worth highlighting some of the adjacent uh developed residential areas just to the east in the Chanhassen border. So, um the Simmeran development from 2004, they proposed 10 single family lots on about 5 1/2 acres. Their density came out pretty close to what the applicant is proposing today. They had 14,810 ft minimum lot sizes there with 19,62 maximum lot sizes also pretty similar to what the developer is proposing tonight. And then lastly, uh the Lake St. Joe Cove development from 2013. They had eight homes on 4.9 acres. So actually a lower density than what uh the applicant is proposing this evening. uh similar lot sizes again as well in the minimum and maximum range. So just some helpful context about how uh these lots could fit in with the neighborhoods to the east.

And then uh a public hearing was held with the planning commission at their regular meeting last week on January 20th. We did properly advertise that with two consecutive postings for the proposed easement vacations. We also sent that notice to u residents within 350 ft of the development's boundaries posted online and at city hall. We did receive one comment prior uh to the agenda being published for this case this evening. It was attached to your case and then we received three comments afterwards which um I'm aware that council has been notified of those and received copies of those comments. So, you're well aware those concerns generally had uh concerns regarding public safety, fire access, increased traffic and infrastructure, changes in property values, easement acquisition with the arboritum properties, as well as public transparency, and potentially improper notice. So, at that planning commission meeting on January 20th, we did have three individuals speak at that public hearing. uh you've heard from one of them this evening already regarding the arboritum and the easement area. So the plan commission did discuss that as well as the inclusion of possibly a full sidewalk going around uh the turnaround and going on the south side of that public street as well as clarification on that utility corridor and fire access. So the plane commission did end up trying to make two motions at that meeting. Both of them failed. one to approve, one to table. So, no motion was actually approved or um no recommendation was carried to the city council this evening. So, that's why you are seeing it now instead of it going back to the planning commission. So, I have some suggested conditions of approval here that were uh provided by our review with the planning commission

and staff's review internally. The first one being the approval of the comp plan amendment by the metropolitan council. And then after that, it's our typical boilerplate uh requirements for final plat submitts, complying with uh regulatory agencies and approvals, submain title work, um a demo permit for the existing home that's out there when they move forward. And then lastly, um we added a condition which is unique to this site, a requirement of the feasibility and constructability of that proposed utility corridor from Interlock into the west. Uh with review by our city engineer here and then as always, if you have any other conditions that you would like to apply that are reasonable for the development, uh you can also add them during the discussion this evening. And lastly, um just a note for those in the audience who are interested in this proposed development, if they receive approval this evening, they would proceed with a final plat submittal, which would again be considered by the city council. There's no public hearing process for that. They would be coming in just to receive final approval. So, you could attend that meeting when it comes out, but you may not get the chance to speak at that meeting, just letting you know. And then uh alternatively, if they receive denial, there is a chance that they could revise their plan and return with a different concept. So just keep those in mind. If you're interested, sign up for our emails uh to be notified of potential development projects and follow our social media to stay in the know as well. With that, I have three sample motions for the city council to consider this evening. Staff can stand for questions and we have um representatives of the application in the audience tonight. Uh thank you Mr. McCann. So councel I'll open the discussion to us for uh comment and clarification.

This is the most senior ranking official. I think you should start us off.

Uh so first I want to recognize that I mean this is a very unique uh development. Uh, I don't think you have one like this in the city, right, where we're going through, right? You have to completely go through Chanhassen, take Chanhassen roads to get to a Victoria neighborhood. Um, so this is it's a little different, right? I mean, I I think there's things we have to think about that we don't typically think about. Um, I I to be honest, I'm torn on this development. Um, you know, we've gotten a lot of comments, um, uh, respectful, great comments. Um, you know, some of them I agree with, right? Like, uh, and some of them I don't, right? Like I I do think, you know, this neighborhood, this new proposed neighborhood does not take away from the current neighborhood, right? These are decentsized lots. their 1.7 million to$2.5 million homes. Um, we're not talking about shanties, right? We're talking about nice uh well-built uh homes. That being said, I do have some [snorts] concerns. um I I guess I guess I'll start with um you know the access and you know we've heard a from a lot of people about appendix D um and I guess I I have a question about that is that you know my understanding right is that it's not something that has to be in reference to appendix D that's not something that has to be we don't have to incorporate that and we may in the future. Um but I I'm believe right like in these types of situations there are often

times where we don't incorporate all of an appendix right because it might not uh fit right so appendix D might not completely work for the city of Victoria because there are issues and things that our fire chief sees that uh don't make sense. So I Miss Hardy, can you speak to I guess timing of when this appendix D could potentially come before us and you know is you know I guess what we're looking at I guess with appendix D.

Acting mayor, Council Member Roberts, members of the council. Yes, excellent question. So, as you all know, we have um kicked off earlier, well, I guess late last year, we kicked off a multi-year project of uh comprehensive project of doing a full review of our Victoria city code. So, that includes our zoning code as well as our municipal code. So, we do know that that's going to be a multi-year project. With that, we're reviewing every section, every word, every sentence of that code. Uh doing deep dive research. We're looking at all sorts of different sources of information. So, um, for example, the fire code, um, we're looking at that, but we're also looking at other ordinances. So, um, what [clears throat] what, uh, ordinances have other cities adopted? And then we look at our unique needs for our own community. So, you're looking at that in terms of what works for our what how do we want how do we have existing development? How do our or how do our ordinances work within our existing development? But if we were to adopt that, so what would the impacts be to the broader community if we brought in uh new language uh or modified language and also looking at uh out to our future? So how are we being able to uh respond to the evolving needs of our community? So we're doing that. The fire code um is just one piece of the how many pages are in our code? probably close to a thousand pages

between the two. Last I checked, it's between five and 600.

600 600 pages. So, we are doing that deep dive. Um, our city attorneys are involved with that. All of city staff are involved with that. Our planning commission, our other advisory boards um and um and so it is going to be a heavy lift. Um we initially um had had conversations and were hoping to bring something um specific to the fire code on the front end of the project. Uh but there are a number of things that we're looking so um some of the concerns that were raised particularly in the planning commission or with this particular development have to do with access but appendix D does speak to other things beyond access and we need to have a full understanding of um of all the things that are in there and what the potential impact could be to our existing and then as we continue to grow future growth. And so that's the level of evaluation that we're going to that we anticipate will still be ongoing. And so right now I don't have an exact time frame. It's not going to be in the next couple of months. Um it'll probably be much later than that just because there's a lot to look through. Um so I do not have an exact time frame on that, but hopefully that gives a little bit more clarity and context as to just the comprehensive project and how involved it is. Thank you.

