--------- really carried it with me too. Okay. >> Good evening. It's now 6 o'clock and I call the workshop of the Victoria City Council to order. Our workshops are informal, so we'll dive right into our agenda. There's one item on the agenda this evening, which is an update on the
city's municipal separate storm sewer system. That is a tongue twister. My goodness. Presenting this evening is assistant city manager Amanda Ass assistant city engineer. Sorry, Amanda. Amanda Meyer. Miss Meyer, welcome. The floor is yours.
>> Wonderful. Uh good evening, mayor, members of the council. With me tonight is Laura Rcorlo with WSB. WSB is one of our consultants that does a lot of uh storm water stuff on behalf of the city. So, she's here presenting with me this evening. The intent of tonight um is to
do, you know, generally Cara presents annually on some of our MS4 permit um items as part of our permit. It's one of our requirements uh to provide staff and residents an opportunity to provide comment on our program. Um but then also
just provide an update on our program. Uh the city completed a self audit in 2024 of the program. So give you a quick high level of the results of that and then also go through some current program elements. Um so ultimately as
you're probably aware Victoria is an MS4 city so we are required to obtain and comply with the national pollutant discharge and elimination system or the NPDES storm water permit uh which is mandated by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. So purpose of the permit
really is to reduce pollution entering public systems and discharging to water bodies. And then um the permit authorizes the discharge of storm water out of the city's system into those lakes, rivers, and wetlands. Um the permit specifies and outlines a series
of best management practices or MCMS. There are there are six of those on the screen before you which I think you've seen this list uh probably many times before. Um but ultimately there are different requirements in each of those MCMS um that the city is working to meet
those requirements through various activities. Um and each year the city is required to complete an annual review and like I mentioned uh in 2024 the city consulted with WSB uh to do a self audit
of the program. So, this was just kind of a gut check to see how we're doing on the program, on our permit requirements, um, and just kind of get some feedback. So, WSB used a form that's actually provided by the MPCA, and it's a similar
form that the MPC would use, uh, MPCA would use uh, if or when they audit the city and the program. So, it's a it's a good representation of how the city is doing on the permit requirements. Ultimately the findings of the self
audit the city is excelling and staff is excelling on inspections on public uh engagement education uh various events um inspections I mentioned plan reviews um reviewing erosion control and then
there was one item that really um was identified as a focus area which is the documentation piece. So in each of those six MCMs, there are a variety of uh documentation requirements and they're pretty robust. So for a staff
this size to do all of the documentation at every little step can be cumbersome. And what was identified um and what staff will be working on in the coming months year will be finding more efficient ways to do the documentation,
finding more efficient ways um to file the documentation so it's in one place um easier to find those sorts of things. But ultimately really good results of that self audit. Um, so with that, I'm going to pass it to Laura to kind of talk through some of our current program
elements. Uh, specifically to start with our pond maintenance program. >> Good. Good evening, Laura. Welcome. >> Hi. Thank you very much. Thanks for having me. So, I'm going to talk primarily about ponds. And this a lot of this can fall under that MCM5, the
postconstruction storm water management. But the city of Victoria uses uh the swamp program, the storm water asset management program as a way to help you understand the ponds in your city, what's going on with them, when they
might need maintenance, and um basically how well they're doing their job. And so, uh there's a little screen clip here that you can see. The scoring for each pond is from zero to 100 with 100 would be the a newly installed pond or one
that is functioning perfectly. Um it's well designed for the area that drains to it. And uh low scores 0 to 25 are are indicating these basins likely need some maintenance. And so
in swamp you all have over 90 ponds. So um it can be a nice way to keep track of which ones are popping up showing that they might need maintenance maintenance. When that happens, then we conduct bathometric surveys or uh surveys to
understand the depth of that pond to truth the information that's coming from swamp to try to say is this is this pond actually um functioning as swamp anticipates and then we can move from there. So on the right side of the
screen you can see a baometric survey that we did in 2024. Um because in 2024 we we surveyed 20 ponds throughout the city. So 20 of those 90 plus. um most of
them had been ones that were scoring low so that we could come up with a plan several years out um to help program some of the the maintenance needs. And so these were uh draft uh tables and
figures from that prioritization exercise. Um, and one one interesting thing to note here is that um, as you start planning, of course, things will change. So, we're uh, we have the plans just
about ready to go for the 2026 pond maintenance program. Um, there are three green dots on there, which I'm sure is probably hard to see. Um, oh, no, you have you have screens in front of you. Maybe not that hard to see. Um, but we're actually we'll be maintaining two
of those ponds this this upcoming winter. And so this plan just helps prioritize again what's needs to be done. And as you can see in that table, give some estimated construction cost
estimates. um because it's well and good getting an estimate out of the swamp program um to try to understand how much sediment needs to be removed from there and what that cost might be. But of course, there are additional maintenance
factors that aren't always captured there. And so that is a collaboration um between us when we're helping you with your pond management plans and city staff. uh Swamp does a great job of estimating that sediment removal, but there might be other items that would
bump ponds higher up in the priority list of when to maintain them. Uh including damaged or failing infrastructure, maybe there are trees starting to grow up or other vegetation that needs to be removed so that pond can function as it should. Or maybe uh
some maintenance is driven by resident complaints. Um, any of those things could bump a pond up in both its priority to be surveyed to figure out if it needs maintenance and then to ultimately do maintenance there.
And these um as you're prioritizing ponds that uh I'll jump back for a minute. You can see here we programmed out pond maintenance activities for the next five years. So this is something that would be done regularly. Different
cities do things different ways. Some cities like to survey a couple ponds every year so that they can be programming a little bit ahead what they want to do and others like you all just recently did will survey a chunk of
ponds all at once to program a little farther out. So, both approaches work and generally then we'll kind of pepper in some additional inspections as we hear that there might be issues at some ponds. Um, >> Laura, as long as we're back on that
slide, I I've got a couple questions just for clarification. >> Sure. >> So, the P 13, what does the P stand for? Because I see we have a W15. >> Yep. Uh, generally it's pond wetland. >> Okay. Um these all the ones we're doing
maintenance on here are storm water. They're not natural wetlands. They're all storm water basins. So >> Okay, very good. And then the estimated construction cost is actually the maintenance cost. >> So in order to maintain that P13 pond,
we can expect to spend about $34,000. >> Yes. >> Okay. So this is super helpful for us for budgeting into the next five years. This is great. Okay. Very good. There are a these estimated construction costs are largely based on the sediment
removal. Um if we knew of failing pipe ends or something, those would be incorporated in here, but sometimes those are noticed when you're closer to construction. So sometimes costs might increase a little bit if we realize
there's failing infrastructure that needs to be included. >> Okay. So, the the ponds that you guys actually surveyed and scored, um, was there any rhyme or reason to picking those? Are they the oldest ones in our system or what does that how did you do that? >> Yes, great question. Most of them were
the the lower swamp scores, so ones that had scored between zero and 50. Um, so looked like they would likely need maintenance soonest. And I believe there were some mixed in there too that staff had identified as these might be problem areas. Let's survey these and see what's
going on as well. >> Okay, >> great. Thank you. >> Yeah, I I just will note that public works does inspect the ponds. So, the ponds all need to be inspected every 5 years. So, um the storm water team inspects them and keeps records. So they
were able to provide input to the folks on that end of the table for some modifications that were needed in terms of adding a pond or two to survey or being able to say that one's not actually an issue. Let's down
prioritize it. >> So I have a quick question. So swamp score is primary um rank criteria for where we want to concentrate efforts first. Correct. >> Yes. >> Have we given consideration to
overlaying the highway five construction so that we're not cleaning a pond of sentiment only to have the entire highway turn up rebuild and then flushing basically new dirt into a clean pond so that we can maybe push some of
those guys even though we know the swamp score is not great but maybe push that down the priority queue to maybe 27 28 after the construction. And then we focus on some of the other lower scores that are away from that so that the we're not, you know, essentially harming
what we just got done. >> Yeah, that's a good question. I don't believe that we've done that, but we can definitely take a look um at least for these and make sure that we don't have anything identified in that area. It's a it's a good question. Good. >> Cool. And then we have rolling acres that's going to have some runoff into
some places there. >> Absolutely. >> Thanks. >> Great. Anything else while we're still here taking a pause? >> Just one. Um, so every five years, public works kind of tests the ponds, right? That's standard, but
>> they just inspect. So it's just a it's just the guys going out and taking a look at it, making notes, making observations about what they're seeing. So they could see sediment at the inlets or outlets to the pipe, the vegetation growing up. Those are the sorts of
things that they would be looking for and documenting where this step adds in the survey layer where we get more technical data to help decide what needs to be done. >> So if we hear from a resident, which I have, um, hey, can you inspect this
pond? Um, we should just talk to public works direct, talk to Brady and team directly. Um, and who knows if it's been inspected recently or not, but we'll find out. able to get on that list, etc. Okay, got it. Yep. >> First step. Okay, thank you.
