##VIDEO ID:LBvg3h-18dY## e e good evening I will now call this 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 so moved motion and a second all those in favor I oppos thank you the motion carries our next order of business is to adopt the minutes from our September 17th 2024 Planning Commission meeting Commissioners is there a motion to approve the minutes i' move to um accept the minutes from the September 17th 2024 Planning Commission meeting motion can I get a second second motion a second all those in favor I I oppose thank you the motion carries but now move on to our discussion items our only item for discussion tonight is item 3.1 sketch plat for the cooken Mis residential development a sketch plant review is the initial stage of the review of for the the Planning Commission reviews and considers regarding development process proposals there are no formal actions or recommend recommendations taken by the Planning Commission at the time of sketch plat review the sketch plat review process is intended for the applicant to receive initial feedback from the Planning Commission and City Council of any any necessary preliminary plat or rezoning applications I will now turn it over to city planner Brian McCain for staff presentation thank you chair and Commissioners tonight we have a request for sketch plat from the py group for the Kim Meister property for residential development uh as you're all aware the sketch plat process is just to get initial feedback from the Planning Commission and City Council on any potential development so no approvals or actions will be taken this evening uh you're simply here to provide guidance to assist the applicant with any subsequent applications uh an extra note here is during the sketch plat process It's always important to inform the applicant of any specific comments or concerns that you have a with a proposed development so the location and area it's a single parcel approximately 82 and2 acres in size it's located north of County Road 10 angler Boulevard it's west of the West Creek Village uh residential development that you reviewed back in August it's also south of the marsh Lake hunting club they're proposing 163 single family homes and 80 town homes for development on this property the existing conditions it's gener generally flat vacant Farmland with some existing homes and structures uh there are some Wetlands present on the north side of the site with a portion of West chesca Creek and a few areas uh located in the map on the right in the colored portions there are also some overhead power lines on the south side of the property it also does not have direct access to County Road 10 angler Boulevard they the property owners currently utilize a shared driveway uh with the abing property to the South so I'll go through the three types of uses that are proposed for this property the first one being 80 foot wide single family lots they're proposing 52 uh of these types of units on the North End of the proposed development uh these Parcels are highlighted in red a portion of those do lie within the Shoreland overlay District shown in the light blue line shown here so anything within that has additional requirements for our Shoreland District then moving south they have 111 70 foot wide Lots proposed these are the blue Lots shown here and then even further south of that they have the 80 Town Homes shown on a single private Street uh with the two adjoining streets going down towards Highway 10 to connect in between if they were to move forward with preliminary plat they would have to apply for annexation and rezoning as you're all aware uh this property is in Lake toown Township which requires an annexation when an annexation occurs it's automatically established in agricultural zoning uh to develop this property they would need to rezone to the appropriate zoning designations they're proposing a planned unit development with underlying R1 low density for the single family and then standard R3 high density residential for the town homes I I just have a note here that rezonings are discretionary you're all aware uh if there is a proposal in front of you you have to accept the project to accept a rezoning looking at their specific deviations that they're requesting for the R1 District I've highlighted them in green so they're requesting a reduction from 12,000 Square ft down to 9100 Square ft for the minimum lot area and asking for that lot width reduction from 80 ft to 70 ft and then also setback reductions for the front and rear yards from 30 ft to 25 ft and then based on staff's review it seems that they're meeting all the town home standards so a standard R3 would be appropriate in this situation looking at our comprehensive plan the property is guided for a blend of low density residential that's the area shown in yellow uh medium density residential shown in Orange and open space with the pockets of green that you see a comprehensive plan Amendment would be required to align these densities with those land uses uh so for example the town homes have to be within that orange medium density area and the single family homes have to be in the yellow so just to put into perspective what that looks like you can see that they don't line up 100% here this is the guidance that we've been given from the Metropolitan Council so all of the Town Homes need to be located in Orange and then all the single family homes need to be located in the yellow looking at our comprehensive plan they would need an additional Amendment this property is currently guided in our 2031 to 2040 range for development uh we're not quite to that decade yet so that would require changing that designation in our growth phasing map uh what this means is that we have have to re-evaluate our utility projections our household projections population uh several