Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. Good evening everyone. I'll call our meeting to order. Our first order of business is to adopt the agenda for tonight's meeting. Commissioners, is there a motion to adopt the final agenda? Make a motion to adopt the final agenda. Thank you, Commissioner Croft. Is there a second? Second. We have a second. So, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Very good. Thank you. The motion carries. Our next order of business is to adopt the minutes from our October 7, 2025 planning commission meeting. Commissioners, may I have a motion to approve the minutes? I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. Thank you, Eric. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor? I.

Any opposed? Thank you. Motion carries. We'll now move on to our discussion items. And our first item for discussion tonight is item 3.1. consider a final plat and final PUD resoning for West Creek Village First Edition. This item does include a public hearing. So after our stuff uh staff presentation, I'll open the public hearing for those uh in chambers wishing to speak on this request and anyone wishing to do so will be given three minutes to speak and then we'll kindly ask anyone else who wishes to speak who will also have 30 minutes until everyone who wishes to speak on this topic has an opportunity to do so. We'll then ask the planning commission for a motion to close the public hearing. uh and then the the planning commission will have an opportunity to discuss the proposal. Let me now turn it over to uh city planner Brian McCann to make a staff presentation. Thank you, chair and commissioners. Tonight we are looking at the final plat and final PUD resoning for the West Creek Village first edition plat from LAR. Uh so just an overview of our major subdivision platting process. Uh the third and final step is the final plat which you are considering this evening uh where we review the final details of a development and bring forward a development agreement to council for consideration. Uh so we are in the last step of our formal review here for land use. So previous reviews they had a sketch plat proposal that was different from the one you had most recently seen. That sketch went back in summer of 2024. They ultimately came back with a revised sketch plat earlier this year back in March and received their preliminary plat approvals uh this past June. So, as I mentioned, the first the two applications they are requesting this

evening are the final plat and the final resoning. For the location and area, it's two parcels here highlighted in blue, about 89 acres in size. They're located north of County Road 10, Angler Boulevard, west of Creekide Lane and the Marsh Hollow development, as well as the Hunter Hunters Brook Creekide development and south of the Marsh Lake Hunt Club. Also, uh, Twin Cities Western Railroad bisects the site, which you can see here, uh, splitting it there. In total, the development is uh for 50 single family homes, 18 twin homes, and 56 town homes. But this first edition will consist of only the 56 town homes and 13 of the 50 single family homes. The remainder of that development will come in future phases. For the existing conditions of the site, it's generally flat vacant farmland with some wetlands shown in the colored areas on the screen. There is also a portion of West Chesca Creek to the north. And then also of note, there is a XL Energy transmission uh lines and easement that run through the south side of the property. So, here is the final plat. I highlighted the 56 town homes in red, then the single family homes in green here, and then these areas in yellow are their future development areas where they will have the twin homes and remaining single family homes in these areas in yellow. The areas in blue are open space, wetlands, storm water ponds, all of the open space areas throughout the development. So you can see a very significant portion of it will not be

built upon and then the roads and the park and trail shown in purple. So our comprehensive plan was recently amended for this development. You may recall uh in the image on the left, there was some more medium density in the orange area uh that was modified to match with the single family area proposed with the development and then also the incorporation of the conservation residential area for those larger acreage lots. So that was approved by the metrop metropolitan council and we've now uh incorporated that into our current comp plan. So for annexation and resoning, the annexation was also approved. So this is formally within the city of Victoria boundaries. Uh upon annexation, they received an agricultural zoning. So that's part of the request that they're here for tonight. They are seeking the final PUD amendment or PUD ordinance for the R1 single family areas and the R3 uh twin homes and town homes. So as you know our planned unit development process is to allow innovative creative and flexible development um processes re uh initially provided input on at sketchplat. The details are finalized during preliminary plat and then here tonight you are looking at uh recommending the ordinance for adoption with the final plat. So these are the deviations that are presented with their application. Some changes from preliminary plat that I'll note. Uh they've raised the 8t sideyard setback up to 10 to match our current sideyard setback. And then it was

discovered that the town homes would not meet the patio setback requirements on their proposed rendering. So they've proposed to decrease those from 10 ft to 6 ft for the rear and then from 5t to 2 feet for the sides. Everything else uh is as proposed when you approve the preliminary plat. So for lighting and signage that remains consistent in the plans as well for this area. I noted the street lights in red throughout the town home and the 13 single family home area as well as a proposed monument signage location that we'll review more closely with the building permit. And then also highlighting the on street parking that they have available for the town homes. That remains consistent as well with 31 on street stalls. And then based on the renderings that were reviewed at preliminary plat, they're meeting the minimum parking requirements for the single family and town homes as well. Again, pedestrian connections remain the same as the last time that you saw them. Uh with sidewalks noted in purple here for the town home area. With the extension of Creekide Lane, they're also showing that trail on the south side. And then with future development, we'll also see that trail connection to Marsh Marsh Hollow to the east as well. Regarding landscaping, this phase of the development meets all our requirements regarding boulevard tree types and spacings, the minimum number of plantings required per lot, uh the minimum requirement of open space as I highlighted in those blue areas on the final plat. And they have also indicated that they will be adding foundation plantings to uh the town homes. And then for park dedication, they are showing that outlot C here a little over

a third of an acre for a community park. And then also those trails that I mentioned would also count towards parkland dedication credits. So their remaining requirement comes out to 1.765 acres or about 185,000 in parkland dedication fees. Then for grading and storm water management pretty typical they have to meet the CCWMO rules. They have to put wetlands and buffers and outlots that are deed to the city and that the storm water facilities that they put in place should have access so that our public works team can efficiently maintain them. Excuse me. Then for the site utilities, those will be extended from Creekide Lane to the east. Uh new information for the group, well number six has been completed and permitted for pumping by the DNR. So that was a a big move as we look towards our south growth area for more development. So uh you'll note I had a condition that I struck from this. And then just a general note from the group uh we don't anticipate a water treatment plant coming with this development but we do need to keep in mind that we are looking for a future area for one out in this south growth. So for the public hearing this was published in the Wakonia Patriot on November 6th. we mailed to property owners within 350 ft of the development. I just have a note that state statute does not require notification for rental units. We also posted it online and at city hall. We did receive two complaints uh from the neighboring development regarding noise and traffic. They have a early grading agreement that the city council approved. So, there is some work being done out there right now. If you've drove on Angler Boulevard, you've seen it. uh they've been doing some work. So there were some concerns

regarding noise traffic um and also improper notification of the Marsh Hollow development. So with that I have some suggested conditions of approval on the screen. You'll see I struck number seven uh with that requirement for the well to be established before installation of landscaping. Otherwise, all our conditions are pretty boilerplate except eight and nine. We would like a copy of the executed easement agreement with XL Energy uh for improvements within their transmission easements and then any future tree removals of the custom graded lots were not considered with tree preservation uh requirements. So, those will need to be mitigated with future phases as well. With that, I have a sample motion for you on the screen. Uh, and a representative of the application is in the audience this evening.