>> All right, carry on. >> Great. Thank you. Uh the C one other thing I'll highlight too is the difference between a wet pond and a filtration basin. Um or or infiltration. Um so a wet pond, these were um these
are generally they might be throughout the city. Um maybe more prevalent in older parts of town. their uh primary function is to retain storm storm water. So they're designed both to reduce the discharge rates um the rate that water
is going downstream and to uh let water stay in there for a longer period of time so that pollutants can settle out and be contained in the pond rather than going downstream. Um, and so sometimes
residents will um be disappointed that their storm pond isn't a lovely uh pristine water body, but often that's because it's doing its job and it's capturing those pollutants, the sediment that's building up in that pond rather than going to the downstream lake or
river or wetland. And these then do have a permanent pool of water. So they look like you would expect a pond to look. Whereas filtration basins which there's been a larger emphasis more recently um
on installing filtration or infiltration basins if we can. So those will filter storm water either through the native soils or through a filter media. They similarly though they will reduce discharge rates downstream but then
they'll capture pollutants in that media or in the soil. And in the case of an infiltration basin where water's just going into the ground, there's no piping um underneath the ground to help it get downstream. Um actually reducing the
amount of water that gets downstream too. And so these basins after rain events will be dry. Um so if it hasn't rained recently, they'll be dry. like the picture here. They might have lots of lovely plants um that can do well um
in periods of wet and dry or more might be um lower vegetation, more looking uh looking more like grass almost. Um they might not have all the variety of plants as this photo does, but um they are
ultimately dry supposed to be dry basins that treat the storm water. So with that, that's the end. That is the end. >> I think sorry I think the only thing I'll add when we went on the tour um we looked at the area like in Brookmore I
think it is where we've we've been getting complaints. So, the filtration basins are tough because what happens is is the developer waits to build them till enough of the homes are completed around it because they found that if they build them first, then all the
construction comes in, they get filled up with sediment and they're rebuilding them. So, they won't put the filter media in and the plants in and all of those things until the development's a little bit further built out. So when you go to look at the lot, you might see
open water and then you've moved in and then they build out the filtration basin to dry drain dry after 48 hours. And that's that generated a number of phone calls
um in the Brookmore neighborhood when when those went in. So staff's been talking about um different ways to ask the developers to educate the buyers about these facilities and help them understand that
they aren't wet ponds, that they are filtration basins. Um because we're building these, we're required to build them. So this is all regulated by MCWD or Carver County WO. We're building them everywhere. So, um, that it'll be
something people see often. So, like I said, Brian and Jen are trying to figure out how to help them educate better. Very good. Thanks. Um, if my memory serves me correct, and it may not, but I understand that this is a
change in process or legislation from a few years back. And a few years back, there was a lot of conversation about the cost of maintaining these filtration basins and and ponds and there was going to be some work at the legislature or local governments to get
some help on the cost of doing that. Can you provide any is there anything going on with that anymore or >> so generally and I might put Laura on the spot here a little bit but um so the MPCA started regulating
saying that we need to dredge ponds and originally in like two permit cycles ago they were going to require the cities to do the dredging. they backed off and just said, "You have to have a plan for how you're going to do the dredging."
But at the time there was a pretty high concern that the um contaminants in the soils were going to be really expensive to dispose of. And I think what you probably could speak to is how it's played out in reality is it hasn't been
as expensive. So maybe you could speak to what that is about. >> I can try to for sure. Um, one generally, um, for maintenance activities on ponds or infiltration basins, there generally aren't many like there aren't grant funds or other
things, um, that could help fund those. Um, the maintenance activities are often excluded. Um, however, th those are activities that the city's um, storm water utility funds. Um, and the
contaminated soils that pop up in storm ponds we're seeing aren't terribly expensive to deal with. They're more expensive than if they're not contaminated. Um but just a couple of years ago um the guidance changed for
kind of the level of contamination and what could be done with there are three uh three management levels of sediment based on how contaminated it is and the levels um between two and three which are three is
the most contaminated um bumped up a little bit. So, it we've found it's not the contaminated sediment hasn't been a huge factor in a lot of um ponds we've worked in, which is great. And um as for
filtration basins in particular, that media does have a life cycle and so will need to be replaced. the estimates I've seen have varied really widely from like every five years to every 20 years. Um,
and so I think it's it's likely somewhere there in the middle that all all the sand and filtration media will need to be replaced. Um, we we've installed several of these now in cities throughout the metro area that
are starting to get to the older side, not 20 years, but maybe 10, 15 years. And uh, well, I recently had a city had did some testing on their filtration basin
to see is this removing pollutants and it was doing great. they thought they were it was time to replace that media. Um but it looks like they'll still get another five to 10 years out of it. And so that can be variable for sure. Um but
there there is research continuing to come out about the life cycle of filtration media um and infiltration basins that will hopefully help you program well those reoccurring maintenance costs.
>> Very good. Thanks. I'm gonna look to city manager Dana Hardy. We have been planning for this in our CIP and our storm water management plan for a number of years already. So, we are not going to be caught flatfooted on this.
>> So, I just want to confirm, >> mayor, members of the council, yes, that is correct. We have been um and that was part of the conversation that we just have with the budget um your last budget workshop. Um, so making sure we've we've put staff in the in our in the storm
that are responsible. Now we are staffing that they're doing those proactive um proactive maintenance and other um activities associated with that. So we are starting to build that fund. So when
we're when we need to do these maintenance or if we need to address dredging um that we're building that fund over time. >> Good. Thank you. >> And mayor, I'd just add that it from my perspective, it's pretty exciting
that we have this actual plan out for the next several years. So, um I'm excited to be able to actually communicate with Trish. Uh this is what we're going to do and then of course to respond to residents. So when they call, we can say you're not
programmed in these four years or we're looking at programming you. Um, so I think that I think that's a great thing. So it's been great having Laura and WSB do all the work that they did to get us to this point. So >> great. We we do appreciate that, but you
will forgive me if I don't share that excitement. It's not one of the things that I get real excited about. All right, council. Any further questions, comments for these? I I think comment-wise, uh I think we I'd like to put to council
further thoughts on when the filtration basins come up for getting maintained that we get an estimate of what it would take to have them look like the picture that's in front of us so that we can
make a decision about do we want to have that additional spend in the reconstruction to have something that looks like an abandoned and sand traps by Andy's Golf Course or we want them to have, you know, a more prairie look that we're known for in our wetland areas.