portions of our comp plan related to this request uh to do this that would require extra Outsourcing to figure out these projections and apply for the correct Amendment to the Metropolitan Council and that presents an even bigger question for the Planning Commission and city council as we begin to to see development moving Westward uh not even just here but we have SE been getting interest from other property owners in adjacent Parcels in this area so uh the question for the planing commission and city council to contemplate is if there's any interest uh moving further west if we were to look at this area specifically for that comp plan Amendment and then another portion of note our comprehensive plan and does show a local neighborhood collector Road running through the center of the property here uh based on the sketch plant that was provided they pushed it to the adjacent property to the West which could result in some double Frontage Lots uh I'll show you on the next screen here but we have to start thinking about not just utility and population projection changes but our road Network for this area and how that will develop with further development expanding Westward so here's the proposed Road realignment that we're talking about uh we could anticipate other residential lots being located on the other side of the street here and this collector Road results in these double fronted Lots who have the local interior collector Road and the or just the interior local Road and The Collector Road on their back moving on to the architecture these are some examples of the 70ft wide lots that were included with the packet they also did provide examples of the 80ft wide lots and what those homes would look like and some renderings of the Town Homes looking at their parking they would be required for single family to have two enclosed spaces per unit and town homes would need essentially one and a half spaces enclosed per unit uh they aren't showing any guest parking we don't require any guest parking per our parking code but that is just a consideration for the town homes that are on the single uh private Street if some guest parking should be installed for guests for those town home users and then looking at landscaping and tree preservation all of these were include with the packet they're pretty standard based on our R1 and R3 requirements they will need to have Boulevard trees and meet the minimum number of plantings as well as including Foundation plantings along the town homes uh something of note here buffers there will be a required buffer between the R1 and R3 uses so between the single family and the town homes towards the south side of the site but another buffer should also be considered to separate the town homes and the adjacent property to the South uh the single parcel there which would have town homes on its back so another consideration there if we want to incorporate another buffer to separate those town homes from that existing property and then open space we have a minimum 50% for the single family portion and a minimum 25% for town homes and then if they're proposing any tree removal with this uh proposed development they can't exceed 20% without having to do some sort of mitigation with additional trees or cash in lie of trees looking at the Shoreland District that I mentioned this is the area that incorporates it within the site it affects maybe 10 to 12 Lots in the area uh town homes are outside of that area so it's here and analysis is not required for this proposal uh the single family homes within this area do have to meet our 25% impervious maximum the minimum 50% open space and a minimum 75 ft lot width looking at our park dedication and pedestrian Connections in total the development would have to uh obligate about 9.75 acres for Parkland dedication or just over a million dollars or some sort of blend of cash and land with this proposal that's in front of you this evening they don't have any parks we weren't able to see any Trails or sidewalks shown uh no other amenities or Community Gathering areas were included with the sketch plat and that's just worth noting from our Parks and Recreation committee meeting on September 16th they discussed this proposal and noted that the closest park would be the marsh Hollow park which is approximately a half mile away from this development so anyone looking to use a public park within this development if it were developed as shown today would need to walk approximately a half mile to access the closest public park the parks and direct committee did end up recommending an inclusion of the trail and sidewalks as well as a combination of Park areas and cash fee as their dedication and then I will pass it over to Cara thanks and I am going to try to not call you mayor chair and members of the commission um so uh Brian did touch on a couple of Street elements related to the project but I do want to note that um the sketch plat as shown does include the very important extension of Creekside Lane so Creekside Lane which we've been constructing from Highway 11 as development progresses to the West is a key neighborhood collector um as such there are no driveways shown accessing directly onto the collector um and you know part of that is that we want to have a street grid system that allows for the movement of traffic not necessarily with kids playing in driveways it helps control speeds it helps provide safety so these um local neighborhood collectors are important um the other critical one that Brian mentioned is um red fox drive that is shown here so um I don't have an aerial handy but to orient yourself Red Fox Drive is the school is the roadway that runs past Victoria Elementary um so right now that's been constructed out to Marsh Lake Road but in the city's long range plan red fox will connect to um County