Very good. Thank you, Brian. I'll now open the public hearing. Is there anyone in chambers this evening who wishes to speak to this item? Good. Please. Yep. And I'd ask anyone who wishes to speak to provide your name and address, please. And I'll keep time. I'm just going to go ahead and read it for simplicity sake. Sure, that's fine.

Um, my name is Molly Coleman. I am at 1055 Robinwood Road. I am here tonight because actions taken during the early grading phase of West Creek Village have caused ongoing and significant disruption and harm at my property and because those actions appear to have violated both city ordinances and state environmental requirements. As of this morning, ARA action has been formally accepted and filed in Carver County District Court concerning this project. That filing raises issues including pre-permit land distributing activity, failure to provide required occupant notice under city code section 113040 and ongoing grading agreement violations including hours of operation and access route restrictions. I am not asking this commission to litigate those issues tonight. I am simply asking you not to advance final approval while these matters are now before the court and state agencies. Approving a final plat while action and TTRO request are pending would create procedural and legal complications especially if injunctive relief is granted. I respectfully request that the commission pause action on this item until the environmental and procedural concerns raised in the file case are addressed and resolved. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Coleman. I would just note for the record that we do not sit tonight as a board of adjustment and appeals. We are simply an advisory body that listens and gives input uh as citizens to the city council who ultimately makes the decision on these matters. So, thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak? No. All right. Hearing none. Uh, commissioners, is there a motion to close the public hearing? We'll make a motion to close a public hearing. I have a second. Second. All those in favor? I. Any opposed?

Very good. Thank you. The motion carries and the public hearing is now closed. I'll now open the floor for the planning commission to discuss. Commissioners, any questions or concerns about this project?

I have one. Um, I actually have a couple. Um, I know that at the preliminary plat review, uh, sketch plat review, uh, the deviations were in place, but I do tend to agree with, uh, council member Aansky that this does feel a little bit like a race to the bottom for me. uh with deviations of 53% on the minimum lot area for the R1 project and uh 40% for the R3. That is quite a significant deviation in in lot size. Same with the impervious standard which goes to 55% for the nonshoreland uh area. So I I do have that reservation and I'm concerned about it. It feels to me like they're uh like Lara is wedging a lot of uh properties in. I know it helps us when it comes to the density requirements. Uh but on the other hand, it does to some extent lower the bar for for development uh in this area. So that that's one concern that I have.

Before we go off of that, Brian, how far off are these from other PUDs have been that have been approved? uh chair and council member Croth. Uh they're not too far off from some of the most recent developments that we've approved. Uh for example, the Hunters Brook development and the Marsh Hollow development um have somewhat similar lot sizes and widths. I will note that these are the absolute minimums. I think uh Josh Metzer with Lenar touched on a preliminary plat, but these are the absolute minimums. Um, there may only be one or two lots throughout this entire development that actually have 5,672 square feet. Uh, I don't know if Josh would like to speak on that more, but he is in the audience this evening as well.

Before Josh talks, I mean, I do agree with the chair and I think we've brought this up before that we continue to see PUDS that are drastically different than what our one is. And I would urge city council to and the and uh the team to consider what can we do because if all we're going to do is continue to deviate from what the standard is, why do we have the standard? It's a fair point. Well, we'd recommend to deny it then. That's what we do.

But we don't because we want the the city to continue to develop and grow. So then there has to be a happy medium. And the rest of our neighboring cities are not this far off, right? like they're closer to these fives and sixes. So, I don't know the answer. I don't see like sit here and pretend to know what the right thing is, but I don't think I've been on this. I've been on this for two or three years now. Like we've approved anything that's met the 12,000 square foot. I can't think of one when it came up before though. I don't know that we pushed back hard. No, we never have. As we should have if we correct considering it to be

I just we're at this point where everything's in PUD. It's like okay well it's I mean that's a that's a global problem in Minnesota in general. Not just Victoria, but like we need to address it. We can be leaders in the community and figure out a way to make it agreeable for all parties, the developers, the community, the city to make it the right way. That's what I'm urging. And I get off my horse. Well, part of that is most of the land is being annexed. So, it starts off, you know, where it's not land within the community that was our one, you know, before and was known. So it it it's part of it. I I know how it's happening. I'm participating in it. Um

good evening. Josh Metzer with One Arm Minnesota. We're out of the Plymouth office. Um yeah, I guess uh I would disagree that we're lowering the bar. I think the the bar has been set before this application in the area with Marsh Hollow, Huntersbrook, Hunters Brook Creekide, Victoria Ridge. Um those all had uh deviations. I had a whole table full of them listed in our uh uh narrative for the preliminary plat. We went over that, you know, at length uh through our um pre-plat and concept plan. So, um, we do have some deviations from code. Um, but it's we have some that are less deviations than those neighborhoods I I referenced. We have some that are more. Um, so I think the bar has been set. I don't think we're lowering it. Um, also I'll remind you that this property um before we uh um reuided it, 60% of the land was guided for medium density. with our proposed plan that was revised down to 36% medium density. The rest was converted to lower density. So, I think it's subjective on on what's lowering the bar and and what's um going below standard. You know, we could have kept that uh 60% and had it all attached town homes with zero setback and much smaller lots than 5,000 um and change what we're proposing. Um, but that's, you know, really all I'll say about that. Um, we're happy to be here, um, at this stage. We've been working on this one for a long time. Um, so this is the first of two plats that we're going to be bringing forward. Uh, the next plat would be ideally next year with uh, the balance of the twin homes and balance of the single family homes. Um, grading is underway as mentioned. Um, it's uh, we have quite a bit of import that has to come in. Uh, So there

has been a fair number of trucks coming in with with material. Um but once the the material has been brought in uh from there on it's it's street utility construction and then construction of homes. Very good. Thanks. While you're at the podium, Josh, I do have a question about parking as well. Um I know that you've got a visitor area, a couple different visitor areas that are shown here. Uh in the packet there was mentioned that there the um will be uh that the renderings include driveway space for parking as well. Um in my HOA we don't allow driveway parking at least not by the residents. Uh what do you know what the HOA rules will provide in that respect?

I don't um I don't believe we traditionally prohibit parking in the driveway. Um, but each of these town home units does have a two-stall garage. Uh, there's a driveway that's two stall width, at least 25 uh feet in length. And then we have, I believe it's the 31 parking stalls, right? Mhm. Yeah. Okay. I I may be misread. I thought it was two spots for 50% of the residents and one spot for the other 50%. I think in code requirement. I see. But you are exceeding that and you've got two for each town home. Two enclosed, call it two on the driveway and then we have the additional 31 off street.

Got it. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner. And uh in there was discussion about um the trail system and one of them being a preference of the city. There was a comment about that. I'm trying to remember the particular Brian. You know what I'm refering to? Yes. Um, and now would be the time to think about that.