>> Yeah, good. I see lots of nodding going along here. So, >> okay. >> Yeah, I think that's a fair request. >> All right. >> Thanks. >> Anything else from the council? >> All right. Seeing nothing, we want to say thank you very much. That is the
only item on our agenda this evening for discussion. There's no action necessary on that item and there are no more items on our workshop. So with that I will take a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> We have a motion. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> Have a motion and a second. All in favor
signify by saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. We stand adjourned. We will reconvene. Part: 2
Good evening. It's now 6:30 and I call to order the regular meeting of the Victoria City Council. Please join us in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> The first item on our agenda this evening is announcements. The regular council meeting, originally scheduled for Monday, December 22nd, has been cancelled and this evening marks our
final council meeting of the year. We look forward to seeing you at our first meeting in 2026 on Monday, January 12th at 6:30, followed by our annual meeting of the Economic Development Authority. All meetings of the city council are open to the public and held in council
chambers at city hall unless otherwise noted. If you're interested in speaking at a council meeting, we encourage you to contact our city clerk for more information. In other announcements, in celebration of the holiday season, city offices will be closed Wednesday, December 24th and Thursday, December
25th. Regular business hours will resume on Friday, December 28th or 26th at 8 a.m. Additionally, city offices will be closed on Thursday, January 1st, 2026 in observance of the New Year's Day. will reopen on Friday,
January 22nd, 2026 at 8:00 a.m. On behalf of the city council and the city staff, we want to wish everyone a safe, joyful holiday season, a merry Christmas, and a very happy new year. Our next order of business is to adopt the final agenda.
Council, can I get a motion to adopt the final agenda? >> Motion to adopt the final agenda. >> We have a motion. Can I get a second? >> Second. Let's give that second to council member Refe. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I.
>> I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Moving on to our next item, which is open forum. This is the opportunity for anyone to address the council on an item that's not on the agenda and not an application form that will be coming to the council at a future date. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to
address the council on an item that's not on the agenda? Seeing no one, we're moving on to our consent agenda. Items on the consent agenda are routine administrative, do not require deliberation, or are housekeeping items that are required by
law. They're approved with one vote unless someone requests an item to be considered separately. Miss Hardy, does staff wish to pull any consent items for separate discussion and vote this evening? >> None from staff. Madame Mayor, >> any members of council or any members of the audience wishing
to pull an item for separate discussion and vote? >> Seeing none, I would take a motion for the um consent agenda. >> I'll make a motion to adopt the December 8, 2025 consent agenda. >> Very good. We have a motion. Can I get a
second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. Moving on to our regular agenda. The first item on our regular agenda 6.1, which is our truth and taxation public hearing for
2026 budget and levy. Presenting this evening is assistant city manager and finance director Trisha Pollock. Miss Pollock, welcome. The floor is yours. Thank you, mayor, members of the council. This um truth and taxation um
is for a moment for the public to address council and staff um with any questions about the 2026 um budget. So, if you would, mayor, um ask if there's anyone in the audience that would like to speak. >> Okay. This is our truth and taxation
hearing for the 2026 proposed budget and levy. I will now open the hearing for public comment. If there's anyone who wishes to speak to this item, please step forward. Anyone wishing to speak to the item, please step forward.
And last call. Seeing no one, I will now close the truth and taxation hearing and open the floor for council to discuss. Council, uh do you have any uh further presentation? I do. Um mayor, I just wanted to make sure that you address the
audience if there was anyone that wanted to speak first. But um seeing none, I'll just move on. I just have a few short slides and then we will ask you to pass um some resolutions for the for the budget and levy. >> Very good. Thank you.
>> Okay. So, as you as you know um this evening was a truth and taxation hearing and are adopting the 2026 budget levy and the 5-year CIP. So, in September, the council approved
the preliminary levy of 9.87 87 million, which was a 9.96% increase from the 2025 levy. Staff were able to find additional reductions and are proposing a final levy that is lower than what was discussed in September.
The proposed final levy can be reduced to 9.789 $558, which is an 8.96% increase over the 25 levy. This decrease was achieved without impacting service
levels as a result of employee benefit elections being less than projected. Additionally, we have removed the fire pension payment um due to the plan being sufficiently funded um after we received our annual reports.
So with the proposed final levy, the city's tax rate would decrease from 30.4% to 30.01% 01%. The amount the medium valued homeowner pays for city property taxes will be an
increase of $61 for the year. In 2025, the median value home of 555,700 paid city taxes of 1,689. For 2026, the medium value home of
583,100 would pay 1,750. If your home value didn't increase in 26, the medium home value would have seen it would see a reduction in their taxes of approximately $21.
Looking at um the long-term projections, this chart um looks back five years and forecast 10 years. Long-term projections are based off of a projected increase in the median home value of 1%
year-over-year and the 2026 30.01% tax rate. as you can see in the 2026 line there um is lower than the 32.28% tax rate in 2021.
But we are expecting to see um a slight rise in the 27 to 29 um tax rates before it begins to drop back down again. But overall, the tax rate is expected to remain fairly steady um between the 30
and 32% as long as we don't see home values um spiking in um either direction um in the in the upcoming years. So, if council um doesn't have any additional questions, um staff is asking
for the approval of these four resolutions. Very good. Thank you. Um we are on to item 6.2 if you're following along at home. Council questions, comments. I want to start this off by saying uh kudos to the staff and their good hard
work and continuing to look for ways to reduce this budget. You were very successful in doing that. We appreciate that as taxpayers council questions, comments. All right, seeing none, this is not new news to us. We've been working on this
for six months already. So, we're happy to bring this to conclusion. So, with that, um, we have four resolutions we're going to need to pass. So, I will entertain the first one. >> Motion for a resolution approving a final tax levy for the city of Victoria
for collection in 2026 in the amount of 9,789,558. >> We have a motion. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. Any opposed? >> Motion carries. On to the second
resolution. >> I'll make a resolution adopting the final 2026 general fund in Victoria Recreation Center fund budgets. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. And a third
motion, please. like to make a resolution adopting the final 2026 water fund, sewer fund, and storm water fund budgets. >> We have a motion. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I.
>> Any opposed? Motion carries. And our final resolution. >> Our resolution adopting the 2026 through 2030 capital improvement plan. >> We have a motion. Can I get a second? >> Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. I.
>> Any opposed? Motion carries. Moving on to Thank you very much, Miss Pollock, for your good hard work on that budget this year. >> And then um I officially can wear my budget season survivor hat. >> Oh, that's awesome. Yay. >> You only have a six-month break.