So, madame city manager, fair to say that it's not prudent to make a rush to judgment on adopting say appendix D without staff really exploring what potentially unintended consequences we might trigger in doing so. So we we would behoove us to spend the time to understand what that means and whether for instance is say retroactive and then perhaps um putting some other projects in jeopardy. Is that fair? That is fair. Thank you.

Sorry for putting you on the spot. I'm not going to make any friends tonight, but um can I go back in time a little bit? And I'm not sure if I should be asking you or Attorney Vos, but we had documentation somewhere that said that Chanhass denied the approval of this of a sketch plat or denied this development. Did this actually ever make it to Chanhassen City Council as a sketch plat for a denial or was this just north of napkin drawings and in a local meeting?

Uh acting mayor and council member Person uh more so the latter. They were starting to put together concept plans after initial discussions with city staff as most uh development proposals start. Uh initially they were asking about the potential for Chanhassen utilities. The Chanhassen City Council was exploring that opportunity um and receive significant public turnout on the idea of extending Chanhassen utilities to Victoria Properties. Uh so they ended up not approving the utility extension from Chanhassen, but they never formally approved any sketch plan. There was never a formal denial of sketch plat.

Correct. Okay. Thank you. And I take these seriously for everybody around. I take notes and I take everything you guys write to me and I watch all the videos and I go through it all and I try to answer them in the most concise way possible. So hopefully that hits a few of the different questions that were asked. Um, as far as emergency response, our fire chief has taken a look at it and decided that this is something that he can support. On top of that, the local fire groups within the southwest metro have a joint response task force and protocol where they meet on at least an annual basis to go through what they can do and how they can respond. Is that correct, Council Member Person? That is correct.

All right, good. Um, as far as law enforcement is concerned, this would be 15 extra homes for the Carver County Sheriff to patrol um, on top of what they're already doing. I do not believe Chanhassen has a police department and Victoria does not have a police department. So, we're adding 15 homes for Carver County Sheriff's Department to patrol. They're comfortable with that. Council member Parson, correct? To my knowledge. Okay, great. Thank you. Um, on top of that, we've also had the DNR review this, and the DNR is comfortable with everything that has been laid out so far. Correct.

All right. Thank you. Um, moving on to the right of way, and I'm starting to not totally get right of way anymore, and that I think I have it all, and then I'm back to square one. So the city of Chanhassen at one point in time decided it would be a great idea to build a street right on the border of Victoria, thus negating any benefits for right of way for the city of Victoria or Chanhassen where our only real option is to donate it to the person who decides to do some level of development. Is that a rude way of putting it or is that a way is that somewhat accurate? Uh, acting chair and council member Peterson, I'm not exactly sure when that e or that roadway or road right ofway was put into place or the intention behind it um based on its alignment. I assumed it's part of a potential road in the future um as most streets are parallel. Um so I I'm not quite sure. I don't have the history on that unfortunately.

Fair to say that right of way off of Kings Road into the city of Victoria, there's really not much we can do with it other than develop it for some other level of development or do nothing with it. It's land that we own that we can't do anything with and it just sits there. Correct. It has no public purpose. No public value is what I'm looking for.

Mr. Rank, can we clarify? So the the easement that is being asked to be vacated on the eastern edge of this parcel that is that a parcel of land that's attached contiguously to whoever owns this large parcel or is that a piece of land that's owned by the city of Victoria?

Uh acting chair and council members technically neither. It is a portion of rightway. not a it's not a true parcel that the city owns. It's a area that could potentially be used for um streets, utilities, public services. In the event, I think what uh council member Person was trying to get to is there's really no value in this land with an existing public street adjacent to it, if I'm understanding correctly. Yeah, I that's what I was trying to get to. And the point is we can't really sell it because nobody owns it because the street was put there. Correct. You're just referring to the green shaded area, correct? Okay.

Well, mayor, acting mayor, again, uh just clarification. So to the extent the green stuff here identified as Kings Road which is just a slice of Kings Road to the extent that would be vacated by you I mean first of all I take it the entirety of the green area is in Victoria and the boundary between Victoria and Chanhassen is the uh eastern edge of the green shaded thing we're looking at here.

Correct. So to the extent Victoria were to grant the vacation of the Kings Road Green parcel, it is owned by somebody, right? The underlying fee title to that land is owned by somebody. I think we're led to believe I I haven't done title work, right, that the point at which I am asked to do a plat opinion, a title opinion is at final plat stage. So I have not seen comprehensive title work on this. But I guess I'm led to understand that the abuing owner, which is the developer here, will own this land. Brian, am I saying that right? I mean, this is something you and I have talked about, and I think we're led to believe, again, I'll get comprehensive title work when we get to that point. If you get to that point,

uh, but I'm led to understand when you vacate, if you were to vacate Kings Road, the green section, the the developer will own the underlying fee of that land. This will become part of the development parcel. But councelor, I I think what I'm [cough] trying to [clears throat] clarify is that this is an easement over a piece of land that is owned fe simple by someone. We may not know who. It's not dissimilar to how Bavaria Road where the property owners own the land all the way to the center of the street and just over the course of history an easement was granted for the use of a road.