Yeah. Chair and Commissioner, we had made a note about this sidewalk noted in red. I talked to our public works department, and since they're already going to be out here maintaining the trail on the south side of Creekide Lane, they would like this area in red to be upgraded to an 8ft trail as well. and not when you say 8 foot trail I mean it's still a sidewalk or

on the north side right now it's a six foot sidewalk sorry I should have clarified that yeah so they want it upgraded by 2 feet to a trail segment um and that's just something to note for the group this area of the development isn't being considered with this first edition plat is just something we should consider for the future so is is so that sidewalk trail would not be addressed in this plat. Correct. At this time. Correct.

Yes. I'm not super thrilled with the town homes being cut back so much more. Like I understand that's kind of in line with what the other communities are at, but I don't think we have a townhouse that's that small of a back like side. Um, yeah, side sets and back sets. And when you said cut back, sorry. Uh, rear patio and side patio. Okay. You're talking about the the setbacks.

Yeah. Specifically with the town houses. Like I understand the R1 setback because we do have that standard with other communities that's already been approved. But I there's not that many town homes yet and I'd hate for us to start a standard of, you know, rear back patio set back being 6 feet and a side of 2 feet. Just a general note for the plane commission. I want to highlight that some of these changes that you're seeing are reflective of higher density requirements by the metropolitan council and development trends that we're seeing throughout the Twin Cities. our code is a decade old. We're trying to play catchup. So things look a lot different. Um but they might not necessarily be that drastic from what's being developed around the Twin Cities currently.

And I'll note for the patio setbacks, that's uh that's the first time that I've seen a patio setback standard in the probably 30ome communities I've worked in in the Twin Cities here. Um, I believe it was just passed in the last five years if I'm correct, Brian. Something about something like that. Um, but I did take a look through Victoria at every town home development I could find on aerial maps and uh any online um approvals through uh planning commission, city council. I couldn't find one that met the city's uh new adop newly adopted um code for setbacks of patios. And it's it's you know it's a town home. It's a zero setback structure. Um so to have a patio that's two feet off of that zero setback um the structure I I think is it's absolutely common and it's it's the norm.

And the the rear setback line I mean we we could have moved a line but it's um our town homes are platted so that each individual unit has its own lot. And then outside of that is a even larger common town home lot that's owned by the the HOA. So we're well beyond 10 feet of a rear setback before you get to a city out lot. Couple clarifying. Are the town homes constructed with patios or Okay. And so or decks if it's a uh if it's a walk out.

Okay. And so it's that depth would take you instead of 10 six feet from the back setback of that property if if we're looking at those. So it's on the back side of those properties like where that number one is the lower left 14. Correct. Okay. And then the two feet would maybe be looking at 22 and 23. See how they're very close together? Is that those are where those situations would arise? You're not talking about a setback from the the neighbor. You're talking about a setback from the property line. Sideyard.

Yeah, it's a so it's a side Yeah. That I'm trying to see which is which is a shared property line, right? They share a wall with the structure. So that's there's typically a privacy fence that's installed in between the property line. Yeah, that would be that. Are these patios on grade or would they typically be more on like a second floor? So, I don't have the grading plan in front of me. Uh, I believe some of these are walkout um with a basement. So, there's deck on the main level.

Then the ones that are slab on grade um with no with no basement, they'll have a patio on the main level. Okay. So there's none where the patio is essentially a deck office, what would become the second story, if you will. There are some. Okay. And so Brian, just getting to the general density requirements of our comp plan with the R3, this was like 3.48 and the goal is to be 3.5. So even with these tight smaller, we're still not technically hitting the plan.

So yeah, it's something to wrap my head around essentially.

For for high level clarification, right now met council, our 2040 comp plan was three units an acre. As we look to 2050, we have to get to three and a half units per acre. Right now we're at 3.48. When you talk about wanting increased lot sizes, that takes up more room, which means less houses, less density, which lowers our overall density, which hurts us in the 2050 plan. If we don't meet the sewer requirements, we don't get sewer permits, and we don't extend development. It's a short answer for a lot of technical aspects to say smaller lots aren't always bad. Good clarification. Thank you.

Other comments, questions, commissioners. I would just comment. I mean, you guys have gone through several revisions of this. So, thank you for that. I know like it feels like the questions here tonight are maybe Lucy pulling the football a little bit when we're talking about, hey, wait a second. This looks too, you know, too many things, but I don't think that's the intention. It's probably just the reaction of, oh, are we overdeveloping our land? So my perspective is I think you guys did a great job and you know we move on here. Thank you. I do have a question about the legal matters that were raised. Um and I just

but we just we don't have our Dana's or our legal is not here so we can't that yeah it's it's really not our decision tonight. Our our decision is really just focused on well that was basically my question. really separating the the proposed development versus how you know what might be going on right now. Those are two entirely separate issues. Right. They are and they're not for us to sort out. Okay. Plane commissioners as a note too, you are recommending body. You are not making any decisions tonight. Right. Right. But I just wanted to clarify in terms of where that's going to get addressed versus what we're trying to address here.

Ryan, one last question for my own peace of mind. What do we have a sense of how many units are taking advantage of these drastic deviations from our R1 and R3 standards? Uh, chair, I do not have an exact number for you. Based on plans from preliminary plat that I looked at back in June, I'd say maybe a dozen of the single family homes taking advantage of, you know, 6,000 square feet or less at the most.

Okay. I I I would feel differently if it was across the board. I think if it's a handful of the units. I maybe I'm not as bothered by that, but I share the same concern that Commissioner Roth explained, which is that, you know, either we have rules or we don't have rules, and let's let's try to be as close to those as we possibly can. I know that PUDs allow us flexibility to make some compromises in the name of development and and other worthy objectives. I just think it would be good to have some, if not bright lines, at least some close to bright lines. Other comments, questions, commissioners? If not, I'll ask for a motion. Brian, if you could put the motion up there again.

Make a motion to recommend the city council approve the final plat and PUD resoning for West Creek Village First Edition. Okay, we have a motion to approve the final plat and PUD resoning. Uh, is there a second? I'll second that motion. All right, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? All right, motion carries. Thank you. Our third and final item for discussion tonight is item 3.3. Uh, excuse me, I skipped over. Oh, we

Yeah, we have to we have to go back to uh the um the West Creek, excuse me, the uh extension of downtown West. Um, let me find that. Excuse me. Second item, item 3.2 is to consider preliminary plat conditional use permit and site plan and building materials review for downtown west third edition. Uh this item also does include a public hearing. So after staff presentation, we'll open the public hearing and as before anyone in chambers who wishes to speak on the request will have that opportunity. Again, we'll have a threem minute time limit for that. At this point, I'll turn the U podium over to city planner Brian McCann.