>> We'll see you back here in June so we can do this all over again. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Very good. All right, moving on. Our next item, item 6.3, is a public hearing for our proposed 2026 B schedule. Presenting on
that item this evening is our assistant city manager, Alyssa Nelson. Miss Nelson, the floor is yours. >> Thank you, mayor. Hello, mayor and members of city council. Give me one moment while I pull this up. And here we are. So yes, today we are
considering the adoption of the 26B schedule. Um this is an annual process that requires an ordinance amendment. Um and therefore a public hearing which we'll be also hosting this evening. Um so this is not the first time you are seeing the fees schedule. Um this was
brought before you at the August budget workshop um where my colleague, the budget survivor, um provided a presentation on all the proposed fee changes for 2026. And then um after the August workshop based on council direction uh staff then compiled those
fees um and then put them together which is now being proposed for you all this evening. There is a small technical change um that staff is asking uh council to consider which is not in the packet. Uh we noticed this after the fact and it was related to the Victoria
Recreation Center membership fees. Um, if you notice on there, the youth membership is up to 18 and then our adult membership is 19 um and older. So, there's a gap for anyone that happens to be 18. So, we're just correcting that.
It's a small change. Um, but of course, every other fee in there um we did put in the agenda report to be transparent. We've redlined uh the uh fee schedule which was included in the packet. And then in the agenda report itself, we provided a description of each of the
fee changes and why. Now, um this is probably repeat information from the August workshop. However, just as a recap, we did want to share the criteria that staff uses for fee review and development. The first is market city comparisons, which is set by
um our identified market cities. The second is maximum set by external sources. So, fees set by legislation or things like the international building code. Uh cost recovery, those are charges for services and programs that are set to be self-supported when possible. And then utilities, which is
fees set by specific rate studies, our utilities, for example. And then with that, mayor, I will pass it back to you to open the public hearing. Um, and I can also answer any questions after the public hearing as well. >> Very good. Thank you, Miss Nelson. This is a public hearing for our proposed
2026b schedule. Um, I will now open the public hearing. If there's anyone who wishes to speak to this item, please step forward. Anyone wishing to speak to the 2026 fee schedule can please step forward.
And last call. Seeing no one, I will now close the public hearing and open the floor for council discussion. Council questions, comments. Seeing none, we will take two separate motions on this item
ordinance and the second to authorize summary publication. So, um, Council Member Refe, can I have a motion, please? >> Motion to adopt ordinance 470MC adopting a revised fee schedule. >> Thank you. We have a motion. Can I get a
second? >> I'd second that. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Council member Patterson, can I get the second motion? >> You may. Um, I'd like to make a motion approving resolution authorizing
ordinance publication by title and summary. >> We have a motion. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. Very good. We're moving on to the next item, which is 6.4. and we will be
considering the final plat for downtown west second edition and the certification of tax increment financing district 1-8 with a boundary adjustment. Presenting on that item this evening is community development director Jen Brewington and
city planner Brian McCann. Miss Brewington. Mr. McCann, who's going to be first? >> I'll jump in here. >> Mr. McCann, please. >> Thank you, mayor and council members. Uh tonight we are looking at a final plat for Downtown West second edition. You may recall during our discussion for
Downtown West third edition at the last meeting that this would be coming forward. This is a simple lot boundary adjustment to adjust the line between outlots A and B from downtown west first edition. Um this does not result in any new buildings or lots. Like I said, this
is just a simple lot line adjustment. So here is what it is currently aligned as on the left and then the image on the right here is the proposed realignment of that line between outlots A and B.
And then just as project is um related to TIF, the tax increment financing district boundaries were also adjusted due to updated title work. And then the revised boundaries are required in order to certify that TIF district. And this now just allows the city to move forward with that official certification for that district.
>> Very good. Um and that's all you guys have for us. Okay. Very good. Correct. Seeing um no more information from them. Council questions, comments. Seeing none on that item, we were looking for two motions on this item.
Council member Roberts, can I get the first motion, please? Motion to adopt the resolution approving the final plat for downtown west, second edition. >> We have a motion. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. I.
>> Any opposed? Motion carries. Uh, Council Member Ivansky, can I get the next motion, please? >> Sure, Mayor. I'll make a motion to adopt a resolution directing city staff to request certification of the original tax capacity for tax increment financing district number one8 consistent with
statutory requirements and updated parcel information following the repat of the project area. >> We have a motion. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. Moving on
to the next item, item 6.5, which is to consider preliminary plat shoreline var shoreland variance, zoning text amendment, conditional use permit, and site plan and building materials review for Victoria condos mixeduse
development. Back presenting on that this evening is our city planner, Brian McCann. Mr. McCann, back to you. >> Thank you, mayor and council members. Tonight we have a proposal from Monarch Development and Gier Homes for Victoria Condos mixeduse development. As you just
highlighted, they are coming forward with five requests here this evening shown on the screen. Uh as you know, uh this has gone through a couple different revisions over the past few years. First off being a sketch plat review for a 63 unit apartment
building proposal back in 2022. They've since come forward this year with the 10-unit condo proposal that's in front of you this evening with the plane commission conducting a preliminary plat review uh last Tuesday. As you're aware, the major subdivision
platting process is done in three parts. We are in the middle right now with the preliminary plat where we take a detailed review of the plans and major major entitlements are granted such as conditional use permits or variances such as the applicant is requesting
tonight. Looking at the location and area, the project area in total is about 63 acres in size. The main site being here at 7942 Quamlit with the existing private garage building and two out lots
that uh serve the city parking lot at 7928 Quamlit. This is located right in the heart of our downtown. So it's west of Quamlit Street and the Victoria Flats building. It's north of Tower Boulevard and the Burrow which is offscreen here.
It is east of Ry's Way and Winchester Ry and south of Stiger Lake Lane and Vixen, the old Vic House site. As I mentioned, they're proposing 10 condominium condominium units with those two groundf flooror commercial units and a ground floor showroom unit.
The existing conditions of the site consist of that private garage building with a single access onto Quamlit as well as the city parking lot with four different access points. Utilities are also available from Quamlit and Tower
Boulevard for this project. I mentioned the previous review that was done in 2022. There are some images on the left here with that previous concept which included a parking ramp for uh the development as well as available public
parking that didn't receive um good feedback from the city and the residents. So the applicant has revised their concept for consideration which is in front of you and the image on the left was their 2022 concept and then the
image on the right is what they are proposing this evening. Starting from the garage, they are proposing 21 parking stalls down below. 20 of those would serve the 10 condo users. And then the final 21st stall
would be dedicated for that showroom use. Moving up in the building, you can see the two commercial units here as well as the showroom unit and a lobby servicing the condominium users. Then levels two and three would consist of
eight of the 10 condominium units. Here you can see they are all two-bedroom units ranging in size from 1,300 ft² to 2200 square ft. And then the top floor would consist of those final two condominium units with an amenity space
and a rooftop deck. This is the preliminary plat that was submitted for consideration. They are proposing a single outlot, outlot A, which would consist of that existing city parking lot, then a single lot and block for the project site. And it's
worth noting that they have a proposed easement with this plat. Uh part of that easement would incorporate some of the proposed parking. So council will need to consider this evening if they're comfortable with a easement over parking
or if they would prefer all of the parking to be within the property boundaries of the outlot. Looking at our comprehensive plan, it's guided for downtown mixed use which guides between 24 and 75 units per acre.
They're coming in right in that target range of 31 and a4er units per acre. So we do not anticipate a comprehensive plan amendment being required for this project. It is also within our central business district zoning. The proposed uses meet
the allowance of that district including a mixeduse building uh with commercial uses such as showrooms which would require conditional use permits. We don't have any bulk standards in our central business district except for a maximum height of 50 ft. The applicant
is proposing 49, so they're within range for that as well. And if you're curious about how this building compares in reference to other downtown buildings, it is about the same height as the Victoria Flats building adjacent to it.