Yep. So, acting mayor, that's exactly right. Right. I mean, that's that's what a road rightway. It's not I can't say that's always what it is, but almost always a road rightway, that term's been thrown along around in a lot of the comments you've seen. A road rightway is a easement in favor of the public to use for a road over land that somebody owns. So, in essence, if it's not going to be used as a road, it is not truly a thing of value. So if it's not a thing of value, then one should really not reasonably expect a renumeration for giving up an easement. There is no there is no real property there. There is no separate PIN number that yeah

establishes it as so acting mayor and council I mean this is a really common misconception which is that to the extent the government has a interest in right ofway right the the city has a road somewhere to the extent that's true and then the city vacates that road by law somehow the city owns what it is just vacated and can sell it that's just wrong that's not true

so so I think we're in alignment on our understanding of it the, you know, once that's vacated, it essentially returns back to the original parcel that was subdivided to create that owner's lot and and that land really then once vacated belongs back to those owners. or in the in in other road vacations where um properties are abudded to it and it's vacated then typically those are returned in a proratic share to the owners that of that vacated former road parcel. In this case, we we we can somewhat reasonably believe that this parcel's original boundaries when it was platted and divided up out of the section range township um put the ownership of that parcel right to the edge of the section line which is probably where the city of Chanhasson ends in the city of Victoria begins.

Yeah. You, acting mayor, you are very accurately stating what I anticipate concluding when we see that complete. I anticipate concluding that the owner of the land to the west was at some point historically the owner of this little section of King's Road and thus is still the owner. There's just an easement over that. And so when the easement goes away, if you vacate it, if you elect to do that, the owner will be the land owner to the west. I expect to conclude that. So that was a really roundabout way and I'm at fault for starting it. But basically there were questions as to how we can vacate or how we can get rid of a right of way without public knowledge of it or public access to it. And the fact of the matter is the person that lives or the person or the ownership of that land is really the only one that would have access to that right of way because it is theirs.

Acting mayor, council members. So, uh, I'm going to make this as short as I possibly can. Um, so vacations of road rights of ways by city is governed by statute. There's a law that says how cities can do this.

And that law creates a I'm not going to say it's an elaborate process, but a process for giving notice to people, giving them the right to come to a hearing and say why you should or shouldn't do this vacation. And then at the conclusion of all that, the city has by statute the ability to vacate the road or a piece a section of the road. In that process, the city is required to give notice to anyone that might be impacted by or anyone that has an interest in that road. And that I'm led to understand has occurred here. The city has given the required notice to anyone who might be impacted by this vacation. They have now had the right to appear at the planning commission and give their testimony about why it should or shouldn't happen. That proceeding is over. That's been completed and so now it's to you to decide whether you want to vacate or not. Okay. Thank you.

Yeah. Mr. Mcken, I have a question for you. Perhaps you No, perhaps you don't. along the northern edge of this parcel. Um, do we, the city of Victoria, have enough of an easement that would exist between Fox Hollow Drive and uh, the northern edge of this parcel, which might, for instance, you could reasonably um, from that sits really on the other side of the northern edge of lot 7 in between Fox Hollow Drive.

Um, acting mayor and council members, yes. Uh, there is a platted drainage and utility easement uh on this the north side of this shared property line that went in with the Fox Hollow development just to the north. Um, regarding size, I think it's 20 feet. I'm looking to our city engineer who's pulling that up right now. So there's at least a 20 foot strip of easement um for a significant portion probably coming up to approximately this wetland area. There's a 20ft drainage and utility easement here and then after that because of the wetland area that easement gets much larger.

Oh smaller apparently. Sorry, that's uh to what different than what we would typically see. So yes, there is a drainage and utility easement for a significant portion that is 20 ft wide on the north side of this property line.

Fox Hollow Drive is a public road, not private. It's private. That's what I thought. Sorry. [clears throat] Again, a small question that was brought up or comment that was brought up regarding the fact that the closest park to this facility that's a Victoria Park was Lions Park. Um I would say Meline Creek and Goodman Park are both closer. Um both have a easier way to get to them. Um they're within 3/4 of a mile, would you say? half a mile. Again, not a huge deal, but a comment that was brought up that I wanted to clarify. Um, [sighs] there was a lot of information or emails regarding the fact there's no public benefit to this. Um, I tend to disagree with the people that sent that for a main reason. Um, Carver County determines property tax value. Um the city of Victoria's levies is about 20% of that. So 80% of the of the property tax that is being collected is going to Carver County. So Carver County is still going to be receiving the lion share of any sort of property taxes for this area. So there is a level of public benefit in my opinion. It's not quite as much as for the people of Chanhassen if this area was in Chanhassen, but there's still a substantial public benefit financially. Um, I do not have a crystal ball to tell you what properties are going to be valued at when people want to resell their homes and things like that [snorts] later. Um, but I will say for the people that are in Chanhassen, it's a similar size development based on the app that I had when I drove around and looked at home prices. Um,

speaking of that, can we go to that slide that compares this proposed development to the other two? Yep, there we go. Thank you. So, I guess it fits in the surrounding areas, the surrounding communities. Um, [snorts] and I didn't mean to cut you off if you

Well, and you're getting to another point of mine. Yes, it fits for Chanhassen, but for the existing lots in Victoria, these are three, four, five acre lots that are in the that surround it from of the standpoint of the city of Victoria. Beyond the ch. So, if you look to the lots that are south of the development, three, four, again, estimations, we'll call them four acre lots to the there's three or four of them to the south and then three or four of them to the north. And the north, correct me if I'm wrong, is where the tornado went through last year, right?

Somewhere around there. Anyway, just from a reference point. Um, so those are kind of my thoughts. I don't know what else do you guys think.

I I think it's fair to bring up the point that our comprehensive plan for 2040 designated this area with this level of density to it. And in fact, the density as proposed is lower than what the comprehensive plan calls for. And if I understand our packet properly, um there's there's heartburn in with respect to the plan as to this density is actually being lower than what councils before us identified as the density for that area. So, um, while it's not congruent with some of the other homes in the area, it is what was laid out in the comprehensive plan. Uh, and I think also, um, you know, before us, we don't have a PUD. We have an application that meets the criteria that has been spelled out in ordinance for what fits in the space. where I think we have some um heartburn is that we have a neighbor to the east that is the connectivity for ingress and egress to this parcel. And um you know so with respect to that um being neighborly is what we in this part of the world are you know view as very very valid and very um hallmarks of how we view [clears throat] uh our interactions with each other. So with respect to that where I have difficulty with this is that we have no park here to serve an area and there is no park in the surrounding areas of our neighbors. So given that we are asking

our neighbors to have traffic come through will be somewhat inconvenience until this is all built out. And once this is built out and lots are closed and you know people have done their landscaping um you know all the stur and drain about construction debris and dust and all that will be a distant memory. Um I think we're I will be worse. I mean I think that no subdivision in America would be built if you had to hold it up because somebody said I I don't like the construction traffic. It's it's it's part of development. Um, as painful as that is at times,

I think what you're saying too is it's legal. And if we go back in time from our comprehensive plan of 2040, if we go back to 2030, 2020 comprehensive plans, this area has been designated as single family home. I don't want to say the last 30 years, but I think the last 20 for sure. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm gonna council member Peterson at least for the 2030 plan it has been guided for lowdensity residential. Okay. I did not go as far back as 2020, but I would assume the same [clears throat] given that there are existing neighborhoods surrounding it.

