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 aliance 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. >> Um, the first item on our agenda this evening is announcements. And I think I have the list of announcements coming down the hall right now. Grab those. All right. Uh, several new announcements this evening. City offices will be closed on Monday, May 25th in observance of Memorial Day. The regularly scheduled council meeting will be held on the following Tuesday, May 26th at 6:30 p.m. Due to the holiday, all meetings of the city council, including workshops, are open to the public and held in council chambers unless otherwise noted. We encourage anyone wanting to attend our council meetings or workshops in person to contact our city clerk in advance. We invite everyone to visit downtown Victoria this Saturday for our annual Victoria in Bloom event. Activities and shop and restaurant specials from participating businesses can be found on the city's website. The city is hosting a community connection week, our variation of a senior expo which is next week May 18th through May 21st. This multi-day event is focused on supporting 55 plus adults and includes education sessions, social activities, and free lowimpact fitness classes. Learn more at victoriaamn.gov/connections. This is a free event. With that, there are no other announcements. The next item on our agenda this evening is a proclamation which I will read from the dis. Um, National Public Works Week, May 17th through 23rd, 2026. Whereas National Public Works Week is observed each year to recognize the vital role public works professionals play in building, maintaining, and protecting the infrastructure that supports our daily lives. And whereas in 2026, National Public Works Week is observed from May 17th through May 23rd under the theme rooted in service powered by community, which reflects the dedication, professionalism, and commitment of public works staff who serve our community with pride. And whereas public works professionals are responsible for essential services such as streets, sidewalks, water and wastewater systems, storm drainage, parks and public spaces, snow and ice control, and other services that contribute to public health, safety, and quality of life. And whereas these responsibilities are carried out in all conditions, often behind the scenes, and require expertise, collaboration, and a strong sense of public service. Whereas the work of public works employees helps keep our community safe, clean, resilient, and connected. And their efforts are rooted in service to residents and powered by partnership with the community they serve. Now therefore, be it resolved by Mayor and council members of the city of Victoria, Minnesota. I hereby proclaim May 17 through 23rd, 2026 as National Public Works Week and encourage all residents to take time to recognize, thank, and celebrate the public works professionals whose work strengthens our community every day. Next on our um order of business is to adopt the final agenda. Council, can I get a motion to adopt the final agenda? >> Move to adopt the final agenda, please. >> 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. Next item on our agenda is the open forum. This is the opportunity for anyone to address the council on an item that is not on the agenda and not an application form that will be coming to the council at a future date. No one has registered to speak this evening, but if there is anyone in the audience who would like to address the council on an item that is not on the agenda and not an application form that will be coming to the council at a future date, please step forward. Seeing no one, we'll move on to the next item on our agenda, which is our consent agenda. Items on the consent agenda are routine administrative, do not require deliberation, or are housekeeping items 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 agenda items for separate discussion and vote this evening? >> None from staff. Madame Mayor, >> is there a member of the council wishing to pull an item for separate discussion and vote? Seeing no one, is there anyone in the audience who would like to pull an item for separate discussion and vote from the consent agenda? With that, I will take a motion to adopt the consent agenda. >> Motion to adopt the consent agenda. >> 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. >> Uh. Any opposed? Motion carries. Moving on to our regular agenda. Uh, we have a full agenda tonight and the first item on the agenda this evening is item 6.1, which is our independent auditor's report for year ending 2025. And kicking us off on that item this evening is our assistant city manager and finance director, Trisha Pollock. Miss Pollock, welcome. >> Thank you. Good evening, mayor, members of the council. Tonight, I would like to introduce um Jackie Heagle. She is an our auditor with LB Carlson and she is here to present the audit report for year ended December 31st, 2025. >> Very good. Thank you, Miss Pollock. Miss Heagle, welcome. >> Thank you. Well, good evening and thank you for having me tonight. As Trish said, my name is Jackie Heagle. I am a partner with LB Carlson and here to present the audit results for the year ended December 31st, 2025. Um, just a little bit about the scope and timing of the audit to give