Looking at conditional uses, I mentioned mixed uses uh buildings and showroom uses in the central business district require conditional use permits. So do any commercial uh uses within shoreland. So, we looked at our general conditions
that we have in our zoning code for conditional use permits. They meet all of these requirements as see on the screen here and included in the staff report. There weren't any specific uses that are being considered to apply any specific conditional use permit
standards. Uh so, we do not have to worry about that section of our zoning code. But if they are proposing any additional residential amenities or different commercial uses that might require conditional use permits, you may see those come back in the future.
For the streets and pedestrian connections, they are proposing closing off one of those access points from Quamlit to allow some additional parking on street on Quamlit. They would still retain one access into the city parking lot and then they would retain both
access points from Ry's way. They would include angled parking in this proposal. So traffic would have to come in from the southern entrance, go through the site and exit through the north entrance. With that, they're also proposing it the
entrance to the underground garage from Ry's Way and sidewalks around the building and extending north uh through the project area. For parking, as you know, there are 43 existing parking stalls within the city
parking lot. The total project is proposing 82 parking stalls with 20 of those being underground stalls for the condo users. So that leaves 62 publicly available stalls. 17 of those are
dedicated for the retail uses and one for one on the street for the showroom as well as a single hatched space here for the showroom and the one in the garage that I showed earlier. So remaining public parking truly available
to the public results in 44 stalls, which is a net increase of one stall um compared to our current parking situation. Then for the zoning text amendment, they are proposing to amend our current
standards in our zoning code. Uh that's to allow for that angled parking I showed in the last slide. the our current standards for uh 45 or 75 degree stalls would not work to make this project happen. Uh the drive aisle width
requirement of 23 ft we'd be looking at in this instance in the last slide here they need 18 ft. Uh the table here which they are proposing actually aligns with what staff had been working on with the planning commission for the future
zoning code update. So, uh, staff are agreeable to this proposed, uh, parking table, and this would also include a new section for compact stalls as well, which would be utilized for these six
spaces just north of the building. Then looking at the Shoreland Overlay district, as I mentioned, it's entirely within the Shoreland Overlay because it's within 1,000 ft of Stiger Lake. that requires the 150 ft ordinary high
water line setback. That's met in this case and the maximum impervious of 80%. They are proposing a shoreland variance to exceed that standard to go up to 96%. During the planning commission meeting uh last week, the planning commission
supported a maximum of 90%. So staff are actually supportive of 96% in this case just because of all the other requirements that need to be met for infrastructure. They're widening a portion of Ry's way per our fire department's request. They're keeping an
access on Quamlit while providing additional on street parking on Quamoclit and Tower Boulevard. And our public works needs additional area to have uh functional snow maintenance operations out here. So staff are supportive of the 96%.
I do have a couple different options in the motions towards the end so that you can see a 90% versus a 96% for consideration. Then when we look at variances we have to consider the three practical difficulties. The first one being is the
request reasonable? Staff believe that or the applicant believes that redevelopment compliant with the central business district zoning and the comprehensive plan is reasonable. Uh the uniqueness factor the site is constrained to a limited area that is difficult to comply with that 80%
impervious with the required infrastructure uh necessary during staff's review to develop the site. And then lastly, the character of the locality. mixeduse buildings currently exist in our downtown with similar heights and uses.
And then for a residential shoreland planned unit development, that comes into play when we have any residential building within shoreland that is four units or more. We did build in an exemption a few years ago if the development is not providing riparian
access. If it's consistent with the density range and the comp plan and the other requirements of the shoreland district, they pass uh for an exemption. In this case, if that variance is approved for the impervious, they would meet all of these requirements for
exemption. Then looking at signage, lighting, and architecture, the signage and lighting appear compliant. We will evaluate those closer with building permits for the signage. And the renderings also appear to meet our elevated central business design standards, including building
variations, altered roof designs, enhanced entries, and high quality exterior materials. Then looking at landscaping, they're required every 35 ft and placed 20 ft from intersection for clearance. Foundation plantings are encouraged to
be incorporated where practical and the central business district is exempt from open space and minimum planting requirements since this is a urban downtown design standard. Um so tree preservation for the site they are
proposing over that 20% removal threshold. Uh there isn't enough space on the site leading into that variance again. Uh so staff are supportive of alternative trees instead of boulevard trees being placed in other locations
for our downtown or alternatively uh we do have a fee in our fee schedule that would allow them to contribute to a tree fund for those lost inches with this project. Then for parkland dedication they would need to provide about a fifth of an acre
or in parkland or $21,000. uh there aren't any parks or trails proposed with this. So we're expecting that full cash fee in lie of land dedication. Then regarding storm water management, they have to meet the MCWD rules
including wetland impact mitigate mitigation. There aren't any wetlands with this project um and they met with the wershed and BMPPS for the project um were recommended for projects less than an acre in size. The current storm water
for the building and the city parking lot is not currently captured, treated or rate controlled. So the DNR has requested with their review of the impervious that any additional storm water for the site is appropriately managed which the applicant is
proposing. So they're actually improving the storm water conditions of the site while exceeding the impervious. And then the site utilities, water will come from Quamoclit, sewer from Tower Boulevard. There were some minor comments in the staff memos from the
engineering team that will need to be addressed prior to final plat, but nothing too difficult. Then looking at the plan commission that was held last meeting or last week and the public hearing, we properly noticed that public hearing. We did not receive any comments
prior to the meeting. Uh we did have our former chair attend the meeting and provide a comment stating general support for this 10-unit concept compared to the 63 unit concept back from 2022. They did have some questions though regarding uh future parking if
that showroom space did convert into a different use in the future. Our planning commission discussed the public parking, the showroom use and that future parking as well as the impervious and the proposed variance and they recommended approval unanimously with a
maximum 90% impervious. As I mentioned, the applicant is proposing 96. Staff are supportive of that. Uh so in our suggested conditions of approval, I've included that this item will need to be addressed if the city council is uh
agreeable to 90% or 96% with the impervious variance if they choose to recommend or um approve the proposal. And then two conditions here listed in the bottom which aren't standard at this stage. We ask for a staging plan. We
know this area is sensitive. It's right in the heart of our downtown. So, we want to make sure when construction occurs for this project that it is being staged appropriately where everyone all of our public is still able to navigate downtown appropriately and that if any changes for that
showroom space or either of the other commercial spaces change in the future, they have to comply with our minimum parking requirements. So, with that, I have three motions for you this evening. staff can stand for any questions and we have some representatives of the application audience as well.
>> Very good. Thank you so much, Mr. McCann. Council, questions, comments. >> Just I'll start out with a comment. Um, and I think it's been said, great progress and pivot from 2022 to 2025.
Um, the the facility looks a lot better, the space fits Victoria a lot better. So, I'll call it a pivot. Great pivot from there from 2022. >> Good. Other comments? >> I have a couple. >> Member Ramitz, please.
>> Um, so I know we talked about at sketch plat about the entrance the entrances to uh the parking the city owned parking lot uh behind Vicks and the old Victoria House. Um, you know, I
know, um, the fire chief, you know, wants to have the one on Quam Quamlit, but, um, I know we kind of discussed a little bit about, you know, would it make sense to close that up to get additional parking spots?