And with our most when was our um R1 agricultural or whatever it's called now where we allowed to the city the uh Met Council allowed us to have larger lots because as it stands right now legally Norton can go in there and put up 23 24 homes and there's really nothing we can do about it. But if we reszone it with the new zoning, is it R1A or R1? Oh, reservation conservation reservation. Reservation conservation. We require them to have larger lots.

Otherwise, they could go in legally in the city of Victoria and put 23 homes in here. Um, so I think we're helping to protect the sanctity of part of the neighborhood. As I said, I'm probably not going to make any friends tonight, but um I think the asking for the comprehensive plan amendment from R1 to um the other whatever it's called um makes sense for this neighborhood and it's protected them. Conservation, that's the word I was looking for. Anyway,

what else? I think there's some question. There was a question about from a resident about um the movement of a fire hydrant and I believe Miss Hardy talked to the fire chief about that. Can you uh fill us in I guess on what he shared with you? I can do that. Thank you, Chad.

Acting mayor, council member Roberts, members of the council. Yes, I did speak um to our fire chief this afternoon um to just get clarification on um what [clears throat] was being proposed. So, Mr. McCann, um, Chief Shoger and I did take a look at the plans and look at what is being proposed. So, um, it is a the the roadway or the driveway will be coming in um is proposed to come in where the existing hydrant sits today. And so, what is being proposed is that that hydrant just moves to the other side of where that road is. So, we're um not talking about a significant movement um but it would be moving to allow that that driveway to come in. And so, the fire chief um today as it stands uh does not have any concerns about fire suppression for that particular property. Um if that were to be approved and if that were to um be incorporated as part of the plan. So that being the moving of the fire hydrant, um how fires would be suppressed in the future would be the same as they are today. And so from a service impact, the fire chief was not seeing any concerns.

And from a benefit to that property owner, they're currently not on sewer and water, so they would have that ability in the future

to connect to city utilities. That is correct. Um, so I'm gonna kind of go in a different direction. So, um, so I think you guys talked about a little bit, Brian and Cara, you talked about the significant, uh, topography change from where, uh, utilities are need to come from and to get to this, uh, site. Um, so I mean I guess I've my understanding a little bit is is there is maybe some maybe skepticism is um a strong word but there is some uh reservation about how easily that can be done um and the financial viability of actually doing so. Um, in addition, I I believe that the developer needs to get permission from three different entities to be able to do this. Um, I I believe and please correct me if I'm wrong, but you have that from the private property owner, but my understanding is is that we also need to um go under the trail, which would mean that you need permission from the county. Um, my understanding is you there's a creek that we would have to go under as well. And I'm so I'm not sure if that's the watershed district that would have to approve that or who would have to approve that. Um, but I'm wondering if the developer has talked to any of those uh people yet, if we they have uh approval to be able to go under that this is my understanding, I guess. So, please correct me if I'm wrong, but

okay. I'm going to talk then if that's okay. Yeah.

Acting mayor, members of the city council and certainly uh the developers engineer and developer could speak to some of the specifics about where they are in their um due diligence associated with the utility extension. Um but I just want to highlight a few things here that you were referring to. So um this property here is the Lake Minnitankka Regional Trail. So this used to be owned by the Henipin County Regional Rail Authority who had one set of expectations for how you could cross their property with things like utilities. The ownership of this property has now been transferred to Carver County. So I think the council's probably aware of that that Carver County now owns the trail within the city of Victoria. So, um, permission, whatever form that needs to come from from Carver County, whether it's a license agreement, easement, permit, I can't speak to because they just took over ownership of this trail, so I can't tell you what their past practice would have been. Um, Henipin County Regional had a particular process you had to go to to permit utilities through their property. Um and then from a topography perspective the from interlockin as I was noting it drops down about 25 ft and then comes back up. Um the easement that the city retained when the city conveyed the 26 acres of land to um ultimately the arburetum comes like right up through here. So, I'm going to torture you with looking at contours a little bit, but the elevation [snorts] change from like where this person's house is down to here is 40 ft. So, the utilities are proposed to come at there's like a little bit of a ridge if you're out

there at all. There's a little bit of a higher spot in here. Um that so they need to get an easement from Alec Wilson to come through here to get around this 40 foot deep kind of creek area. That doesn't require any permits from anybody unique. So um the city would need to approve the easement that would be granted to by Mr. Wilson to the city. We would expect that easement to be a standard drainage and utility easement, giving the city whatever typical rights we have under a drainage and utility easement. Um, and then connect it back through here. So, you can see this area is pretty wooded. So, they are proposing to use directional drilling in order to install these utilities with minimizing the impacts to the trees and the land around it, but it's a pretty long run. Um, so I've been talking with Amanda, assistant city engineer, about talking with them to understand what the actual constructibility is associated with that extension. So, as an example, when you're dealing with this type of grade change, there might be a need for there to be a pit located halfway between the run of the pipe in order to facilitate the construction of the underground utilities. And when I look at this, I'm wondering how you access this area with equipment, for example, in order to dig a deep hole adjacent to a 40ft deep slope. Um, it's just a more complicated utility extension than we typically see. So that's why we've been trying to flush out is it financially feasible and is it viable within the easements that these people are willing to grant and

permission from Carver County in order to make that extension. In addition, the public works department needs to be on board with what the construction ends up being. So as another example, you could avoid this pit by potentially putting the utilities 25 ft deep. Um, we typically do not have water mane 25 ft deep, water mane breaks. So, would public works be comfortable with a water man that deep? I don't know. We haven't gotten to that level of detail yet. Typically, this stuff gets flushed out further in the process um when we start to get into final construction plan development that developers usually um do after they have land entitlements. Um then just lastly when we're talking about the developability of these parcels, the 26 acres that were um transferred to the arboritum compared to the parcels over here, a developer owned this land since 1996 and was not able to sell it for development because in order to have access from Interlockan, you would need to either construct a bridge or a pedestrian underpass for the trail um in order to facilitate access to the site. So access was a huge limiting factor for this parcel to be able to develop with this creek here and the 25 foot elevation change in this area. Um so that's why over 25 years, however many years that is more than 25, he wasn't able to develop it.

