Victoria City Council — Transcript
Tuesday, July 7, 2026
Interim Use Permits for Outdoor Dining
Conditional Use Permits for Illuminated Signs
Zoning Text Amendments for Front Yard Fence Heights
Local Commercial and Residential Development Updates
Votes (6)
Interim use permit for outdoor dining at Vixs Bar and Grill
Dissent: None
Moved by Commissioner [Timestamp] · Seconded by Commissioner [Timestamp]
The staff presentation outlined the request for Vixs Bar and Grill to use four public parking spaces for seasonal outdoor dining, formalizing the 'eat street' concept from COVID-19. The Interim Use Permit (IUP) provides annual review and flexibility. Commissioners inquired about the cumulative impact of such permits on city parking and the process for setting permit fees. The applicant was not present, and there was no public input. The Commission ultimately found the request aligned with city goals for activating downtown.
Conditional use permit for Circle K illuminated signs
Dissent: None
Moved by Commissioner [Timestamp] · Seconded by Commissioner [Timestamp]
Associate Planner Travis Brierly presented Circle K's request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to install various illuminated signs at the former Holiday site. The signs include canopy, car wash, and principal structure signs, which are standard for gas stations and required a CUP due to the CBD district's regulations. The existing illuminated gas price sign has a legal non-conforming status and is not part of this CUP. Proposed conditions mirrored previous approvals, ensuring no light pollution or safety hazards. The applicant was not present, and there was no public input. Commissioners sought clarification on the number and type of new signs compared to the previous Holiday branding.
Conditional use permit for Victoria Orthodontics Illuminated Signs
Dissent: None
Moved by Commissioner [Timestamp] · Seconded by Commissioner [Timestamp]
Associate Planner Travis Brierly presented the request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a backlit halo design illuminated sign for Victoria Orthodontics, located in the Row building at 79 Rose Street, facing Highway 5. The design meets city code standards, and the proposed conditions are consistent with recent approvals for similar illuminated signs. The applicant was not present, and there was no public input. Commissioners deemed the request to be standard given previous precedents.
Zoning text amendment request. Front yard fence heights non-residential streets.
Dissent: None
Moved by Commissioner [Timestamp] · Seconded by Commissioner [Timestamp]
Associate Planner Travis Brierly introduced the first of three zoning text amendments, proposing to allow front yard fences up to six feet high (from the current four feet) under specific conditions: if adjacent to a public/private right-of-way other than a residential street, or to a residential street without driveways between intersections. This aims to provide privacy for properties at the edge of new developments or those with multiple front yards. The applicant, Jordan Portius, spoke about the need for privacy and safety. Commissioners debated the approach of adding exemptions versus redefining 'front yard,' with staff explaining that exemptions limit unintended consequences on other code sections (e.g., accessory structures, shoreland ordinances).
Zoning text amendment request front yard fence height county roads.
Dissent: None
Moved by Commissioner [Timestamp] · Seconded by Commissioner [Timestamp]
Associate Planner Travis Brierly presented a zoning text amendment to allow six-foot front yard fences adjacent to county roads with a speed limit of 40 mph or higher. This targeted amendment affects a limited number of properties, mainly residential. Applicant Nick Tibasar, whose property on Lyman Boulevard (formerly W 82nd Street) experienced a significant increase in traffic after recent paving and anticipation of Highway 5 closure, advocated for the change for safety, noise reduction, and privacy. Commissioners questioned the 40 mph speed limit threshold, with staff explaining it was chosen to target specific high-traffic areas while preserving traditional neighborhood rules. They also clarified that state highways (like Highway 5) and properties separated by outlots from county roads are not covered by this amendment.
Zoning text amendment request for yard fence heights driveway gates.