I mean it how many like what is that space and like how many more spots could we get there if we cuz I mean again like if if the fire department needs to come down there they're going to park where they need to park. Um and I still think
you have good right if you come in on Ry's way you know there's good circulation there. I mean you see those types of lots all the time. I guess I just we know how parking is a hot button topic. So, if we can get a couple more spots there, I guess I'm just curious uh
what how many more spots we could get if we close that entrance up. >> Sure. Mayor and Council Member Roberts, we talked with the applicant and their design team on this. Uh our fire chief requested it not only for fire access, but also rel related to the location of
a fire hydrant uh to serve the area. So, there's an existing hydrant in this area with the sidewalk that they're proposing that if it went the full connection all the way down, they wouldn't be able to have a fire truck parked in the street.
They'd have to navigate around um vehicles parked on Quamoclit. So, it's a it's a challenge for our fire department without this access, not just related to the access of the parking lot, but also to the service of adjacent buildings. >> Okay, that makes sense. we didn't talk
about have that information. I think that's about the fire hydrant. Um and then um I know there was discussion and I'm sorry if you mentioned this in here and I just missed it. I think there was some discussion about some
additional parking going towards the burrow a little bit as part of this. Is that not an option? Like I know there's been some discussion kind of in that area. Um, mayor and council member, I'm I'm not sure um of any conversations about
any of this parking being for the burrow, >> mayor, members of the council. So, staff have been outside of this project, staff have just been exploring other opportunities to expand parking. And so, that might be something that you're
you're referencing, Council Member Roberts. So, um, at this time we don't have anything new to report to the council. Um, but it is something that we will continue to explore. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Uh, just a couple other questions. Um, so if so, I know there was some concern
you said uh by the um planning commission about the showroom and you know if it when it eventually or if it eventually converts to commercial space. Can you talk about if what are what our numbers look like? I guess just for uh the
uh public's reference. If we said right now that that um uh showroom space was a the a commercial space like the other two, what the what requirements that would be to park and what are the numbers would then look
like? >> Sure. >> Yeah. Mr. I can >> mayor and council member Roberts. So if that space were converted to retail for instance, let's say um with that size of a space and our current zoning code requirements, they would need to have
six parking spaces gener uh designated for that space. Uh as I mentioned, they have a net increase right now of one. So we could dedicate that to it. Basically, they would have to find five stalls uh somewhere else or contribute to parking
funds. It it all depends on how our zoning code works. I mean, this is a potential use that would convert in maybe 20, 30 years. Our code could be entirely different then. And it might also not be a retail use. Uh there's always potential that this could maybe
become another condo unit which would require less parking or it could be a different type of commercial use which doesn't generate as much traffic. So um we're trying to account for that in the resolution this evening by saying if
that changes in the future, we'll take a closer look at it and we'll discuss alternatives with the applicant. But on that topic, we don't require anybody else to project into the future what their parking needs might be. So we can only really
>> require we have in front of us >> what we have in front of us right now. So um you know to say that this might be something different in the future. >> We would have to address that at that point in time. >> Sure. Can I >> ask a question about the showroom right
now just since we're on it? Um, could that be converted into underground parking or I mean there are cars being parked in there right now. Correct. >> Correct. >> I don't know. Could you have five or six cars in there for parking?
Maybe. Anyway. >> Okay. >> Thank you. You guys are going to be a little bit of victim of my social schedule over the last couple weeks here, too. >> Light up Victoria. Um I would just say too like when we're
thinking about these roads in the future too. Um I've you know definitely heard from people um between tower and kit um you know no stop signs there. So I would anticipate more traffic being down here. So maybe the city like making sure we
have uh adequate stop signs down here. And then my final question uh just would be uh well first of all I guess right like I I liked the original project a lot um I think you guys know that um I think this
is even better um with the all the development we're doing down here I think it just fits more right instead of having 62 or whatever it was now down to 10. Um, I guess I just, you know, we've got,
uh, you know, the, uh, flats over here. We've got Row now. We've got, you know, the developments that we're working on the West End. I guess what is your guys's obviously you're not in the business to lose money so you want to make sure that these sell like how are
you guys looking at you know the you know do are you seeing a big you know want for these down here you know based off of like what all the other things we're doing down here too because obviously no no one wants these to sit empty.
>> Mr. Runk, welcome. These are these are going to be condos, owner occupied condos. Yeah. >> It's really a there's a lack of new condo supply uh in the entire metropolitan area. Um I'm doing a project mound that's uh up now the first
phase which is only 12 units. Um there's a four unit building going up in Weisetta. There is zero units going up in Excelsier. We see that there's demand for this product type right now, especially for empty nesters. And our partner on the project, Gandhi Homes, um has a lot of clients or customers who
are building homes or current residents looking for this type of solution to where it's maintenancefree and enough size though where it's not as small as these apartments, but larger than apartments in this case. >> So, it's our it's our read of the market and where the demand is. West Metro, Southwest Metro. >> Thank you.
>> Thanks. >> All right. I I just have a count >> in the in the the great memo that staff put for us. Here's the question. The six parking spaces that are going to be um put in along essentially
west of uh I think that we as council should remain the owner of that parcel so that we don't foreclose future options uh in instead of granting an easement
for parking spaces there. So, um I think we've done a lot with getting to yes on this project a lot to um bring things home and I think that we always work towards getting to yes. So
any building code complications that might come by in the future we'll we'll be able to get around them. And then that just I think to council member Patterson's comment about you know could that lower space be reused as garage space. I think you'd get better access
to the building that way. So um I'm I would be um I would be less comfortable with holding an easement and I'd want us to hold that property and let the building just go up to the lot line. >> Okay. Yeah. Mr. McCarthy, welcome.
>> Thank you. Uh, council mayor. Um, the uh the issue with that is um there there's a fire code issue uh with the design on that site. It would it would restrict us from having windows um if it's right up on the lot line. So um there could be
another situation where you give us an easement um so that we like perpetually that that would be parking um or we are giving you so we would technically own that space and then we give the city an easement to
park it. So, we just can't have something prop like possibly built right next to it that would eliminate the the ability to have windows on that. Um, the other thing too is like like you
mentioned, if there was a need to do a parking structure where we would go underground, you'd still have the ability to build that with an easement if we owned it. uh we would just you know work with you on that that whole situation with us having the land and
and an >> yeah I'm I'm still just um I'm still not convinced that giving up that parcel and um you know I I feel that the city will have longer term optionality with it as
opposed to giving an easement just for parking or the easement if if would be would be whatever the city's discretion would be. So, um I think we'd be fine with some kind of wording that says um as long as it doesn't obstruct our ability to
construct the building with the windows on that side of the building. That's all we're concerned with. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I mean, I I think we've got a good history of getting to yes on things like building codes and things like that and variances and things like that. I I just I see for instance that you know if
something were to develop say from there towards Stiger Lake that a space similar to what we have over by Ruby's Roost and over by the Noble Lion where that is a public space that could be used um people enjoy that and they like that
it's convenient to be able to have that sitting over there and not foreclosed upon I think is something that we should retain that option. another idea with a circumstance like that is having easement rights over a certain elevation in this case over the first floor because that's down at P1
where that parking is it's down low and we're really talking or Marty's talking about our windows for the condos which are levels two three and four on that side of the building. So you can always have an easement if you were you know to go this path that would be parking at one height and at a certain elevation it's It's for it's unbuildable because
of views. In that case, we need to have windows up up on levels two, three, four in that case. So there could be two different easements essentially at one height one side of the building if that makes sense. >> Yeah, I I I understand where you're
going. I I'm just still insistent that we would want to retain the ownership of the land. And just one more comment for what it's worth. Mr. Ganon's wanted me to remind everyone that he uh worked with the city
on this land right here, the flag parcel, uh to create more parking at one time. And so he appreciates um being recognized for that, that he has been willing to spend giving up this land or selling to the city for $1, I believe, or some nominal amount at one time for this. Just wanted to mention that.