you a little background. Um, our team does come out in January where we do what we consider our preliminary fieldwork. That's where we do a lot of our internal control review and our transaction testing. Um, a lot of the legal compliance testing takes part at that time. And then we are back for a week in mid-Marchch where we complete what we call the bulk of the fieldwork. The final fieldwork. Your uh team out here has all the uh reconciliations completed, the work papers completed, and that's when the bulk of the audit gets uh completed in order to be here tonight to present the audit results for 2025. Um and as you see, we'll go through a very positive audit results both from a compliance standpoint and also from a financial standpoint. Uh this first slide here just gives a little information about our role as auditors. Um as an auditor, my role is to issue an opinion on that basic financial statement, noting that it is fairly presented in accordance with accounting principles. Uh the city did receive less than a million in the federal expenditures. So there was no separate federal audit. That threshold did go from 750,000 to a million starting with the 2025 audit. that was a change in the federal standards. Um, so no separate single audit in 2025, but I do believe potentially you will be seeing that in 2026 as you move forward with some of the construction going on in some of the federal grants that the city has received. Um, so as part of the audit then we also test the internal controls. Um, we also test internal controls with compliance over that financial statement audit and also with that Minnesota legal compliance audit. So each year the office of the state auditor releases what's known as that legal compliance manual. And as auditors, we're required to test the specific statutes that are in that manual each year. Uh for the audit results over that basic financial statement, uh we issued an unmodified or a clean opinion on that basic financial statement. That is the opinion you're looking for um as part of an audit. uh for the internal controls and the compliance over that financial statement audit. There was no findings to report for the current year as well as no findings to report uh relating with all of our Minnesota legal compliance testing for 2025. So overall very good audit results with no findings to report relating with all the internal control opinions as well as that legal compliance opinion. Moving on then to some of the financial results of the audit. Uh the rest of the presentation summarizes the financial results over those governmental funds as well as with those enterprise funds. Um starting here with the governmental funds showing that change in that fund balance from 2024 to 2025. If you're looking at that table, that top portion of that table shows up by classification of fund balance where the bottom portion shows up by the major funds of the city with all the non- major funds combined together. Um so overall looking 24 to 25 you saw the governmental funds saw a change in fund balance an increase of about 14.7 million from the prior year. If you look at the top portion of that table you're seeing that's mainly in the restricted fund balance and that correlates with the bottom portion of that table in that new fire station fund. Um so in the current year the city did issue bond proceeds for the fire station. Um and there's a significant portion that is unspent at year end. So they're restricted for construction here in the 2026 year. This next couple slides here summarizes some of the general fund year-end fund balance. Um this shows for the past five years the city's fund balance by component of fund balance. Um overall at the year end 2025 the general fund year end fund balance was about 5.4 4 million saw an increase of about 500,000 from the prior year and that was compared to a $103,000 increase that was projected in the final budget. Um but if you're looking in that graph there you can see the various components of that fund balance. The non-spendable the green bar is made up of any prepaid items or advances to other funds. At your end the city does have some dollars committed for revenue stabilization. That's the red portion of the bar graph. Uh the blue portion is there's various uh items that are assigned for some future projects of the city and that leaves about 2.1 uh just under 2.2 million in that unassigned fund balance at year end December 31st. This next slide then summarizes within the general fund that fund balance as a percentage of expenditures. So the city does have a policy to maintain a minimum unassigned general fund balance of that 30% of the subsequent year's expenditures. So if you're looking at that bar graph there, that fund balance policies, the red line at 30% and then the green line shows where did the city end for each of the last five years. So at year end 2025, the unassigned fund balance of the general fund was at that 30% of the subsequent year's budgeted expenditures. Um, and as you can see in this graph here, the city has met the fund balance policy for each of the last five years that's shown in the graph. And that has allowed the city to be able to transfer out some funds uh for capital project needs in accordance with that fund balance policy. This next graph here then summarizes the general fund revenue