Thank you, chair and commissioners. Once again, uh looking at our major subdivision process, we are at the preliminary plat where we focus on uh the detailed review of zoning, grading, utilities, all the big items. Uh so this development as you may recall uh from our last review of the sketch plaid a few months ago back in September. This is a large group of people that has been brought together for this development proposal including various city of Victoria staff and city council with the main applicant being Monarch Development. Uh but all the other consultants that you see on the screen here, SW group, Saunter Architects, Confluence, DJR, Civil Sight Group, Excelsier Bay Partners, and Music Camp Group. Uh just a quick note for the group. You might be looking at this saying, why is this third edition? We never saw a second edition. Uh so just some background, a second edition is coming forward. It's really just a simple lot line adjustment. It won't be going to planning commission for review. Uh but that will happen likely before a final plat for downtown west third edition is considered. So just wanted to give you guys a bit of context on that. The lot line adjustment is to move the line between outlots A and B shown here to align with our established uh tiff district. So, for the location and area, these are two city-owned properties about 12 and a half acres in size. It's located north of Highway 5, south of the Carver Park Reserve, east of some existing businesses such as Dairy Queen and the Daycare, east of County Road 11, uh north of Stiger Lake Lane, and west of

the Downtown West first edition, which is the Olivine Apartments. So for this preliminary plat being considered this evening, it is for four commercial buildings, two condo town home buildings, a mixeduse building with the activated central public plaza. So the existing conditions of the site, it's vacant land with rolling hills and some tree coverage. There are utilities available at several points, but they will likely be coming from the extension of Stiger Lake Lane, which is currently under construction. It is also within 1,000 ft of Stiger Lake and Lake Auburn. So, it does come into Shoreland District. The overall property history, you may recall, we went over this back uh during the sketch plat as well, but it's been owned by the city since the early 2000s. It's always been envisioned for an extension of our current downtown. So, think more retail, restaurants, other commercial, uh, residential. The city did adopt a downtown master plan in 2016. And the first project for that, uh, master plan idea was the downtown west first edition or the Olivine Apartments, which is currently under construction. After that, a RFP was sent out by the city and Victoria DW LLC, which is here in front of you this evening, was selected. And the sketch plat was presented to the plane commission and city council this past September. So, here is an overall image of the proposed development. You'll note that phase one is really all we're looking at tonight. Phases 2, three, and four will have to come back for preliminary plat approvals in the future. We're really just highlighting on the areas in green tonight.

So, what that looks like for the plat, they have the platted lots with the numbers here with future additions noted as outlots. So, starting with lot one, block one, that is for the two uh condo town home buildings totaling 40 units for that. And then central to the site is the mixeduse building in green here. That would be nine residential units on the upper levels with some ground floor commercial. Then for the public open space areas, they have outlot A shown here, as well as outlot F, which is that central public plaza that we discussed before. And then the areas in yellow are the four retail buildings. And the areas in purple are the two uh parking lots, main public parking lots serving this area. And then the areas in orange are just the public road and public area network. And then lastly, future additions noted in gray. So in our comprehensive plan, this area is guided for downtown mixed use, which allows development between 24 and 75 units per acre. It also envisions those commercial uses such as smaller scale retailer offices and mixeduse developments. For this first phase, they're coming at about 28 units per acre. when we're looking at the strictly residential area. So, we're only taking into account the areas for the town home condo buildings and the mixed use building. Uh the unit counts for the future phases are unknown, but we're pretty certain those are going to fall within the 24 to 75 unit per acre range as well. So, we ran this by our metropolitan council service area representative and they did not have any

concerns um regarding uh sewer permits for this development. So, for the zoning, it's currently zoned central business district. We do allow mixeduse buildings and other commercial uses as conditional use permits. So, that's part of the request in front of you this evening. And then also for retail and restaurants are permitted uses in that district. They there are not any bulk standards in our central business district. We don't have setback requirements. We like buildings built to the lot line. So the only um item is for the maximum height of 50 ft. All of the buildings are meeting that standard except for the mixeduse building which is proposed at 55 ft. We do allow an extension in height with a conditional use permit. So that is part of their request this evening as well. For conditional uses, we have a section in code making sure that they meet the general requirements for development such as consistency with the comp plan, that they're adhering to health and safety, uh compliance with other city standards, they have adequate public infrastructure, they're adequately screening and landscaping based on code requirements, uh they have the necessary minimum architectural standards, they meet the zoning, and they're not generating uh traffic beyond what would be allowed. So, this development is meeting all of the general requirements based on staff's review. Um, and then just as a note, additional cups may come forward in the future depending on the type of commercial users that come in as well as uh residential amenities. So, one you might see is a residential swimming pool. That's a conditional use permit requirement per our code. So, if we see any future residential buildings

that have a pool, they'll need to come back for an additional cup. And then for the streets in the areas in green, they're showing multiple access points along Stiger Lake Lane. They also have a single entry access point from Highway 5 as well as a right and right out noted in purple for Highway 5. For the pedestrian connections, they have sidewalks shown extensively throughout the development in blue. They also are showing two trails, one being along Stiger Lake Lane, which is currently under reconstruction, and then the trail uh connecting to the Highway 5 system. Looking at parking, we have 204 parking stalls available with this development. Uh for potential commercial and retail and restaurant uses that were noted in the plan submitts, we estimate parking to be at about 210 parking stalls. So, uh also noteworthy that they have residential parking underneath the buildings. So, that helps uh the parking count as well. And then downtown area, our downtown area specifically utilizes a shared parking requirement in our code. So we anticipate a lot of these park parking users to go to multiple uses when they're in this area, not just park and go, park and go. We expect them to park once and stay in the area for a while, do most of their walking down here. for landscaping and tree preservation. They're meeting the minimum requirements for boulevard trees, foundation plantings, and they're also exempt uh being within the central business district. We like a urban development, which typically means very few trees. So, uh as we look at that for tree

preservation, there were a significant number of trees on the site currently. They're removing a lot of them to make this development work. So there is an exception in code for public projects. This being public land, an exception should be considered by the planning commission and city council from our tree preservation requirements so that this area is not oversaturated with trees. And then for the shoreland overlay district, as I mentioned earlier, it's within 1,000 ft of two lakes. So it's without entirely within our shoreland district. They're meeting the 150 ft ordinary high water line setback for all structures and the development is coming in at 71% impervious which is under our 80% requirement. So we did pass these plans along to our DNR area hydraologists. They did not have any concerns uh with this development for the shoreland area. And then just a note, any buildings that have four or more residential units within shoreland have to go through what's called a RSPUD process. We did create an exemption in our shoreland ordinance a few years ago where if you meet the three conditions listed there, you're exempt from the requirement. Uh all the development, residential, count uh condo, town home buildings, and the mixeduse buildings all meet the exemption here. Then for signage, lighting, and architecture, we'll look at sign permits more closely uh with actual building permits that come in for the development. We expect uh all the buildings to have some, but we didn't note any development signage in the plan. Um downtown light poles are also shown in a phototric plan that was provided. They meet our height and illumination requirements. Uh not lamination, illumination. Sorry about that. And then all of their buildings