>> Yeah, we we we understand that that history very well, Carl. Yes. >> Can I just inquire of whoever is appropriate to ask the question? So the issue with the the windows is that the plat will ultimately have to not show a
lot line immediately adjacent to the building. The lot will have to extend out further from the building to allow the windows. Is am I gathering that correctly? >> Um that that's my um recollection recollection from conversations with our
um architectural firm. Yep. So, >> yeah. >> Yeah. Mayor, mayor and council, I'm just to your point, council member, about getting to Yes. I suspect there's a way to cause the lot line to be where it needs to be to allow windows. Whether the city retains ownership and grants an
easement to you or you own it and grant this easement to the city. Either way, the parties working together can cause the lot line to be in a place where it would allow you to have the windows. >> I think there's a way that we can get to yes on this. Um because there's definitely like um uh work easements
where the property line could be right up against the the building but there's a work easement and that allows certain things like so yes I think there's definitely a way to get to yes this was the simplest answer for us to get you know to start with I think >> fair enough
I appreciate the simplicity um I'm still kind of in the you know the there's a number of things that we're adjusting standards working with um what will be we'll talk about impervious
surfaces um I think this is one of those things where this is the city's property we should retain it and then have discretion over it use >> I would agree with you Greg um again I forewarned you I'm little bit of a
victim of my social schedule and all of the events that have been going on in Victoria and my chance to work with the residents and talk with them about this. Um, I'm supportive of it. I'm very aware of our potential overexpansion and growing too much too fast with all of
our projects. Rather than sticking 60 um, apartments in here, we go to 10 condominiums owner occupied. I think that's a great solution. Um, Greg alluded to impervious surface. To me, it feels like in order to park this
situation and the retail aspects, we have to essentially get rid of all of the green space that's there right now. We have to go from 80% um impervious surface to 96% covered. We're throwing in compact car
spots. We're putting in zoning text amendments in order to kind of wedge this in for a net one gain. Um I feel like this is key real estate in downtown Victoria and um I'm always looking for a
way to possibly move us beyond that net one gain of parking spot. Um how do we do that? That's not planned. It's not on the list of things to discuss tonight, but I think it's something that we need to look at and to consider in order to make
sure that this is properly parked and parked for the future. Um, I guess that would be my main comments. >> Other comments, questions? >> Can we touch on the impervious side of it a little bit? Um,
I guess I understand why it's gone up to 96. Um, but I also heard, you know, um, some discussion about it'd be tough to get to 90, but there may be some ability to get in between 90 to 96, right, with
the rooftop and maybe there's some other things. So, can you touch on that? Can somebody touch on that? Hi, welcome. Please introduce yourself. >> Yes, good evening mayor and councel. I'm Mark Anderson, civil engineer with Samitech and we've been working with
Monarch development team on the site plans along with the impervious area. And so, um, as noted, the current site is about 82% impervious and to acquire additional parking stalls, the desired
sidewalk widths, um, sidewalk uh, to the north to access to the parking lot. Um, we've looked at a number of ways to introduce green space, including tree grates, a little bit of boulevard area on the west. Um, but at the end of the
day to get the street widening of Ry's way as well got us all the way up to 96% impervious. And so as noted, it requires a variance. Um, but the impact of that 96% impervious isn't dramatic from the
standpoint of what the downstream storm water storm sewer capacity is. um because the little bit of green area that's on the site today of course runs off in a heavy rainfall as well. So the difference between today and the
proposed project is literally 0.2 CFS from 82% to 96. So it's it's really nominal. It's like two or 3% of the pipe capacity. And if we shaved it down, it would just be a hair different. But what we do gain with the project is storm
water treatment. Both of the city parking lot as well as the project's roof water are are treated for sediment control um before they hit Stiger Lake. Um and and and so that is a benefit of
the project both for the parking lot and for the building itself in those two devices. Um so that's a little bit of background on imperous area. So, so we do I mean we go up to 96, but we also gain the treatment, the storm
water treatment. We get our streets and sidewalks the way we'd like them there. Um, right now they're a little squishy and we know that >> and so that gets us a better better infrastructure. I think >> I think the impervious surface limits
and numbers are put in place to help mitigate storm water issues and we're mitigating that through engineering and other tools. Um I'm using impervious surface and beating that number up so that we can hopefully try to find some different parking because we're allowing
this to go up. But let's come up with a another solution to park more cars. I mean, overall, I I personally looked at the engineering. I'm comfortable with the impervious surface climbing to the 96%. I mean, anything that we're going
to do downtown with a structure is going to put us in the same situation. Um, and I think that it, you know, that's one of the offsets to what I was just talking about and saying, still retaining ownership of that par of parking spaces.
I I I still will say I am not in love with the idea of having to excavate down and go into a parking ramp and do a right turn, but um I mean that's some of the give and take that we have to do to get this, you know, get to guess. But
nothing is, you know, 100% perfect, but this is pretty good. This checks a lot of boxes and like we talked about there's there's a huge need for owner occupied housing even though it may not be single family lots. Um, so I I think
we have um you know what we typically have seen the the PUB tool used for is to be able to balance off some things that really make a desirable
have to then you know take maybe a compromise on something else. This does not seem like it's something at least to me that's a a tremendous strain to get there. If we answered all the impervious questions, I would just like to suggest
with the conditions of approval that the the property line location be reviewed and approved at the final plat. um because I think we'll need input from the building official to decide ultimately where that property line is
because as noted the architect has indicated um we need space to the property line to get those windows and then they can even go to a fire rated window but it still requires three feet of separation from
the building wall to the property line. So, in order for it to be that close, we'll have to get input from the building official. So, um I would just reserve that that ultimate property line to be part of the final plat approval.
>> That seems fair to me. >> Okay. >> Thank you. All right. Any other comments? All right. Council, any further comments, questions? >> I guess I just have one other question. I mean, I think we've talked about this
a bunch, but whe with with the property line issue, the you know, talking about uh having windows on that side to uh second story and up. Um this is all set up though if we ever wanted to build that because we're on a
hill right there, the uh parking structure on the city-owned lot. That's still doable with this design. Correct. >> Perfect. Okay. >> Yeah. Getting head nods. >> Yeah. Good. All right. Last call. Final questions, comments
from council. All right. Seeing Oh, yeah. Mr. McCarthy, please. >> Just one quick question. Um, for staff is, uh, you had mentioned, Ryan, um, that it would be five extra stalls that would be needed. I I I think we had
conversations that it was just two extra stalls. If that showroom was converted into retail, >> yeah, mayor and council members, I'd like to clarify my comments on that. I said uh that showroom space, if converted, would need five stalls. I
wasn't taking into account here the three that are already accommodated for. So, for a retail space, they would need two additional stalls. >> Yes. >> Just to clarify. >> Yes. And then to council member Person's comments as well. Um so it's a net one
increase of parking stalls after the uses for the retail and the showroom are accommodated. So really they are providing uh 21 total stalls with the project just for additional um clarification. >> Thank you. because a lot of those things
may be, you know, only open during the day, right? And so at night they're being used for the restaurants and such in our So I mean that's, you know, because if these are most of our shops down here are only open during the day. And if that's what we're anticipating this to be, it's going to be a lot more
parking for our restaurants at night. >> Well, those previous discussions too, those retail spaces aren't built to be restaurants. they aren't vented properly and they don't have the so they aren't going to be places where people are going to come in park and sit there for an hour and a half and have
>> cocktails and dinner. Um they're going to be in and out. So um I think there is addition. I just think there's a lot of sacrifice that's being made for that addition as well. All right, any further comments?