So I just want to confirm. So they will need some sort of permission from the county to dig underneath the trail. There isn't a creek that they will need to go under that will require some sort of permission. It wouldn't require any permission. It's just what's the constructibility of it? And then is the public works department going to find it acceptable to have that level of grade change in those facilities? Because we'll be responsible for maint maintaining those facilities. they're city-owned.

So, I I have concern very big concerns about this. Um, and I guess [clears throat] I'm wondering from we one, we don't know if the county will I will let them dig underneath the trail. There's a big feasibility issue, I think, and cost with getting this through here. And so, you know, and and I'll ask Bob a question here in a second, but if there's any appetite from the council to table this until we get we know if the county will approve it and what the feasibility study says. And I guess my question for Bob would be, if we tabled this, what does that do with our statutory obligations with the 60-day rule and such? Well, and to add to that, what does it do for our um 60-day rule? And then there's a another rule that's in play here that's outside of the 60 days, correct?

Yeah. Process.

Acting acting mayor, council members, good good questions. Yeah. So, that's right. I mean, you have three matters in front of you tonight, right? Preliminary plat, vacation of a of an easement, uh, and the, uh, comp plan amendment. And as it as it as it happens, those are all subject to different statutory frameworks. The legislature in its infinite wisdom has seen fit to have different rules for those three kinds of applications. And so, yeah, council member, you're right. Um, the comp plan uh amendment request is theoretically subject to a 60-day review. I take it we've extended that or uh have have implicitly extended that through the 120 on the plat. So regardless, uh, plats are 120 days and then vacation there isn't really a timeline at all statutoily. There's a whole statutory process, but it doesn't include a timeline. So you're quite right to ask the question. Um, it would not would not uh toll or table the timelines. uh if we were to table our decision pending some further research on this, we still would be stuck with the 120 days in particular for approving or denying the plat. And that's the one that I focus upon because that one in particular says if you don't do it then it's approved. So

when did that clock start?

Uh I want to say it came in October 10th, 15th, 20th. Um, acting mayor and council members, that was their initial submitt. They had a few additional things to work through. Staff deemed that submittcomplete. They submitted revised submitts uh that met our requirements in early December. So, from a clock perspective, we're about 45 days into the process. Then, acting mayor, to your question, council member, uh maybe I can punt a little bit this over to staff, but my my I was going to ask a question before you asked the question of me, and that is that I think uh uh Brian, you you pointed out that there is a somewhat unique uh condition in the proposed preliminary plat approval, which is applicant shall provide verification of the feasibility and constructibility of the public utilities within available rightway and easements prior to final plat. that submitt and I think we've now heard from Cara from your city engineer. We've heard that um there are some challenges uh to uh proving up the feasibility of that and I take it that Cara your city engineer is going to have to take a hard look at um the feasibility presentation that would have to be made to her before a final plat could be applied for. So, I mean, I think I think the staff has to be convinced that this can actually happen before the applicant moves on to the next stage. Is that a fair summary of of what's going on here?

Yeah. Correct. Yeah. Okay.

Well, I share council member Robert's concern about moving forward to approving this even with the condition that those are completed before final plan. I think we have too many open questions. I'm still not comfortable with that. Um, us being the city of lakes and parks that we're not getting parkland dedicated to the city of Victoria for uh an amenity that is sorely lacking in this area and um that there is a little bit more a little bit less rural characteristics of this area that this development will bring. And I think that those amenities need to be there. So just despite what the planning commission or I'm sorry the park and recck um view on accepting cash and loo uh I think we need to work harder on getting park land here. So um on those two items I'm not comfortable with uh going with approval this evening. So

can I ask one other question on that? So, if we table it, in order to properly notice the tableabling, we would have to do that tomorrow to give two week notice. Is that right? So, it's a yes or a no or is that not right?

Yeah, acting mayor and council members and and I'll turn to you, um, Brian. Well, so I misread the the rather lengthy staff report materials to think that the application was sufficiently submitted in October. That's wrong. Apparently, it was more like December or something. And so it sounds like um the 120 days on preliminary plat wouldn't run for 4 months from sometime in December and the comp plan amendment consideration which is initially 60 days can be extended by you out to 120 days. So that deadline would be the same. Uh so what am I saying? Uh December uh January, February, March sometime. Um uh and so it would be perfectly fine to table within that 120day window and then bring it just bring it back prior to the conclusion of that 120 days if that's the will of the council. My only hesitance on that is I I don't have a dog in the race here. So I don't you know it's up to you not at all me. I just am a little uncomfortable with um expecting feasibility to be proven up within that timeline by March because I don't know what goes into that. So maybe engineers in the room can advise us all about that a little bit. But that that that's the one thing that jumps out at me that you know that proposed condition I take it could have been met later than March just as long as no final plat was applied for until sometime later after the feasibility was. My roundabout question was I don't want to table it and have all this stuff get approved because we tabled it.

Yep. So, thank you, mayor. Acting mayor, in terms of timeline, I certainly the developer can speak for themselves, but I know they've already been taking a look at this. So, I don't anticipate that that process is going to take months. They need to connect with the contractor, put together some plan and profile. Again, this is a level of detail that we typically don't see a preliminary plat that we're asking for given the unique circumstances here. Um, so, you know, they'd be better equipped to speak to how much time they need, but um, imagine they're already working on it. Is it appropriate to hear from the developer on this?