comparing budget to actual. Um, overall those general fund revenues ended the year at about 9.8 million. Um, if you're looking budget to actual, they were about 420,000 over budget. Most of that budget variance. Looking at the bar graph there, you saw your license and permits coming in over budget, mainly just due to more than anticipated building activity. And then you also saw the intergovernmentmental revenues over budget about 150,000. Most of that relates to some of the fire aid you receive from the state that you have to just pass through. Um, but saw a budget variance there. Um overall current year to prior year the revenues are up about 460,000. Most of that is in the property tax area in line with what the city council approved with the levy. Um and then that was offset by you did see a decrease in charges for services and license and permits with that building activity when you compare 24 to 25. Similar graph here then just showing the general fund expenditures comparing it to budget. Um overall those general fund expenditures came in about 244,000 under budget. A few areas variance as you can see in the graph. Public safety was under budget just with savings and that police contract that the city has with the county. Public works was also under budget mainly in that streets and highways department. And then the culture and recreation was also under budget with savings in some of the vacant temporary positions and also in various maintenance contracts in 2025. Um overall looking at the expenditures comparing to prior year, they were pretty pretty consistent. Saw an increase of about 70,000 from the prior year, um you saw your general government expenditures going up with some increased engineering and legal costs. Um but that was offset by public safety expenditures being down in 2024 with uh the decrease in the contracted services with the county. Um, but at year end 2025, the city did transfer out about 265,000 more than was anticipated in the budget for capital project and equipment needs, which is in accordance with that fund balance policy. Moving on, then this next slide summarizes the results of those enterprise funds of the city. That's that water, the sewer, and the storm water management fund. Um, this shows the change in that net position from 24 to 25. Overall, you saw an increase of about 8.8 million from the prior year. If you look at the top portion of that table, you're going to see the significant increase in that net investment in capital assets. Most of that is just with continued investment in the utility infrastructure as well as the city did receive a significant amount of developer contributions in the current year with various developments ongoing. And then that unrestricted was up just under two million. And that is all just due to the positive operating results of each of these enterprise funds which I do have a graph we'll walk through showing the results of operations of each of these enterprise funds. Starting here with the water fund um shows a bar graph of the operating revenues and expenses and that operating income is the green line. The red line is if you exclude the depreciation on the capital assets in the fund. So overall, the operating revenues were up about 100,000. Most of that was just increased consumption in 2025 compared to 2024. You also saw those operating expenses increase about 275,000. Most of that was in professional services and materials and supplies costs. Um but overall, looking at that green bar line, you can see the city ended with operating income of about 234,000 in the water fund. when you exclude that depreciation of just over a million dollars in the water fund. Similar similar graph then of the sewer fund here um showing some positive operations overall. The operating revenue saw an increase about 230,000. Most of that was the fund did have a an approved rate increase in 2025 as well as there was an increase in consumption. And then you saw your expenses also increase about 300,000. Most of that is due to the increased cost with disposal charges. This fund though ended the year with operating loss of about 480,000. But when you back out that depreciation on the capital assets in that fund, you're seeing the income of about 212,000. Then the last enterprise fund is that storm water fund. Um once again you saw increase in net position in this fund similar to the other funds positive operations. Um overall the operating revenues were up about 75,000 most of that was due to the approved rate increase in 2025. Um the expenses you also saw an increase of about 150,000 mainly in professional services with some more storm water pond maintenance cost in the current year. the fund ended the year. That green line showing an operating loss of about 216,000. But once again, when you back off that depreciation on the assets in the fund, saw the operating income of about 160,000. Then the last slide I have here summarizes those governmentwide financial statements. Um, so if you're looking at your city report, you have all the individual funds of the city. Um there's a second financial presentation at the front of your statements that summarizes all those individual funds into what's called the governmentwide financial statements which is a full acrruel financial statement. It includes all the capital asset activity of the