seem to meet our central business district design standards with building variations, altered roof designs, enhanced exteriors or enhanced entries and high quality exterior materials. Those are some big items that we want our downtown to be an elevated experience, have some higher quality buildings. So they are meeting that with the proposed buildings. This is the mixeduse building, the central one with the 55- ft height with the nine residential condo units on the upper levels. And then these are the four uh retail, restaurant, commercial buildings that they are shown. All of these renderings were included in the public packet for you as well. Then looking at parkland dedication, their total requirement comes out to be just over 1.1 acres or 116,000. When we net out the public active plaza, the trails that they're adding, as well as a community center in one of the commercial buildings, that takes out 63 acres. So they have a remainder of just over47 or about $50,000 in parkland dedication that they'll have to account for as well. Then looking at grading and storm water management, they have to meet the MCWD rules, uh, including wetland impact medi mitigation. Um, we do anticipate some wetlands being impacted. There is one here that they're showing with the regional storm water area. So that is being worked through currently with the MCWD and that is just part of the new regional storm water system uh that I've noted on the plan here and in the staff report with some additional coordination review with the city's engineering department and the MCWD as well. And then for the site utilities, as I

mentioned, they're proposed to come from the extension of Stiger Lake Lane and connect to existing infrastructure near those businesses on the west. Uh those will connect to all of the buildings being shown in the plan. And then lastly, this does include a public hearing similar to the last item. It was posted in the Wakonia Patri on November 6th. We mailed out letters to property owners within 350 ft. We did not receive any comments on this and we also posted it online and at city hall. With that, I have some standard uh suggested conditions of approval. One of those being uh for Mindot to formally approve the access in the southwest area with Highway 5 and that any potential changes in the commercial uses must meet minimum parking requirements. Those are two standards you don't typically see with conditional use permits, but those are ones that staff thought should be incorporated. So with that, staff can stand for any questions you may have, and we have some representatives of the application in the audience as well.

Very good, Brian. Thank you. I'll now open the public hearing. Is there anyone in chambers who wishes to speak to this topic tonight? No. Hearing no additional public input. Then commissioners, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. Very good motion and a second. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Thank you. The motion carries and the public hearing is now closed. Let me now open the floor for the planning commission to discuss this proposal. Any questions, comments?

A quick question. This is for Jen or Brian. When I worked in commercial real estate, sometimes when we developed, we had requirements. We couldn't do retail space until we had commitments. Do we have that here in Victoria? We do not. Okay. I guess think about this big undertaking. What is our confidence in filling that retail space for whomever?

Question. Um we u wouldn't be taking on all this risk without knowing that there's interest in the retail and restaurants. Um so we are u taking our time to get through the approvals here before signing on and further the lenders that we sign on or lender will have a requirement for pre-leasasing before we commence work on these retail buildings. Our vision right now is is two restaurants anchoring the buildings that are surrounding the active plaza with patios that help energize that space and then two small shop buildings. So we've had preliminary interest from tenants that we're not disclosing yet that are currently operating in the west metro including in downtown Wisetta downtown Excelsier Edina um and then Carver County and east of here wanting to come out to Victoria. So we're bullish on it. That's why we're here. It's why we're taking a substantial risk on it.

Thank you. Before you Can we keep him up here for a minute? Uh before you sit down, if you don't mind, could you go through the um the major hurdles or changes you made to the plan from the sketch to now the preliminary of things that uh were challenges and you you've overcome on this version. Um I might ask Matt uh to come up and speak to some of the challenges we've had on on the civil side and storm water that we've been wrestling with. Um, parking is something that, uh, we have some advancements we're going to continue making on that between now and final plat, including, you know, conversations, um, that I can't disclose now, but that could add more parking stalls to the count.

Um, as well as what I talked about at sketch plat is in in phase four u adding covered parking there if we determine we need additional parking. You know, because that we don't know yet who the exact, for example, restaurants are. We're talking to a breakfast restaurant operator. If we sign a breakfast restaurant operator, their peak time is mornings. Of course, it's not the same time at night when everyone else is there for evenings. So, it's a little early on the parking side. But, um, in terms of what's evolved since we here last time, and maybe Matt might be helpful on that front. Thanks for addressing the parking by the way. That was my other question.

Uh, planning commission members, my name is Matt Pavoc, uh, civil engineer on the project with Civil Sight Group. Uh most of the changes that have occurred since uh sketch planner mostly just technical challenges you know figuring out storm water working with the wershed coordinating with the city on Stiger Lake Lane and all those improvements how those fold into our design uh the layout and the general uh project are the same. So it's just really working through all those technical details.

Got it. What what what is the Can you describe the um the loop the half moon on the top of phase one and it looks like kind of an S? It looks like it goes underneath the road like how does that all how does that work? Can you explain that? Uh yes. Um that is a a drop off location uh for guests of that building and it's just at surface grade. I cannot car is all of are all these roads at surface grade? There's no over under nothing, right?

No, they're all surface grade. We're creating a a marketing rendering for that. So the there's a front lobby to those two counter buildings, two two different lobbies, and then there's a drop off. So we're making it a great sense of arrival if you're someone that's visiting or if you're u getting picked up. Um it's where the limo drops you off.

Exactly. Right. Yeah. Right. And it's right there. And then if you're walking into uh the restaurants and retail and we're creating sidewalks, of course, different options to head that direction was the intent there. that I'm sorry I'm uh monopolizing here, but there was a trail I saw on the top edge of that that went around. It was yellow. Do you have that? Is that what does that connect to uh on the uh city the east?

Uh chair and commissioners, that trail goes further down Stiger Lake Lane, which is currently under construction, will actually result in a direct connection to the Lake Minnotonka Regional Trail. So the question was because it looks like there I think there's eight crosses there for that trail drive crosses and on the other side of the road I think there's only three. So I guess the question would be I understand that you want the traffic to be drawn into what's going to be in plan B C and D or 2 three and four but is it safer to be on the side with less stuff or is it even possible? I don't know. I don't know. I just an observation. I saw all those roads it's crossing.

Good question.

Um yeah, I could add a little bit context. So the the trail location on the south side of Stiger is an extension from where it is located already to the east. So we're just continuing that on that side of the road as the first step of that decision. There's a sidewalk on the north side, so there's parallel uh paths to take down the road. uh whether you're walking or biking. Um because at the west end of the roundabout, there are uh again multiple connection points to sidewalk and trail. So flip-flopping it would be you'd have to cross the road further to the east to reconnect to the trail at the south side. Um so we just felt that kind the kind of the continuous trail staying on that side of the road made the most sense. Uh we also have a trail connection that heads through the retail uh and down along Highway 5 and loops around uh connects to the as that's part of the Highway 5 road 11 improvements in the roundabout. So there's a you multiple uh ways to take that trail and connect to the regional trail. As long as we're on that, um staff had expressed some concerns about that trail and I can't imagine it's enjoyable walking right next to Highway 5. Um what is the status of that? Maybe Brian you can update us on that.

Yeah. Uh chair and commissioners, the previous concerns that we had um where they were showing the trail going behind or we had considered the option of the trail going behind the buildings. Um, but with the traffic coming in directly off of Highway 5, placing it closer to Highway 5 didn't seem reasonable from a safety concern, as well as placing it um next to this retaining wall that's shown here would be a significant grading challenge. Uh, so city staff are comfortable with the current location of the trail.