Is it? Yes. Good evening, Mayor and Council members. Uh, my name is Pat. I'm one of the partners with Norton Homes. And would you state your address, please? Um, for the record, 10739 Allison Way. I live in Inberrow Heights. Thank you. And I'd like to introduce John Molinero. He's with Pioneer Engineering. He's the engineer for this project. So, John, do you want to speak to some of these issues here?

Yes, we John Molinro with Pioneer Engineering, 2422 Enterprise Drive, Mind Heights. We've been working on the uh primary design of the water man and the forest man that comes through the uh north side of the property and head to the west interlockan. Uh we have been working with a contractor to start addressing those constructibility process and with the city um assistant engineer and looking at the profiles. Um we're all in agreement that it's it is rather uh steep and there's constraints and that we have to work within but um everybody thinks there is a way to get it done. All right. how Cara from our perspective like you know they may they may feel that it's feasible and it's good for them but obviously right we want it to be good for our public works and for like uh I'm assuming we just look at their plans and then determine if yeah this is going to be dangerous for our public work or right I guess like can you speak to that a little bit about how

Sure. So, the city has adopted design standards. Um, it's that book that you approve every couple of years that has detailed information about what's allowed and not allowed. So, to the extent that they need to request a deviation from those standards, the city would need to approve that, that happens at a staff level, unless it's something really, really out of the ordinary from what the city typically does. So, um, public works will need to review whatever they're proposing and then we'll have to decide if whatever deviation they're asking for is acceptable or not. Um, and depending on what that is, we typically have not had to ask the council to weigh in on that. We've done some of that with the council with private streets where we've had some deviation from standard that we've reviewed with the city council. So, I I don't want to speculate about whether or not the council would need to weigh in on that until I know what the design looks like, but certainly

certainly possible because it's so such a unique and and difficult area. As an example, typically, you know, 25 foot deep water man is not Yeah. something that's common, right? So, 40 foot deep sewer that is common, but this is force main, so it's it's a little bit different. We need to be able to have access to it and figure all that out. Can the developer speak to if you've talked to Carver County about drilling under the the uh trail at all?

Good evening, Council Member Roberts. Um we have not yet talked to them about that. Um I guess I was under the assumption that the corridor that we have across the Arbreedom land was sufficient. Um I haven't talked to anyone at the county about that yet, but we certainly I don't I don't anticipate why it would be a problem, but it would just be a matter of getting all the right people Yeah. As it stands today, that easement in that property, the 26 acres that we is so popular right now, that's under the control of Carver County. Correct. Like that hasn't been sold or given to the arburitum. Yeah, the deeds it hasn't to my understanding. So, we're not a part of that process, but yeah, my understanding it hasn't been conveyed. So,

to the University of Minnesota yet, but the easement has been recorded. So the easement that we preserved on the property has been recorded and is our easement. So for this the ownership of that land doesn't matter. Correct. Thank you. Easement is what matters in this instance.

Then that just takes us halfway. Then the other part is private property that we need to or Norton would need to from what I understood bore down 40 ft and go underneath everything and not touch any of the above ground property because we can't do a path there either. So it's yeah the depth typically depending on where they are in that profile um that they're working on it may not need to be that deep through those parts of the property but that's they'll provide the detailed information to the city for review till all the trees start dying.

And I I do you know one of the things we would subsequently be talking about with them if you approved it or if you tabled it is just making sure that we're starting to work on what that easement language looks like. um with that property owner because as I noted the city's expectation would be that it'd be a standard city drainage and utility easement.

Fair enough. Um, could I I want to get back to park dedication um with mayor prom uh Ivansky and I'd like other council person's opinion on this but we saw a sketch plat we made recommendations and I don't think I was there anything that was changed I mean to me it looked a lot like what it was at sketchplat um just from my own recollection we live I live in an area that has sidewalks all the way around. I want connective sidewalks as best as possible to everywhere that we can go. We got sidewalks on one side of the street. Uh I believe I requested to have the lift station moved to the back end of the property. That didn't happen. And as we've heard already tonight, engineering can get it done. There's a way to get it done no matter what. So that didn't happen. Um, we've got a street rightway in the middle of the property which would be great parkland dedication and then down the road maybe if something happens you can redevelop further down the road once the other land is sold. But um I don't know this is again I'm asking you guys did did you feel the same way I saw it and I'm like nothing has changed from sketch flat or did I miss something? Well, to for matter of record, council member Patterson, I will point out that when this came for council or sketchlat, uh I was absent from that council meeting. So, had I been there, I would have voiced my concerns about parkland.

Looking back on it, I think my point was council member Iansky would want sidewalk all the way around this property. I think that was what I said and why it was in my notes. So, anyway, sorry. You are correct that council member Evans generally regards generally

count sidewalks on both sides of developments. I I mean I agree with you, Mayor Pro. Like I mean it is concerning to me about the park, right? like I mean I know I think you said right a half mile or 3/4 of a mile away but um you know this again this is that unique situation right where we have a neighboring city or right a neighboring uh you know in Chanhassen development and you know everything that this new Victoria neighborhood would do is going to impact that Chanhassen neighborhood and um you know I know right like parks are public right so anyone can go if they want to come into my park, they can come into the park in my neighborhood. However, I will say generally speaking, unless it's a destination park, right, like a Wasserman park or right, like you're not right, most people maybe, right? Like we have some people that might you because there's a trail that goes through our neighborhood. They'll stop from their next door neighborhood and they'll walk and they'll go to the park there. But generally speaking, like you're not getting a ton of people in [clears throat] those small little neighborhood ones because they don't know it's there. They don't right. Like it's not a destination. And so that's where my concern is is that I don't think this I I guess I don't know the size of this park exactly. Like I don't think it's a destination park, but um you know like I'm telling

we're we're again we're again like not like we're going to be adversely affecting that and that's you know back to my my points about the feasib feasibility study and um you know making sure that it actually work like that's where I'm I would like to see what our engineers right see what the actual plan is their feasibility study see if Cara and our team think that it's actually a viable sit solution and not um you know adversely affecting our public works group. Um and and making sure because again this is a unique situation making sure counter county count Carver County will okay drilling underneath that trail because you know it they probably will but we don't know that for sure like I like

and I'm agreement I'm in agreement with those points. there's work to be done in that area. And Council Member Roberts, I'll I'll just further draw on the question of um the the park. People find them, right? They

they discover them, they figure it out. Um, and I I think it's a completely reasonable ask to have a park here, have it funded by the city of Victoria, and I I don't think it's any uh stretch whatsoever that the the residents of the neighborhood immediately to the east would inure the benefit of it, that their their public works department is plowing the streets for this neighborhood to get to the entrance. So I think it just shows, you know, a fair a fair balance between, you know, the neighborliness of the city of Victoria and the city of Chanhasson that in this particular interest there would be shared resources.