city, all the pension activity, any bonds and debt activity and gives a snapshot of those governmentwide financial statements. So overall looking at the governmentwide financial statements, you're seeing an increase in net position of about 17.6 million. Um it's split between those governmental activities and business type activities. That governmental activities, you're seeing the increase of about 8.7 million. Most of that's at net investment and capital assets. Once again, a significant amount of developer contributions in the current year with various developments going on. And then the unrestricted um going up with the current operations and also the timing of some capital related payables. And then the business type activities you're seeing go up about 8.8 million. and that was consistent with the discussion we just had as we walk through each of those various enterprise funds. So with that, I can open it up if there are any questions. Thank you very much, Miss Higo, and congratulations to our to Trish Pollock and her team for this clean audit. We always appreciate that. You take good care of our finances finances and we appreciate that. So council uh questions, comments, discussion, >> I don't have any mayor. Thank you. >> Covered it very well. Okay, with that I will now entertain a motion. >> Motion to accept the 2025 auditor's report as submitted. >> 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. Thank you very much, Miss Mo. We appreciate it. >> Next item on the agenda this evening, item 6.2, is a public hearing for our annual liquor license renewals, which run from July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2027. Presenting on that this evening is our city clerk, Claudia Edisfold. Miss Edisfold, the floor is yours. >> Thank you, Madame Mayor and Council members. Before you, we have the annual renewal of the liquor licenses. uh for the calendar year of July 26 to June 30th. Um as part of our municipal code, we are required to hold a public hearing. Um I just would like to state that the notice of this public hearing was um published in the Wonia paper on um April 30th. Uh the notice was also posted on the website and all the requirements all the applicants are required to meet the license uh requirements uh by statute and the final applications once approved for the background will be submitted to the state. Um that is the end of my presentation. If you have any questions for me, I would also um ask that before we um conclude this that you open the public hearing. Very good. Thank you, Miss Edisfold. This item was noticed for public hearing. So, I will now ask anyone who wishes to speak to this item to please step to the podium. Anyone wishing to speak to the annual liquor license renewal can now step to the podium. And last call. All right. Seeing none, I will now close the public hearing and open the floor to council discussion. Council, any comments, questions on this item. Seeing none, I will now entertain a motion. Motion to adopt resolution approving the renewal of liquor licenses from July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2027 in the city of Victoria, Minnesota. >> Thank you. 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. Next item on the agenda, item 6.3, which is to consider an appointment or appointments for planning commission alternate. Presenting on that item this evening is our city manager, Dana Hardy. Miss Hardy, please. >> Thank you, mayor, members of the council. So, just prior to our meeting this evening, you held a workshop where you interviewed three candidates for planning commission alternate. Uh we have before you um a couple of options. So, our city code allows us to have up to three alternates. Historically, we've had two alternates. Uh so if you wanted to change and go to what the code allows this evening, you would appoint two applicants. If you wanted to remain where we are today with having an alternate one and an alternate two position, you would only appoint one of those candidates. Um we had one candidate, Courtney Ray, withdraw, so she was not interviewed. I just want to say that uh for the record. And then we had one that did not show up today. So, um I will stand for any questions. Other than that, uh I would give the floor back to the council. >> Very good. Thank you, Miss Hardy. So, first of all, um we do have a decision to make. So, our statute does allow for up to three alternates. So, I would like to make a motion that we increase our planning commission to um accommodate three alternates with the consensus of the council. Is there any >> I would second that. >> Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. >> Very good. So, um we had uh three very very qualified candidates show up uh this evening and I am going to make the motion to appoint uh Dave Kleinfelder and Anna Siggo Siggoia. I'm sorry. I'm >> probably butchering that last name. Apologies to Anna on that. I'm going to make that uh that motion and open the um topic up for discussion. >> Can we then make Mike uh on deck then? >> We can certainly do that. >> Yeah, that's what I was going to ask. >> I would be on board with that as well. >> But otherwise, I'm I'm fine with the two that you >> Okay. >> All right. Any further discussion? So, I will amend my motion to put Dave Kleinfelter and Anna Siggoia on as alternates