Road 10 to the South so that's a pretty critical um North South connection point for the city from both uh snow removal perspective so snow operations emergency response times we spent quite a bit of time on both Creekside Lane and the red fox collector when the last comprehensive plan was completed so Brian highlighted um in the comp plan that alignment for Red Fox is just shown on a line as a line on a piece of paper um but if we start to consider development if the council and the Planning Commission are interested in um accelerating to look at land outside of the 2030 boundary which this parcel would include we would want to really start to refine the alignment for Red Fox it needs to cross a creek so we need to make sure that it crosses an logical space ultimately to the north that road will run through the Hunt Club so you know from what we know the Hunt Club is not talking about selling their land for development anytime soon but in 30 years they might and we need to have the roadway Connections in place to um serve the community in the long term outside of that you're seeing um traditional typical um local streets that we typically see on our projects um but the they are showing a private Street for the town home areas uh we would Envision that request to be similar to what was approved in the what is now named Victoria Ridge Development um the one just of the railroad tracks with the private streets and the town homes and then of course if we look to um further the process of um amending the comp plan working with the county on what these access locations are and the timing of them relative to the adopted Corridor study for County Road 10 so kind of a lot going on on this one and an area where um oftentimes we maybe don't talk about internal roads as much with the Planning Commission and city council B highlight those here today um so the access to Highway 10 what you're also seeing with this red line that they have running through their sketch plat is County Road 10 is planned to be real realigned in the adopted Corridor study sorry about that um so they are uh recognizing that and um that would be something that we would need to continue to work through with the county as development would start to proceed in this area um we did send the sketch plat to cver County they um noted that a traffic impact analysis would be required and then also highlighted that there aren't um the timing of improvements to County Road 10 through this location are a little bit up in the air um we we talked about it with the Victoria Ridge Development and the sketch plat for the bovie property um there are planned improvements at the intersection of 10 and 11 in 2028 uh so we need to coordinate the timing of access to the roads um with those improvements grading and storm water management this one's I guess I'm going to say easy um it is located in Carver County wo um which would include any Wetland impact mitigation and so um standard standard stuff for city of Victoria project s um that that py is of course familiar with so site utilities so Creekside Lane the roadway extension that I'm going to just go back over to here um that we talked about sanitary sewer and water to serve this area need to come through Creek Side Lane so just to highlight it for this development to occur um the parcel to the east of here the West Creek Village project that the Planning Commission and city council previously reviewed a sketch plat for by lenar um that project has to happen in order for this property to develop unless this developer would obtain easement rights through the adjacent land owner and go get the sewer and water in the marsh Hollow development and go get the road in the marsh Hollow development and extend it out to here um but that sanitary sewer extension we'll talk about that first um and I'm gonna sorry I'm just going to jump all around here make everybody dizzy um the sanitary sewer line that's coming through Creek Side needs to serve all of this area um in the lighter purple so when we talk about doing a comp plan Amendment one of the tasks that my team would be tasked with is really um making sure that we have the set elev set elevations and set routing for that trunk sewer line through Creek Side Lane um we've only evaluated it on a um kind of a 10,000 foot level so as development starts to get closer that's something we'll want to take a closer look at as a project would move forward we're currently in the process of doing that work in the South growth area you know once the bovie property came in um but that is located within our 2030 boundary so um you know we we automatically start working on that when development comes in that meets your comp plan um water so trunk water is also coming through Creek Side Lane um this is where you keep seeing the references in the sketch plats in this area to well number six so well number six is under construction in the marsh Hollow development we are edging every bit closer to Startup of that well the parts that have been miraculously um needing to be waited for for months have arrived so we are getting closer to be able to actually use that well um but the second piece of that is we have to amend our permit with the DNR in order to be able to pump that well one of the things they look at when we're doing that comp plan amendment is what our water supply plan looks like in our comprehensive plan so if we're going to start entertaining development outside of the 2030 boundary that would be something we would need to look at as part of a comp plan Amendment so you know historically the Planning Commission recently has been involved in some comp plan amendments that have been relatively simple um you know Brian's written some text worked with the m Council and been able to administer them the work we're talking about here is not