Okay. And won't how how much will run parallel to Highway 5? Is that just a is that a spur or what is that? Does it come to an end there? Yeah. So, there is a trail here with part of the Highway 5 project and this would just connect to that and bring it to the Stiger Lake lane trail. Okay, very good. On parking, we spent a lot of time at the at the sketch plat uh phase talking about parking and it's always uh in short supply in Victoria and I suspect this will be no different. Is there any update that you can share at this point on

um just mainly the update I just had for uh Commissioner Croth regarding um that we're we're working on that still between now we're we're just short but what also is not known yet is exactly for example who the restaurants are. One of the restaurants we're talking to is a breakfast focus group but dramatically changes the balance of demand peak demand at nights and weekends. Um, but we're also looking as mentioned about the future phase having covered parking below the multif family building. That would be a future phase three or four that would drive at grade right into covered parking and then the multif family buildings above. That is a concept that we've continued to look at here. Okay.

Because by then we'll know exactly the demands of the the site as well in terms of uh the retail that's in there. Yeah, it's like changing the tire on a bus as it's moving down the road. And that's I'm glad that it's added as a condition to the recommended motion because I think that's going to be a critical issue for this development. Yeah, we and we think most people just observing that Victoria prefers surface parking, not structured parking. And so our our first goal is finding more surface parking at which we're continuing to study that as well as there's other conversations happening that I can't disclose yet that would include some additional stalls to add to this count that way.

And what are the like the thinking of the phases? You said that was part of phase four when covered. So how many years between this is your natural progression? If you could proceed at if we could had a perfect crystal ball on progression, it'd be within five to seven years that would entirely be built out because we we need to pre-ell condos before we start vertical condos. And we're offering condos because there are no condos available in downtown Victoria. Most communities, it's mostly rental um housing. And so there is demand for condos. We want to see that absorbed, build it, then build the next phase two, which is more condos on the upper right side there, looking right at Siger Lake. And then um phase three and four, we're proposing a mix of condos and apartments, you know, and that there's a lot of apartments to absorb in town right now between Olivine and the RO project, which is not absorbed yet as well. Um and there's also the Amir project, which is sold that I'm not sure if that's ever going to get built, but that's near here as well. That's a 55 plus rental product. Um, so that's our our intention with the phasing plan, but our our goal has always been, which is aligned with cities, is to build the the new main street first

to set the tone for the entire project, which is important, I think, for future residents here and the city. Yeah. Thank you.

Question. Has there been any thoughts as to like when semi-truckss need to get in and out of this area for food delivery, moving people in and out of condos? Sort of discussion. Uh yes. So um along the retail area, we can start there with access for loading. Uh we're designing kind of a wound uh through that location where deliveries can come uh with box trucks uh pick up garbage um you know things like that uh through that location. And then um a lot the um the retail or excuse me the residential buildings are accessed through the basement. So there'll be you know trash pickup and other things will happen along the road and it'll be brought out on the specific day. One more just clarifying I I think I'm seeing it. So in the kind of the retail restaurant areas where the squares are that's going to be pedestrian walk walking now road correct.

Yeah. Awesome. Yes. Cool.

One more question. I don't know to whom I should direct it. Maybe to staff. I know that um the plan calls for essentially 100% tree removal. And um I don't know if a tree inventory has been done on this area or whether there are any heritage trees, but um while the city council has the authority to approve exceptions, their their charge under the code is to approve the minimum deviation required to accomplish the development. Um, I don't know if you've looked at that, but my input would be to take a hard look at whether you can preserve heritage trees because I think that would really add to the development and continue to preserve the charm of downtown Victoria. I think that's an important part. The nature is an important part of our community and I think that's really something to look at.

We agree about that statement and we should do an inventory of how many trees are in our landscape plan. I don't know if you did, Brian, but um I know it's in the multiple it's in the hundreds, you know, in terms of what we're planting. Uh because we know for people that want to um shop and dine here and live here, you need trees and you're surrounded by the park reserve which is full of trees. Um so we agree that nature is really important to integrate into the design, which it has been. But it it does require a clean slate though to build an urban setting like you said in your staff reports. Okay, other comments, questions?

One last one for Bren and Jen. Can you go back to like the overall plan one? Ask a silly question. Has a city explored those last two lots of the west? Like there's no chance you guys can get the the daycare and Dairy Queen land to like make the site bigger? Um it's something that's being consed but uh there aren't any plans yet to incorporate those parcels into this development. Okay.

And I can say that we as the selected developers have been in discussions with both property owners. Um they can't disclose anything right now at this point. So fair enough. Sounds like combos are happening. Okay. One last question. Sure. um the highway five. Did you have you had conversations with um Mindot at this point? Yes. Uh chair, you okay with that or chair and plane commissioners? We haven't received a formal approval from them yet, but the direction is leaning towards yes, we will get that intersection approved. I did note it as a condition of approval in the resolution just as a as a safe guarantee as well.

I'm just surprised that they're going to allow egress an in ingress basically three points if you include the roundabout uh in such close proximity there but just that seems to be adding asking for congestion and bumper tapping maybe not tapping and do we know whether we're going to change the speed limit as you go down the hill it go it's pretty pretty close as you start down the hill it goes to 50 on Highway 5, you mean?

Uh, it's a state highway. We don't have jurisdiction over the speed limits and those are set by state statute. So, they'll likely comply with whatever the the requirement is per statute for this roadway segment. So, the state decides whether the 35 ends and the 50 starts. Correct.

Okay. their road, their rules, I guess. Other comments, questions? If not, Brian, if you could put up the um sample motion. Uh commissioners, um I would like to ask for a motion. I'll make a motion to recommend the city council approve the preliminary plat conditional use permits and site plan and building materials requests for Downtown West third edition. Thank you, Eric. We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. Motion and a second. All those in favor? I.

Any opposed? Thank you. Motion carries. Uh now our third and final agenda item for discussion tonight is item 3.3. discussed the proposed zoning code article six. We return to our year-long adventure of going through the zoning code and I'll now turn it over to associate planner Travis Briarley for a staff presentation.

Thank you, Chair, Commission. Uh tonight is the next part of the proposed zoning ordinance, uh part of the overall review that we've been going through for the past several months. Just quick background, this whole process started uh just as a reminder because uh during staff review, we found about 500 items or so that needed some uh better consideration throughout our code. Um and we did some more immediate address um of amendments including business district cipid ordinance which we're looking at tonight. So couple small changes for tonight as well as fence ordinances. The whole goal of going through this process is to make sure that we continue to be transparent. Uh we continue especially as staff to be available to answer any questions from the public as well as the commission or city council members uh to be flexible with the process. Um the initial setup was to try to get it done a little bit quicker than it is now. And that's part of that flexibility that we're going with also with updates uh in conjunction with uh the municipal code review and potential uh updated language in that process which we will see tonight. direct correlation between those. Uh ultimately looking to unite the municipal and zoning code for recodification uh next year. Um just looking at the overall process that we're looking at, it's to review the simple or do a quick review and then a full review, move things around as we need to and then to make sure as part of staying transparent that I think brought forward to the planning commission. Uh there's a redline version that is saved uh that we can all take a look at to make sure that we stay on track with where we're going as well as make sure that any comments the planning commission have transfer to the city council in their entirety. Uh we are on article six for the review tonight which is science. We only have two more to go. Super exciting stuff at least for me. Um with the science ordinance uh we're looking at the uh the first part that we looked at is the findings purpose and intent. There's a lot of things on the screen, but the biggest thing that we're looking at is