Well, and my point wasn't that there's not benefit with a park if we built a park in there. But my point was right, they're used to their neighborhood using their park and not people probably coming in a lot to use their park where now we're dropping 15 more of Victoria residents into a Chanhassen park. Correct me, but I don't believe they even have a park in this area. Is that round tower? A couple is that correct? Roundhouse.

Acting acting chair and council members, if I can just interject for a moment here, I've got a parcel highlighted on the screen just down the road from the development. There is a 7.8 8 acre park. Um, a very short walk away. It is a Chanhassen park, but as you mentioned, it is a public park open to anyone. Thank you.

It I mean it's a destiny we call it a destination park and I've had I've been vocal about this in the past. I like the destination parks, but I think we need to maintain the neighborhood parks or we need to continue to do that. And I know there's been a pressure or a viewpoint of the council in the past to get away from them. I look back at our neighborhood park and just when we were out on night to unite, you see the use of just an a not even an acre, you know, half an acre with a couple of picnic tables and a grill and that's where dozens of people get together. And that's where I'm saying where we now have street right ofway in the middle of the property, that could very easily be a couple of picnic tables and a grill for green space for, you know, Andy and the boys to go out and play catch. And that's where I I think it's lacking because I don't necessarily want to there isn't a path to um Roundhouse Park. There's there's it's a little bit like Victoria with a couple of trail gaps there and sidewalk ga gaps, but so now you're walking on the street. So, I think it's needed and I think it's something that adds to the amenities within the neighborhood. Um, can the park be developed into right away down the road? Maybe. But I'd like to see it as parkland and I'd like to see that lift house or put in the back corner as well. What?

Okay. So, I'm sensing that we have consensus that approving this as formed is not the opinion that I would say yes. Um I'm trying to think of Bob if we tabled all the motions would we we'd make three? It looks like we'd make the three motions to table each of the the different motions that we have here, not just one t. Yeah, mayor and council, I'd be fine if you just make a motion to table them all. That's if that's the will of the majority, but that's fine to do. And do we have to state why we're tableabling it?

You do not. Now, see, to the extent you want feasibility investigated further, I think you should direct that to your staff. I was just that. But are you legally required to? No. Yeah, tell tell your staff what you want them to do while you table it. Right.

So, here's my problem. I would probably approve two and three. I would deny one. Like, I think the easements and all that stuff. If we're looking to move forward and do something tonight rather than table, I would deny one and approve two and three. Hopefully moving it in the right direction and then getting things to change. But I don't know, does that make it too cloudy, Bob?

Uh, mayor and counsel, it doesn't make it too clumsy, I guess. Well, yes, it does. Um, in in this sense, uh, to the extent you would deny uh, the preliminary plat, that would have to uh include reasons for the denial. That does have to have reasons, and the right practice is to put that in writing. So, usually were you to want to do that, you'd direct staff to have a resolution denying at your next meeting, setting out the reasons. Um, so I again don't know where the will of the majority is, but you know, if I were you, council member, I might make a motion to do that, giving direction to staff and then say why you'd want it denied and then a motion on the other two or something like that. Okay. What are you guys thinking?

Well, I think if we deny the first one, then the other two are moot and we would deny both of them along with it. So, um I would agree with that. It doesn't make sense to vacate easements for a parcels that uh we don't need to give those up because we haven't approved the the uh sub the uh we haven't approved the project at this point. So,

my only thought process is we legally are going to do what we need to to get it done, but the way it's put together now just doesn't jive with us. This was kind of my thought process just so you know where I'm going with it. But I agree. Um I'd move to deny the resolution approving the preliminary plat for Bell Maple Farms residential development. Can I before you Sorry. [laughter] Do we want to I mean do we want to deny or do we want to table further pending further the physibility right like study and um

you guys and and permit. Uh I would like to see permission from Carver County to drill underneath the thing. I thought the reason we were looking at tableabling is because we had some room on that 120 days. But I mean if we don't like the thing, right? We can, but we have to have a specific reason as to why we're not because it's we if we create less we create less work and we still give them the opportunity to come back with it without us having to throw out all the reasons why it was denied. I'd be up for tableabling it, I guess.

And did you say we could make one motion for instead of all three to table like table a motion to table all three? Yeah, acting mayor council members. Uh I mean to to the extent uh for example you would table the preliminary plat uh because at least one council member wants to see some changes made it made to it. I think I might make a motion to table and explain what you want to see changed as part of that motion. So I guess I was fine with tableabling everything if there wasn't going to be any complicating directions given. But if we're going to give direction on tableabling the the uh the preliminary plat for feasibility and we also want to see changes to I think I might break out the tables.

Would it be fair enough to just table and then take the recommendations that we would like to see to staff or do we need to make those public record? So I got another one that I'd like to save tree number 1249 DBH36. you know, I mean, seems like it's a a reasonable request and it's something that one of the neighbors wanted to have done. Um, doesn't seem like it's that big of a deal, but I would make that as a condition moving forward, too, if I'm going to be able to table the preliminary plat. Well, uh, council member, uh, not to give away the store here from the city perspective, we at the staff level gain some traction when you say out loud here in public what it is you want to see.

That makes it easier for us to get those things accomplished. Um, so it's I think it's always preferable if you say, "I'm tableabling this because I want this, this, and this addressed." I think that benefits the public. It benefits the developer. It benefits your staff. So, but it's your call. This is going to be a long table. Yep. You ready?