difficult it's just additional steps that the city is going to need to take if we're going to start to entertain development outside of the 2030 boundary um and you know there's just a cost ass associated with doing some of that work so as the Planning Commission and the city council starts to think about um moving in that direction we just want to make sure that that everyone's aware that that there's some work um associated with that the other thing as part of um the water system so the area along Creek Side Lane is part of our future search area for water treatment plant number two in the comprehensive plan and based on current population projections Water Treatment Plant 2 is targeted as being needed in 2030 so essentially what that's saying is that you know the existing capacity that we have in the existing water treatment plant is used up we need another one to provide um treated water and that water is treated for iron and manganese removal so it's not it's not a health safety thing it's a water quality thing um back before we had the water treatment plant we had water that people would describe as being orange in color and that's coming from the iron and manganese that is in the groundwater that supplies this area so uh we really if we're going to start to expand development to the West we really do as a community need to figure out precisely where we want to um put water treatment plant too and work with the land owners and developers to secure the land rights in order to be able to construct that when the time comes the timing of that is something that we would be taking a look at as part of expanding outside of the current 2030 population projection if we're going to start to move growth into that boundary whole lot of technical information there that I went through relatively quickly um it you know the intent of it is really to just provide information to you all as you start to look at these things so Brian did ask me here tonight to do that little bit of a deeper dive I'm not leaving if you have questions but I will turn it back to Bri so just to highlight a summary of the deviations that we're seeing with this development there's the reduction in the R1 standards that I noted earlier with the lot area lot width and the front and rear setbacks uh also the portions that our Parks and Rec committee commented on regarding the sidewalks and trails the parks private amenities or Community Gathering spaces uh and then also the landscape buffers and the guest parking so with that I have uh some discussion points to guide the discussion this evening as I mentioned at the beginning no action is required with the sketch plat Cara and I can answer any questions you may have for staff and we have some representatives of the application in the audience this evening thank you Brian and Cara uh does the y b wish to speak on this Mr chair members of the commission my name is Dean Lauder I work for py homes here in Minnesota our address is 1650 West 82 Street Bloomington Minnesota uh I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you tonight uh I'll just make a few brief comments about our our site planning with the with the cooch and Meister property and then of course I'll stand for any questions that you might have also maybe if I could take a second I'd just like to introduce my small Entourage that's with me here also uh Haley Daly uh works with me in land planning and entitlement I'm the director she's a manager uh with us also is uh Kevin Campbell our VP of land acquisition and uh course Nathan how do I say your last name heik uh Nathan's new to the team that's why I'm still learning how to pronounce his last name but he's also in Acquisitions for our team so a couple thoughts uh we we received a very comprehensive staff review letter on our plan which we appreciate very much earlier in the process because of course that helps uh Us in informing our decisions on what we can do to try to make our application stronger um and of course we're trying to thread the needle on a variety of issues here of course we're we're looking at three different home uh home Styles if you will multiple variations of each as uh Brian pointed out we have the Shoreland area to to the north that touches some of those 80 foot Lots uh we've already started working on iterations of this plan that are a bit different than what you're seeing tonight we didn't bring them forward uh only because there's a lot of different moving parts to this but all I can tell you is that any changes that were already contemplating would um bring our concept plan into more alignment with your codes and your regulations so for example the U Shoreland area we're going to we're going to meet of course the 25% Max impervious surface we're making those lots wider bigger deeper um to make sure that we do that um originally we did not have um a public through Street in our town home area that was a comment that we saw uh with staff and so we're trying to play around with complying with making that a public road changing the curvature of some of those interior streets to try to address the traffic calming uh wishes uh is also part of something that we're looking at doing as well um so it's not going to be substant different than what you're looking at tonight but we're trying to play around with some those comments so that we can make the plan stronger and make it more compliant with your rules uh so Mr chair I would just uh yield the floor back to you and ask if you have any questions of me all right thank you uh I will now open the floor for the Planning Commission to discuss uh any questions comments I'll start with just like I don't know who to direct this to one one or both of you but seems like timing is a big thing here right like there's a lot of developments so again I don't know which to direct this to