Dissent: None
Moved by Commissioner [Timestamp] · Seconded by Commissioner [Timestamp]
Associate Planner Travis Brierly presented the final zoning text amendment, proposing to allow fence gates crossing a driveway to be up to six feet high, plus four feet on both sides. This amendment differentiates gates from fences in height regulations, primarily to provide greater privacy, as taller vegetation is already permitted but gates are limited to four feet. The amendment would apply to all residential properties, although HOAs in newer developments might still restrict it. Commissioners inquired about light height regulations, visibility impacts, aesthetic matching requirements, and gate setbacks. Staff confirmed existing regulations cover gate operation safety (not blocking sidewalks) and setbacks (6.5 feet from sidewalks). The applicant was not present, and there was no public input.
Notable Quotes (18)
This is built on the success of the city's eat street program that we had during CO 19. Um the allowed restaurants and cafes to use public spaces for outdoor dining when the outdoor dining was restricted. The program is designed to support local businesses, activate downtown and create vibrant outdoor spaces um for our local restaurants and residents.
to have an interim use permit process which provides the flexibility for allowing the city to review each request and application and establish any conditions and conduct annual reviews.
Uh just in general, if we continue approving these IUPs, at what point do we does it trigger a definitive need to open up the parking garage question again? I mean, do do we have a sense of that as a planning commission?
The reason for the request is that we require condition use permit for any type of illuminated signs within our CBD district, which they're in there.
The one sign that is illuminated is where the gas prices are. That sign currently has a legal non-conforming status and because it's not changing any dimensions or characteristics of the sign, it is not part of the cup request and will have a separate status.
This is a for a backlit halo design sign, which is the same style that we saw for Blue Agave just a month ago.
The request is that the fence in a front yard be allowed to be six feet when it meets um two or one of two conditions. It's either adjacent to a public or private rightway other than a residential street...or it's adjacent to a residential street where there's no driveways between intersections.
we believe for the the generalization of our neighborhood, the layout, the other homes to be consistent with everything and also the safety and privacy of our family, we feel that that the sixoot fence would just be most appropriate in the situation given it wouldn't interfere with any of the lines of sight for traffic or kind of any of the other general um visual characteristics of the neighborhood.
is there a reason we're taking an approach of adding an exemption versus redefining what the front yard is?
By putting an exemption, we'd limit that number of properties... if we look at doing definitional changes... we could have unintended consequences with different parts of the zoning code, especially look at accessory structures... bluff ordinances also get mixed into that. We're going to be able to put a pool, different way you can set your driveway up. We we would have to look at all those different types of potential impacts... the juice isn't worth the squeeze in my opinion on that.
This is specific to allowing for sixoot fence law of long county road. um staff looked at it and had a discussion to how that would work and uh we looked at a 40 mph minimum speed limit to it for this type of exemption.
in the last year, our property went from getting maybe 50 to 100 cars to uh thousands of cars. So, it has led to uh a need for us to get a fence for safety, noise pollution, uh sanity retention
What what analysis was done to arrive at that [40 mile per hour speed limit]?
we try to keep the request specific to what the applicant is looking for in the end result, uh, while looking at mitigating any potential adverse effects that are caused by expanding the scope of that.
fences or fence gates and post when crossing a driveway shall be permitted to a maximum height of six feet when crossing the driveway plus 4 feet on both sides.
The purpose of this request is is mainly for privacy... what happens is you can put a 4ft fence currently but then you can put arbor vites or other type of vegetation as tall as you want but then when you get to the driveway you shrink back down to that 4T.
Is that setback applied to the operation of the gate if it was when it opens?
any design that would come to staff where the gate would swing open if it goes over sidewalk at that point is creating a hazard and at that point we would deny the application.
Ordinances & Resolutions (8)
Permit type for temporary property uses, providing flexibility for city review and annual renewal for uses like seasonal outdoor dining.
COVID-19 era program allowing restaurants to use public spaces for outdoor dining, serving as a basis for the formal IUP process.
General regulatory framework that IUPs and CUPs must comply with.
Required for illuminated signs within the CBD district, and reviewed for both Circle K and Victoria Orthodontics.
Specific section of city code proposed to be amended regarding fence heights in front yards.
Mechanism used to change city code regarding front yard fence heights for non-residential streets, county roads, and driveway gates.
Stage of development planning completed for the former DQ site redevelopment.
Agreements for potential tenants at the former DQ site, expected to be signed soon.