All right, seeing no further discussion, we're looking for three motions on this item. >> Do we have Do we have to adjust this though? Like based off of Greg's comments and his >> Yeah, would they make that condition number 12
then? Any other conditions? Is that right? >> City council is that the city's >> So the motion is good parking spaces. >> Mayor and council members. Yes. Um, so we'll want to see in your motion uh condition number two here if you would
prefer 90% or 96% for the impervious if you're leaning towards a motion for approval. And then that condition 12 uh looks at the shared lot line in relation to the building for final plat approval.
>> Are we all in agreement on that? >> Um, mayor council. So my my in inquiry about sort of the lot line and the window issue that I appreciate the Samitech architect to help clarify and others. Um my only concern is um you as
part of your final plat approval require a title review. That's we give a plat opinion about who owns what and making sure that the parties that are actually platting own what they say they're platting or what they're going to plat. Um I if you proceed with the city retaining ownership uh but create a lot
that has the lot line removed from the building I think the net result will be that there will be a new platted lot in which the city will be a partial owner the city will own and developer will own and I don't know how that impacts their
financing. So, uh, I think direction on whether you want the city to regain ownership is important, but I think there are some implications for developer on that that we'll have to work through. So, I don't have an answer on how you want to proceed on that, but that that would be the issue is there
will be a single platted lot in which the city has a meets and bounds described portion of that platted lot and developer owns the remainder of that platted lot. So we'll be jointly owning a single platted lot which has implications.
>> Yeah. >> Mr. R please. >> I think our our preference would be for it to be our own legal description for the plan of course for financing. So if there is a way to come up with a concept where there's an easement or some other way where we're not jointly owning piece
of property I think that'd be preferred. So bringing it up. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And mayor and council member, to your point, I understand what you want is you want the city to retain the same level of control over that property that you would have today as owner of that parcel. And I think
there's ways to get to that. I just don't as I sit here right now right now know how to tell you exactly the way forward on that. So may maybe direction on that, the city retaining complete control over development rights of that parcel, whether it's ownership or an
easement that grants you effectively all of the rights of ownership. If that's if that's your point, I mean, I don't want to think for you. I don't know if that's your point, but if that's your point, maybe that direction could be given and then we'll have to work through I think with developer a little bit exactly how we do that. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. I mean, I think that that's the direction we want to go is that we we want to own own that parcel so that the city has control going forward of everything that could take place on what we exist, what we currently own. So,
>> and mayor and council, and I apologize to stop stop you there, but I I I think the obvious way forward would would be that the city retains ownership and then that's created as a separate outlot or it wouldn't be a developable lot because it's inadequate size. And if it were created as an outlot, I think that
creates a lot line which creates the problem with the windows. So, I that that that's the issue we're trying to work around is we need a single platted lot and we can't have a city-owned outlot between the parking lot, the existing parking lot and the development property. >> In my experience, the building official look for an easement that's a no build
easement essentially. Yeah. >> That that goes up to the heights level 2, three, four to allow us to put the windows in. So, yeah, if that could be worked out, yeah, we look at that. >> I think we're all saying we can get to Yes. It's just let's leave a little bit of flexibility there to figure out the best way forward on that. Okay,
>> we'll let Greg do the motion. >> I don't know all the words I said there. I wish I could give you the motion now, but I can't. So, >> all right, which which brings us to the motion. So, do we need to massage those
conditions at all? So, let's let's go back to our conditions if you please. So, um first of all, I'm looking for consensus from council that we are okay moving to that 96% implous. >> I am okay with it. I I'm I'm good with the 96.
>> I'm seeing four head nods and a maybe >> but I want it for different reasons. Okay. >> So forehead nods would be consensus or majority. So moving towards 96 and taking into effect into account all of
council member Patterson's concerns. All right. So we we're are moving to 96 and then that that um number 12 condition. Mayor and council, I will despite not knowing what I said, still take a swing at it. Uh maybe for 12, what you're
saying, council member, is uh u 12th condition being the city will retain comma whether by fee ownership or easement, comma, development rights over the property it currently owns within the development property.
>> I think that's a fair representation, counselor. >> Very good. >> Did you capture that? Somebody >> okay >> so staff is >> comma >> comma >> comma >> has >> is there two commas >> inserted all the commas
>> thank you needed right so >> all right we are going to entertain a motion council member >> all right so I'll make a motion to adopt the resolution approving a preliminary p plant shoreland variance conditional use permit site plant building material Victoria condos subject to the
conditions that we spoke of this evening mo notably the 96% impervious surface. And then the 12th condition that we will um by legal device have the city maintain development rights, control, ownership
or in some substantially similar fashion for future developments and meeting building codes for the Victoria condos. >> Phew. We got a motion. Can I get a second? >> I'll get a second. >> We got a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I.
>> Any opposed? Motion carries. Um, motion number two, Council Member Roberts, please. >> Motion to adopt ordinance 486 ZC amending zoning code section 20-3. >> We have a motion. Can I get a second? >> Second.
>> We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. Council member Rice, please. Motion to adopt the resolution approving summary of publication of 486 ZC. >> We have a motion. Can I get a second?
>> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. Any opposed? >> Motion carries. >> Thank you so much. We are moving on to our final item on the regular agenda which is 6.6 which is a close session to
discuss land sale terms for downtown west phase 2. Closed sessions are allowed pursuant in to Minnesota statutes 13D.05 subdivision 31, which states the city council may hold a closed session to protect the city's
negotiating position regarding the sale of real property pursuant to Minnesota statute 13D.05 subdivision 3. I'm making a motion to close the meeting to determine the asking price for real or personal property to be sold by the governmental entity. Can I get a second,
please? Second. >> We have a second. All in favor signify by saying I. I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. We are now going into close session. Once we're done, we'll return to reconvene the regular meeting of the city council. I'm making a motion to reconvene this
regular meeting of the city council. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. We'll now move on to reports andmer and emerging issues. Attorney Bose, anything from you this evening? >> Mayor, council, I don't have anything to
say. Thank you. >> Hardy, how about anything from staff? >> Uh, mayor, members of the council, I'm just going to put our city clerk on the spot. I think she has an update for you. >> Yes, Miss Edis. >> I do. Um, madame mayor and city councils, as part of our continuing
partnership with Debeller Studio, I present our newest art exhibit which includes acrylics, watercolors, and mixed media. The exhib exhibit is open to the public during noral business hours Monday through Friday 8 to 4:30 except on holidays.
>> Very good. Thank you so much. Members of the council, anything from the council this evening? All right. Seeing none, on behalf of the council and the city staff, I'd like to wish everybody a very happy holiday season. We are uh we will not be in
session again until after the first of the year. I believe January 12th is our next meeting. So, thank you so much. So, with that, uh there are no more items to come before the body this evening. So, I will take a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> I get a second. Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in
favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. We stand adjourned.