like is the intent to like get this developed ASAP or are you guys looking to start your planning now so that like you can fit into the the scheme as these guys are working through their you know utilities and everything again I don't know who to direct this to sure um Mr chair if I may respond to the the commissioner's question so I think you know ideally timing is always an issue on all of our projects right and uh it it always it seems like it's typically against us uh ideally what we'd like to be able to do is move through our Our Land planning process our entitlements process with the city of course with certain conditions being uh a part of that and we acknowledge that we understand that we understand you know there's a staging uh comp plan Amendment that's necessary so we're you know we're interacting or going to have to interact with the Met Council on getting you know a couple different comp plant amendments uh as stated uh by Cara you know there's uh some work that's got to be done on looking at Road alignments for the collectors and studying the utilities so we want to be uh a part of that and hopefully can work kind of through that concurrently to the best of our ability um but we can't we can't develop of course without water and sewer and and Road access is approved and things of that nature so there are a lot of moving parts and we acknowledge that so if I can summarize ideally that all those things fell in place tomorrow you'd go right I I mean that's not realistic but you guys would like to move quicker than the 20 I think that's slated for 2031 is what I'm understanding so like your your hope is to go quicker than 2031 that's correct thanks concern quite honestly is the reduction in the R1 standards for all the Lots you've got 163 single family homes in there and it seems like every one of those lots you want to make smaller um than what the standards are and also noticing that there are no uh public spaces Parks Etc Community areas that's the problem that I have sure Mr chair um part of our other iterations to try to make the application stronger is to address one of the comments which had to do with uh some parks space or some open space and we we would look at trying to do that in two different locations one would be uh located closer to the town homes and one would be uh more in the northern part of of the project site for the single family homes to enjoy um to the lot sizes we we do have a section of 80ft lots at the North north um the the the lots that are kind of that aqua color um in the in the middle those are uh slightly narrower Lots they're still 70 foot Lots those are still in this market considered a very wide lot um there are a variety of reasons to try to offer different size Lots because it does help us create a different price point penetration with the different homes we're offering 82 acres is a large site we need to be able to create some different differential in in what we're offering seems to me though that you got 163 homes and 80 town homes that's quite a lot of residential area compacted in what 82 Acres I know it seems like um an awful lot of building in there for some reason I foresee Victoria a little bit more wide open than in my opinion the crowding that this would represent my only thought or contemplation I'd offer for consideration Mr chair is uh overall the plan is close to three units an acre which generally speaking is um you know compliant with current met Council planning thank you so this feels a little bit like changing the tire on a bus while it's rolling down the freeway and it's hard to ask meaningful questions when so much is still in the thinking and planning stage are you considering a reduction that total number of lots to to follow on Al's question or are you still with 163 homes and 88 Town Homes yeah um Mr chair to the commissioner's question uh depending on what we're all able to address in our other iterations of our plan um we rarely yield more Lots we usually yield less and just by trying to you know for example like with the townhouse the main road that's going through the townhouse first of all to create some curvation to that or some traffic cing to that to make it a 60ft right away with 28 foot wide road so it's a public road it meets public standards uh that results in in reduction of lots right right so just just kind of in the natural or organic process of kind of refining the plan you know that probably will happen although you know not you know maybe not to the same extent some people would like the Consulting planner made a recommendation to um perhaps consider a Road between the single family homes and the town homes yes sir uh is that in place still or are you still thinking you might need a buffer there uh Mr commissioner to the commissioner's question um we would definitely create we'd probably put a road buffer between the single family and the town homes um and also you know we're looking at where like predominantly like the aqua colored lots back up to the proposed lenar development to the east uh we would create greater buffering in there uh so that we're complying with the city's desires okay and the obvious question is is um sidewalks and Trail connections is there any further thought on that I mean for me those are not negotiable you got to have those in Victoria of course uh Mr chair uh to the commissioner's question we would be yeah we just we didn't provide quite the detail there yet but for example like in the the town homes as we started to play with that configuration again um we would probably have a combination of some private trails in the town home area that are maintained by the HOA but since the street is going to be a public Street or would be a public Street those would probably be public sidewalks that would also be in there so there there would be quite a