regulations of time, place, and manner of signs in the city. Um, this is mainly to maintain, enhance, and improve the aesthetic environment of the community as well as make sure that we're not um creating or not allowing situations which could create hazards or other negative or adverse impacts within the community. Uh there are many signs which do not need a permit to go up, though we do required for others. Um mainly these are your temporary displays. Um flags uh public signs, directional signs, construction signs. Um and then other things that are signs that are created by any type of contract or direction by the city. Um such as when we do different types of projects or when we put up say a no parking sign or something like that. Uh during the signed ordinance, we lay out a comprehensive sign review. So, it's similar to what we do with conditional use permits or with variances or or PDS. We have a process that we need to look at as a planning commission to provide that recommendation to city council. And we lay it out. Uh for the most part, we're going to be looking at comprehensive sign reviews uh for commercial properties as well as multi-story properties uh dynamic displays uh and illuminated signs. Dynamic displays are back lit signs illuminated have light projected on them to show up. And then any property which is gonna be at least five acres, multiple commercial buildings. When you think of that type of stuff, that's more of your business park. So that'd be uh Victoria, the southern growth area of town in that C2 district would be one of those areas look at. Um and then properties under construction or development, which include what we took a look at tonight with West Creek Village as well as downtown West, as well as murals. Uh we do have different sign standards that are put in place. We want to make sure signs are prohibited from creating obstructions and hazards. They're not in the rightway unless they are government

signs. Uh freestanding signs have a setback of 25 ft. Main reason for that is they fall over. We don't want them landing on a building or in the street or creating some other type of hazard um more than what a sign falling over would create on its own. We also want to make sure that freestanding signs are not on properties without a principal structure. So if you were to redevelop a property, you can't just leave the sign on the property. It's similar to what we would expect with accessory structures on residential properties. Um, scoreboards is a big thing that requires condition use permit. We went through that with Holy Family uh last year. Um, a dynamic uh sign setbacks as well as light emission regulations, illumination signs. Big thing looking at that is safety and and uh enjoyment. If you have light shining on the properties, create a distraction because of sil that's consistently there. I would think that's a little bit of a nuisance. Uh so uh that's one of the things pretty common language. Yes, commissioner.

You know when they're building that scoreboard commissioner I'd be more than happy to talk to you after the meeting about

I could do it. Uh we also look at campaign signs. One thing about campaign signs, they're regulated by state statute. There's very specific rules to it. Honestly, we just mimicked what the rules were and cited to it. Um, as long as they don't create a hazard, they're probably not going to get touched. Um, any complaints like that, we'd handle through the Secretary of State's office. Uh, we're also we also have regulations, two-sided signs, religious signs, awnings, as well as billboards. Neat part about billboards is billboards can only be constructed on city property. That's mainly done so the city has a greater control over what that would look like as well as it could be a potential revenue source for the city in the long term. We got temporary and portable signs to kind of break it out a little bit. We got real estate signs. What that's referring to is typically what you'll see in the front yard of a home that's for sale. Uh the regulations that we have allow for that standard size to be created, but nothing large and obnoxious. Development signs, that' be if you go down Coachia, they got the LAR sign. If you go down Victoria Drive, they got the the Hunters Brook and the the Marsh Hollow sign out there. Those are those development signs. making sure those are placed in a way that's safe but also provides some flexibility for the developer to fill the properties which they've created. Garage and yard sale signs basically you put them up when you're done with a with a yard sale garage sale get them down. So we don't really we don't require any type of permit for that. Um but it's a way that we have the ability to go out and we can say as city, hey, this sign shouldn't be there. The garage sales two weeks ago we can we can pick it up and keep our streets looking clean. uh temporary signs and banners. Uh a lot of those a good example would be the the little side flags that get put up grand opening or or they've got a furniture sale or something like that. We see those all over. Uh it's limiting in the s the total size as well as how long they can be out there. It's limited for 30 days. It's temporary. It should be for something specific. Then portable signs. When we think of portable signs, you

like the the A-frame sandwich signs that would go out in front of if if Vix wanted to put up a sign that said, "Here's today's special," or whatever, they'd be able to put it up and it regulates to allow them to do that, but also make sure that there's safe passage for pedestrians. Yes, Commissioner. I don't remember if we discussed this, Travis, when we looked at it previously. Um, you know, some of the communities around here, I don't know if they put it in the regulations or if it's just like a handshake agreement, they have like all the same open signs. And I know we're talking about expanding our business districts. Is that something that's included in our sign ordinance? Yeah, Commissioner, that's a good question. Uh just for clarifications, when they when you say an open sign, you mean it's the same design of the sign?

Yeah, it's all like the same size, length, color.

Our commit our our code would not address something like that. Um because that gets in kind of a gray area when you talk First Amendment. It depends on what attorney you talk to. Depends on what they're going to say. But we want to always play on the cautious side. We're only we're going to look at the time, the place, and the manner. Not necessarily the design or the language. The only language that we would ever take a look at would be campaign signs that are regulated directly under state statute. We allow Secretary of State's office to deal with that or or if it falls underneath an obscenity, which is also regulated very specifically under state statute. At that point, we would consult with the city attorney before taking an action. But as far as looking at how large an open site could be, that could be a regulation. But regulating its color or regulating what language it's in or how it's spelled or or anything like that, that's something that we wouldn't do.

Yeah. And and maybe it's a comment for Jen to think about, you know, you you visit those communities and you can tell that the business districts are more tied together by having that type of signage more consistent amongst businesses like that. So, I think as we grow, you know, in the next 5, 10 years, whatever that how long that's going to take. If it's not in here, maybe it's something worth thinking about to just create a more inviting. It just makes it look I don't know, this is not the right verb, but it just makes it look better. I don't know the right way to say it. And commissioner, when we went through the sign ordinance last summer and then last fall when we had it go up for adoption, those are things that were discussed. Yeah. at the time. Unfortunately, it gets into that gray area where we were

depending on who you ask, there could be an infringement. So, that's one of the reasons that we decided against going down that direction. Um, one of the things that we do look at is trying to limit size of the signs and the type of display, how far they're going to be off buildings. So that way, excuse me, that way when you do have type of new development, you try to get the same style of signage, but you try, you got to you can only do it through the manner in which it's attached or the size. Uh that but that is an excellent point. I just want to