Uh council is a potential outcome would be to table the first resolution, deny the second two, and then when um the preliminary plat comes back with corrections, then staff can bring back the appropriate um vacation easements and comp plan adjustments at that time. Well, so acting mayor, um I'm not going to sit here and debate that with you because it's your call to make entirely here's the only downside to doing that. Or you toam, for example, deny the vacation. Uh then you're going to have to start that process over to grant the vacation later. So that would involve new noticing of a hearing, holding of a hearing, etc., etc. And I'm not sure what facts on the ground are going to change. Um, so that but if you want to deny because you're not ready to approve, uh, I'm not going to tell you not to. But that that would be the downside is you got to sort of start these things over.

I think we just table. Thank you, councelor.

I mean, something that we didn't even touch is the fact that, you know, the I watch the planning commission. I lean on the planning commission. I think they do a lot of deep dive research for us and I've never seen a three to three vote before. I mean, I know they're a recommending body. They're quasi judicial, but three to three is enough at me to want to want to consider a lot of things that are going on with this. Anyway, that's my final point. Um, before we make a table, so the things that we'd want to see, I want to see the trees saved. We want to see um the boring plan. We'd like to see a park. We'd like to see sidewalks all the way around.

We would like to see approval from Carver County. Approval from Carver. That's So that's boring. Yeah, it's under the trail. Yeah. Boring approval. And then the feasibility study. So with that from Carver County and with that council member Peterson, would we like to make a motion? I'm Yeah, I'm just making sure I'm getting all of them before we go through and then we forgot ProTM Ivansky's request for whatever a park. I go through and I do it. So we got

boring approval from Carver County, a park sidewalk all the way around. Um feasibility study feesility study. Well, I think that also another thing we discussed was um ensuring that we get um a size of easement that's acceptable to public works from um the property owner immediately to the west of this parcel.

Size of easement acceptable to the west. a an acceptable easement that um should all those approvals take place that uh public works has an adequate sized easement to maintain that infrastructure into perpetuity. Can I just say an acceptable easement to the west and staff can figure out what that means? I think if staff can I have a suggestion for you it just to jump in here if you don't mind maybe just something more simplistic impact to public works for maintenance fair

all right you got it over there also council I heard some conversation earlier about maybe exploring the ability to move that lift station but I did not hear that as part of your motion I didn't think it could. Yeah. Yeah. They said from a gravity standpoint, right? Yes. I don't care about gravity. We can find a way to bore through all that stuff. We can stick a lift station up in that corner because the downside, Council Member Patterson, of locating it in a different location is it gets significantly cheaper. So, it drives up the cost of maintenance for the city long term. So, I'm not going to get my lift station moved. Sorry.

Well, I I think maybe a point of clarification. Uh I understand that the lift station as drawn has been moved to that location from uh what was previously a less palatable location. So, uh w with respect to moving it, it sounded to me like that that's been accomplished. been given the topography of the land that this is the best place within the constructs is I think the the builder the developer is nodding yes and and we'll we'll recognize that he's made that acknowledgement you have your motion Christian

I hope so let me see like to make a motion to table the resolution approving the preliminary plat for Bell Maple Farms residential development. Like to see more information and approval from Carver County for the boring. We'd like to see a public park. We'd like to see sidewalk go all the way around. We'd like to see a feasibility study. We'd like to save tree 1249 DBH36. And we would like an acceptable easement to the west to help with impact for public works. So we have a motion made by council member Peterson. Is there a second? Second. Acting mayor,

I'm the perfect foil for this question since I don't know the project at the level that the staff on the other side of the room do. So, I'm going to ask two questions. Is it right, Cara, that uh what council would want to see is an actual feasibility study? Is that an appropriate condition to expect you to come back with prior to a final action?

It is a worthwhile question because what when I hear feasibility study, uh we write feasibility studies for special assessment projects. they have study document with recommendation. Um what what staff was looking for was just demonstration of the feasibility and constructibility of the proposed utility route. So essentially it ends up being a preliminary plan set like a 30% level design um with some input from a contractor for what the how they would build it and what deviations from standard might be needed in order to accomplish it. So it's not a full study.

Yeah. Acting mayor, let me just be blunt. What what I might have anticipated the direction to be or the action to be would be we want to hear before this comes forward again. We want to hear from the engineer that the utilities are feasible and in doing that we want her to consider bup right but you've laid out a number of considerations that you want to be taken into I'm just a little concerned about for example needing Carver County to have granted the permit to cross under the their their trail rightway I don't know how long processing that's going to take but the engineer might be convinced that it's feasible to get that permit just a matter of timing and then getting the right paperwork done so those are two different things, right? Requiring that they hold the permit in their hands versus the engineer being convinced that this is all going to work out are two different things.

That's why we left it nebulous. All right. Well, I mean that that's the cl I think that's the clarification we need to hear is that you want those things considered and found to be feasible, not that literally all of those things need to be in hand. So, do I have to strike my motion? No, I'm clarifying it for you. You can say that's right, Mr. Attorney. That's right, Mr. Okay, perfect. Y and then I second that motion. Okay, so a motion has been made by Council Member Patterson, second by Roberts. Is are we all in favor? I I opposed. The motion carries.

And then we'll motion make a motion to table the resolution approving vacation of the easements and rightaway for the Bell Maple Farms residential development. I'll make a second. Okay. Okay. A motion by Council Member Roberts, seconded by Council Member Reef. Uh, all in favor? I I I opposed. Motion carries. Motion to table the resolution authorizing submitt of a comprehensive plan amendment to the Metropolitan Council for Bell Maple Farms Residential Development. We have a a motion made by Council Member Reef. Is there a second? Second. All right. A motion is made by council member Reef and seconded by council member Patterson. All in favor? I

I. Motion carries. Council, there are no more items on our regular agenda. So we will now move on to reports and emerging issues. Attorney of Os, are there any reports? Mayor and Council, I do not have anything to report. Thanks. Miss Hardy, are there any reports from staff? None from staff this evening. Uh, council member Peterson, are there any reports? None from me, but thank you for asking. Council member Reef, are there any reports? I'm all set. Thank you for asking. Council member Roberts, are there any reports? And uh, I have none. So, with that, I will take a motion. Motion to adjurnn.

There's no more uh, business to come before. May I have a motion to adjurnn? Motion to adjurnn. I'll second that. All right. Motion was made by council member Roberts, seconded by council member Peterson. All in favor? I I opposed. Motion carries. We stand at your Thank you for your time this