saturation if you will of walkability in there and then of course um we'd be bringing the trail through that's already proposed on Creek Side um and then there would be other uh sidewalks throughout the development good and what is the latest thinking on Parkland in this area is is there any thought about adding some amenities um Park areas playgrounds anything like that yeah we're contemplating um two different kind of open space areas um we don't know exactly what that programming looks like that'll probably get fared out more with uh conversations with staff and as we meet with Council and talk with them and hear what their thoughts are we'd have an open space programmed down by the town homes perhaps a Tot Lot or something like that easily accessible by the sidewalks or or trails and then we would also uh we're contemplating in in one of our concepts of having another open space kind of up by Creek Side as that passes through the single family homes there we just probably don't want it right next Creek Side um you know where that future collector will come through but we're still kind of playing around with that a little bit but yeah we are contemplating that and what we don't hit with the required acreage of course we make up with the park dedication fee and one last question for you um guest parking for the town home areas it it looks pretty tight and especially if that turns out to be a private road is there any thought to adding guest parking to that area yeah we would we would take a look at that we tend to We tend to want to have guest parking in our town hom yeah so that's just a a finer detail we haven't quite gotten to yet but we would look at that great thanks what discussions have you had with the land owner to the South um our Acquisitions team has been in contact with the landowner to the South and so we're we're engaged with that that land owner right now land owner South in chasa no that's still Victoria that's still Victoria okay Lake there actually two there's actually two Parcels down there there's a small parcel to the east the one that's there's one directly south of cooin meister and that's one property owned by one seller yeah yeah and then there's a smaller one to the east of of that property and then a larger one Pearson property to the West quick question maybe for Brian um guess can you go back to like the access road thing like is this even possible to do if that stuff to the east is not done yet like are we able to develop with only a one way in one way out with this volume uh chair and commissioner cth yes that's correct until this property develops we wouldn't have this second access point unless the developer was a able to negotiate access with this property owner or or the property to the east is developed correct so correct so then can we even like can these guys even develop with only one access point with that much volume like it's fire and snow and everything like is that okay uh chair and Commissioners I think Cara touched on that a little bit as well but no until that property to the east develops they aren't able to have utilities to the site uh which is the biggest thing from that extension of Creek Side lanee and then yes the part of Carver County's comments is that they would require a traffic impact analysis for that single entrance gotcha okay thanks I missed that part um I don't see any storm water holding bonds is that not required in this area um chair and Commissioners they do have a few points of storm water areas uh they just aren't shaded to directly state that they're storm water but these pockets of blue highlighted areas throughout the development I believe are their storm their proposed storm water basins I'm not in love with this thing to be honest I really don't like it I'd like to see what you have done different M um and I mean with the pathways with the shoreline ordinances I mean you're taking a 70 foot uh lot you're putting 10ft sidey yard setbacks that means you got 50 foot of buildable house um I don't quite understand how you're going to get square footage in there that you're saying you're getting but that's you're building them I'd like to see where you're building these somewhere else in the city or you know in the M because I mean you got to be putting them up Lakeville Farmington wherever you're at I mean um it'd be interesting just to see what the style of house is and it's bre open go look at them um sure but I think it needs a lot of work especially to get the sidewalks with a 30 foot front yard setback and um in this number of lots I just don't see how you can do it um but my personal opinion is it's we're trying to figure out how to do this in an area that isn't slated till 2030 and for us to even commit staff to do it just for this partial it's like we need to assess the whole 2031 2040 population issue um which is just a lot of work and time on City staff um that we're not I don't know that's up to them if they I don't think they have time to deal with that but I mean I'm glad that there's something moving here I'm glad that you're got the acquisition or are trying to put something there but I don't know it's just one of those feelings you get that you just something doesn't seem right or it's way too early or or and if you got a different rendition I would love to see it yeah Mr chair if I may um you know we could certainly forward uh an email to staff with the locations of uh where we're building um our homes so if you wanted to go through a model or something like that certainly I might just add too like just opinion aside like the comp plan the amount of work that goes into a comp plan the different restrictions that we have for Zing mhm um I think making exceptions for zoning and and changing things from the comp plan is less ideal for us if it doesn't do something for the development