No, that's fine. Yeah, I it sounds like it's been crossed. That's fine. Uh uh moving forward in residential districts uh we have a prohibition against freestanding monument signs. Residential property should have and this is mainly for single family homes. Um it's a single family home. It should look like a single family home. If you're operating say uh your own bakery out of there underneath state regulation or something like that at that point you could put up a small sign but nothing that would say this is a business not a home. Um, illuminated signs are prohibited except with accent lights. So, that's basically saying if you want to put a sign uh to say what your address is or home of the Smiths and you want to put it out front, you'd be allowed to do that, but you wouldn't be able to put a light that projects on it, which would cause uh discomfort with the neighbors. So, you could use accent lighting on the side of your home, which is already currently allowed. Um, uh, you look at neighborhood signs are permitted. That's going to be anything when you drive in the neighborhoods, whether it's Lake Town, Lake Bridge, Marsh Hollow, Brook, or wherever you go. That's that type of stuff. And then multi- uh tenant building sign regulations. We want to allow for uh anything such even if it's a duplex or if it goes all the way to multifamily being uh four or more units. We want to make sure there's a functionality in there where they're still able to say, "Hey, this is a home. It's a community, but not to such a point where it's a it's a large item uh right next to single family dwellings. In our business district, we have regulations for freestanding signs, uh wall signs, flags, window signs. Windows are basically any like when you put the acrylic on there. So, hours of operation, Dr. Stevens Dentistry or what have you open Monday through Friday. That's that's what we're talking about. We're talking about window signs. We're not talking about the bright neon

painted signs you might see at like Pizza Man or some of those type places. Um, we also have regulations for multi-tenant buildings, advertising devices. Um, basically if you want to put the flaily arm guy uh in front of your business, that'd be something that'd be prohibited. So, that's where you'd find that type of prohibition. A lot of that is to keep things simple and and to make sure that we have a good aesthetic feel to the community, especially in our business districts. Um, banners, same thing. They're temporary. We do have some banners in town that are being used as permanent signs. Basically, what these regulations do is if those were ever to be replaced, uh, they would have to conform within the 30 days or become a permanent sign. So, it helps with long-term growth on that. Uh, improvements. Uh, traffic and safety signs are are exempt. Uh, we do have a lot of signs, especially in our current downtown, which some of them look like they're inconvenient, but there's a reason they're placed where they are. um as well as professional occupation signs. Sign maintenance is another item. Maintenance is required. You have to maintain the sign in a good condition. Um one of the things that we looked at removing from the code was uh the having a penalty for designs and things that are having signs of poor condition. Um what that's going to fall underneath is it'll fall underneath this maintenance requirement um that moves forward and would be actually regulated through uh for any type of penalty would be regulated through our nuisance code. Um that would allow the city to do abatement if it was needed um or if a sign was creating a hazard and it would be a case by case. It's just another tool that would be available. So looking at tying into our zoning code, tying in the municipal code, this reg or the purpose behind tonight presenting the uh it being moved is because of proposed language that's in the nuisance code which hasn't been brought forward publicly yet, but there's still that

time because we want to make sure we have a balanced uh city code in its entirety. Um the other thing that we look that we have is non-conforming signs. Uh there's 60 days compliance when there's change in ownership. Mainly for that is that when you do have a change in ownership. Um if the business doesn't take off, it could be an abandonment. Uh there could be a change to the design of the sign or other issues that would need to be addressed. This would provide the city um with some type of uh ability to go in and help address those type of issues. Uh painted wall signs uh as well as painted window signs are um they're prohibited. Uh marquee signs, same thing. Uh any sign that's not specifically stated as permitted within our districts would be strictly prohibited. Um and then any sign that was installed regardless of their status uh prior to the the recent sign ordinance being adopted, which was of October of last year, we're going to look at that and look at it as a non as a legal nonconformity. um just because it it makes life a little bit easier and doesn't cause as many problems for the property owners to have those signs. When we start talking about the appeal of enforcement, which I touched on earlier, we remove that from the current sign language. We have a general statement of appeal for administrative decisions because many of these decisions are done at the staff level. Um that type of criteria is in statute. It's also within article two of the proposed zoning code that we looked at earlier this year. planning commission review guidelines when we're looking specifically at signs or any type of decision that was made that's regulated under the proposed article one of the new zoning code and then the enforcement of the violations. There is a general penalty statement within article two of the proposed zoning regulations. Uh those are pro those are the biggest those are the only things that changed in the current language that we have which was looked at last year to now is just getting rid of those last two sections because they get addressed in

other ways your appeal and your enforcement.

So with that uh at the next planning commission meeting we'd be looking at alternative energy um systems. Those going to be your ground pumps, your wind your windmills uh things like that, solar panels. Um, and then we just have antenna antennas and towers and that would be the entire zoning code. Um, we want to make sure we get through everything. I do want to remind planning commissioners, everybody does have access to a folder that's on the city share drive which has all our redline versions of everything we've discussed as well as tracking documents and any staff reports um that have been preliminary created. Um, that way there can be some review and we're more than happy to answer any questions anybody has prior to any meeting. Um, with that I stand for any questions on sign ordinances or the process in general.

Thank you, Travis. Very clear. Um, commissioners, any questions, comments, discussion? One question. Um, I know we had discussed with the quick trip with their signage of the changing. Can we just make that a standard throughout all of the code of like science can't change after like if it's a movable one it can't change after like 9 p.m. or 11 p.m. whatever we had discussed. Uh, Commissioner, that is something that could be done. That would be underneath um the dynamic displays.

Um, it it's definitely something that that could be done if the if the commission would like to. Um, I do want to point out that those type of signs are generally not next to residential areas. Um, and it does if if it has to be a static sign, that could be a deterrent from businesses wanting to put up those type of displays.

Um, but if the if the commission would like to discuss, uh, be more than happy to go through some pros and cons. And then I can always look to see if there's some language out there. I do know that s dynamic display signs do have limitations in how fast they can change their sign. There's a minimum set period that's regulated by the by federal regulations. um at least for billboards along 494 because that's my experience, but I would imagine there would be similar regulations in there. Um but I'd be more than happy to talk to you about what those concerns are offline and then we can look at some alternative solutions and see if there's something to bring back to the planning commission in the future.

Very good. I would just comment I appreciate the summary nature of the presentation and taking the taking the commission through in this in this way was uh effective and efficient. Good job. Very good. Thanks. Agreed. All right. Commissioners hearing no more discussion. This item doesn't require a formal motion. So that concludes our discussion items. Moving on to the miscellaneous section of our agenda then. Uh staff any miscellaneous?

Yes. Thank you chair. Uh, first off, it's been, I think, a month and a half since our last meeting. So, I think we have some new artwork in here if you all want to take a look and take a vote for your favorite. I didn't distribute sheets for everyone, but they are available at the front table. Uh, secondly, Travis noted the alternative energy system ordinance going to our next meeting. That will be December 2nd. We also have a preliminary plat proposal for the Ganon Monarch development property, the Victoria condos. Uh so we will have that that evening as well. And then we have Light Up Victoria that following Thursday, December 4th. So bring your families. It's a great time. I'll be there with my own. Uh and then lastly, just a happy Thanksgiving to everyone, which is next Thursday.

Very good. Thank you. Commissioners, any miscellaneous items? If not, uh, can I ask for a motion to adjurnn? Motion to adjurnn. We have a motion and a second. And a second. Um, all those in favor? I opposed. Thank you. Motion carries. We are adjourned.