that we think is good longterm for Victoria so um not my opinion just kind of the at the outset the rules that the that the team has put forward over a long development timeline to put you know to put development in the future so I don't want to I don't want to put it on on an opinion but I think it's it's fair to put it on a uh long-term document for the city both Fair points I have a question for car um budget impact if if we're going to accelerate water treatment plant number two which wasn't slated for 20 until 2030 what does that mean in terms of budget impact timing site location resources that have to be dedicated to that sure chair Commissioners again I didn't say mayor was very excited um yeah you know we we revisit the timing of that with the finance director annually with the long-term financial plan because you know these things when we do the comp plan are projections so we're constantly having to kind of review where we are with our water use of course it's been a challenge with prior to this year drought conditions accelerating the amount of water folks are using to water Lawns um and placing a bigger Demand on our system so um you know certainly we end up refining that as we go through these processes the other thing that would be something that we'd start to take another look at is what our um fees are as we start to build into this area related to sewer and water connection fees and when we need to build that in um so you know the finance department has a model we revisit annually it's certainly something we'll continue to revisit regardless of um development you know the what you're seeing is you're starting to run out of available land that's for sale for development within the current city limits so you know if if Brian flipped back to the areas that we have vacant land within the 2030 boundary nothing's happening on that land and because the land owners aren't interested in selling right now so we're not fully built out in those areas so from a broader perspective we have some capacity in the system because those areas within the 2030 haven't fully developed so it it becomes sort about more about location and making sure that the infrastructure is ready within the location that it's needed but then we have to factor in the overall population increase within the rest of the within the 2030 boundary where we you know an example of that would be the schme farm you know that we ended up hopping around to get to the South growth area you know that land owner has said they don't plan to develop anytime soon now they certainly if they wanted to um they're within the comp plan and utilities are extended to it they you know we would accept their application if they submitted one but um so that was a very long answer that hopefully was helpful yeah goes the broader question of does it make sense to accelerate development in this area uh by what six years list and it's a multivariable equation could the fees associated with moving up the Redevelopment of the area be ultimately paid by the developer yeah typically we'll look at our um connection fees based on what the projected needs are for development um you know some cities will do a particular area charge in a particular area that's not something the city has um chose that's not a path the city has gone down before um but we do periodically review those fees against the projections for the sewer and water infrastructure to make sure that you know the goal is that growth is paying for growth before finish off water might I add a couple things I've always thought the Land part might be the easiest just being with all the access to Lake Town Township and just finding somebody to purchase it so that didn't scare me do we have any idea how much it costs to build a new water treatment plant and are we going to need a new water tower to go along with that um so the the uh Capital Improvement plan includes a water tower in 25 or 26 I can't recall off the top of my head which year it's in there so um that's already in the plan um and the treatment plan is in there for 2030 and I it's 20 million maybe um might be more I I haven't looked at the number um in the last couple weeks so I Trish is working on those projections right now we do update the utility funds you know once she's moved past the general fund budget then she moves onto the utility funds um so we you know we incorporate that into the into the system annually thank you just things to think about um and then just a few things Dean if you will um I look at it and the feeling I get similar to some others maybe it's about five years too early maybe three um these guys hit on private roads and public roads they hit on Parks I think there's a possible opportunity to work with something up for a park within the chasa Creek area there but I'm not totally sure what you're able to do within the ccmo rules trails and sidewalks trails and sidewalk connections are top five concern for our citizens and something that has to be addressed I know you're addressing it but to move forward again this is to help you out that's something that we'll need to do closest park being a half mile away we're going to have to have a easy connection to get there or plans for something else on top of that I think guest parking is absolutely something that has to be done um one other thing for you I think that was it but um yeah I don't know got feeling it feels a little soon but might help us to get moving along Mr chair may I offer a comment sure um yeah I and I I hear all those comments so thank you for those those those are Salient comments um we would address try to address all of them in in kind of any other plans that would come forward a lot of times you know when you're looking at an application you're kind of thinking you know next month these houses are going to start building you know and it's it's a much longer process so when I you know I hear that two three four year time frame um you know a project of this size is at least a two-phase uh project uh potentially three um and so you know if we would if we were successful with moving through through with entitlements if we were able to access the the utilities that we need you know development of the site would be the the following year from the approvals and then Model Homes would be constructed and then homes would start getting sold so you are already looking at two three years out before any kind of real activities taking place and then of course like I said it's at least a two-phase project so it it's it wouldn't happen overnight by any means it would probably fall approximately within the time frame that you're thinking of yeah thank you um you saw my last one on here was how how are you going to phase this and I was thinking it's going to be at least three different phases um based on how it was built but maybe you can do it in two um my other questions are for you guys really when it comes down to it because I have nothing else better to do I watch the last city council meeting and had a chance to learn a little bit more about imagine 2050 and the reduction of lot sizes in order to get approval for sewer sanitary water and all that kind of stuff you guys are laughing because why not um how would these size Lots fit within those restrictions that are coming down from the Met Council chair and commissioner Pon and all our other planning Commissioners if you do watch the meeting from city council last week you'll know that uh part of the Met council's imagine 2050 plan is requiring a minimum four units per acre for a community such as ours uh for this proposal I think the total density comes out to about 3.42 units per acre I think was in their narrative so this would not meet the intent of the 2050 imagined plan in terms of density so they still won't have enough density correct a lot of our thoughts are it's too dense okay just wanted to make sure I was on that so this proposal is closer closer to what you would want it would not probably marry up with the 2050 plan that's coming down the pipe correct um how elaborate is a bridge for red fox going over the chasa creek who's going to build that so um we it essentially our Creek Crossing for Creekside Lane is a box covert so there's there might be two I'm looking around as if any of you in the room other would know how many that's something I'm supposed to remember but I'm getting old uh so it's you know typically um what we did in that situation we have either one large cul or two small culverts underneath the road um that are sized to handle the flow but it that's why it's going to be so important for us to look at where best to cross the creek because we don't we don't want to set up a situation where we would need a bridge down the road where we wouldn't be able to use large covers so we really need to um do some additional evaluation of the creek through there a quick look it does look like they targeted a narrow part of the creek for crossing I expect their engineer probably took a look at that um but that would be something that would be part of what we would want to evaluate more detail is where the most cost effective places to cross that's for red fox not Creekside right correct but Creekside also crosses chasa Creek does to the in Marsh Hollow gotcha thank you I guess my only other thought on red fox was is there a way to kick it further to the West with some other sort of land acquisition or not so you don't have double sided yards or double Street yards what's a technical term for that double fronted double fronted um yeah that would be part of what we would look at would be to see um really we'd also be looking at the horizontal alignment um to make sure that we're meeting what our standard horizontal curves are for a road like red fox um you know they they took a crack at it but we would take a look at it in the context of all of the above and we might conclude that it should be further to the West okay I think that's it for me thank you appreciate it any other questions not here thank you thank you Commissioners hearing no more discussion uh this request does not require a formal motion so that concludes our discussion items for this evening moving on to miscellaneous section of our agenda um chair and Commissioners only only update that I have for you this evening is that there is some new art in the council chambers uh Claudia our city clerk left little uh slips of paper which might be new to some of our new Commissioners uh we collect votes on uh our favorites from our boards commissions city council uh as well as residents and staff so if you wouldn't mind taking a look at the art after the meeting this evening and giving me your vote so I can pass them along that would be great all right thank you Commissioners you have any miscellaneous or items I have one quick request um through our cannabis discussions that we had last couple meetings um we've been talking about ordinances that we'd like to see enacted within the city of Victoria and I was hoping we could get Travis or whoever is heading that up to try to see if they can find some similar communities and other states that have had cannabis for a longer period of time and ask them which ordinances they felt were worthwhile which ones they should have done or enacted and which ones um wish anything they would have done differently it's basically what I was so anyway um just came up in a few discussions I've had in the past couple weeks I thought I would publicly ask sure thank you hearing no more items for this evening did I get a motion to adjourn so moved second motion a second all those in favor I oppos thank you the motion carries we are adjourned