and put Mike Anderson on deck for any future openings. That is the 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. Thank you and congratulations to all those folks and thank you for your willingness to uh volunteer and provide service to this community. The next item is item 6.4, which is to consider a final plat for Enclave at Huntersbrook. Presenting on that item this evening is our city planner, Brian McCann. Mr. McCann, take it away. >> Thank you, mayor and council members. Tonight, you are considering a final plat for Enclave at Huntersbrook for 13 single family homes. Uh, you're all well aware of the subdivision or platting process. This is the final stop here in the development process where you review the final details. Uh you will see a development agreement coming before you in the next few weeks um at one of your future meetings if you choose to approve the final plat tonight for the location and existing conditions. Um if you aren't aware uh this was part of the West Creek Village development that may have been a little unclear in the packet. Um, Tradition Development was working with LAR uh with the West Creek Village development with the intent of uh obtaining the two outlots on the north side of their expansion at Creekide Lane for these 13 single family homes. Uh, so this is generally located west of the Huntersburg Creekide development. It's south of the Marsh Lake Hunt Club and is north of County Road 10 or Angler Boulevard. As you can see, there are some portions of wetlands on site and a portion of the West Chesa Creek also runs through the area and there are pockets of tree coverage. So, here are those 13 lots that were part of the West Creek Village development on the north side of Creekide Lane. Uh the rest of the area is proposed to be outlots for storm storm water and wetland preservation which align with the approvals for the West Creek Village development. So um six or seven of these homes actually are proposed to have access on a public culdeac here stemming from Creekide Lane and then there will be three private uh lots on a private for the zoning and comprehensive plan. This area was reszoned to R1 lowdensity residential um or actually planned unit development with underlying R1 lowdensity residential. That was done with the West Creek de village development when they received their preliminary plat approvals. And they also had the area guided for the single family homes changed to conservation residential with that development as well. And that amendment was approved by the metropolitan council. The reason for that change was to uh have the higher or higher area home lots be within conservation residential but also because they are within the shoreland overlay district and preserving some of the natural amenities out in this area. Um so with that all of these homes were required to have a minimum lot width of 125 feet if more than 50% of their area was within that 300 feet to the creek. And then they all have to comply with the maximum 25% impervious per lot as well. And the applicant has verified that all of these lots that are within the 300 ft to the Chesca Creek would comply with that requirement. For park dedication and pedestrian connections, they do have sidewalk connections from the culdesac that connect to the trail along Creekide Lane. They also have trails within the larger West Creek Village development on the south side of the site, you may recall, that extend over to the Marsh Hollow neighborhood. So, there are various uh walking amenities out in this area. And then the park also has a private park located here next to the town homes. Um, but it's likely assumed that anyone living in the single family homes will likely utilize the Marsh Hollow and Huntersburg parks when those are developed in the future. And then regarding park dedication, uh their requirement per our code is606 acres or about 63,700 in park dedication. With this, we anticipate the fees since no uh park amenities are proposed with this final plat. Then looking at parking and streets, each single family home is required to have two enclosed spaces per dwelling. Based on the renderings that were provided, we anticipate that to be met. Uh they also have a public culdesac which would allow parking on both sides. Granted they don't impact any driveway placements and then the uh private drives would not be allowed to have any parking on them and would be signed accordingly. Then regarding the landscaping there's a code requirement of a minimum of 50% open space. They are proposing 60%. They are also providing boulevard trees uh spacing type um sizes in ways that meet our requirements and then they're also providing the three plantings per single family dwelling as required. Then regarding tree preservation, we allow 20% removal without mitigation or replanting throughout the site. They are proposing to remove 64% of the existing tree coverage out there after the West Creek Village removals. Um so their mitigation requirement comes out to be 456 in. They are replacing 337 and a half of those but that leaves 118 and a half remaining. Uh the applicant is proposing to contribute cash fee to the city's tree fund in lie of full replacements for this development. Then for wetlands stormwater management utilities, they must meet the CCWMO rules including wetland impact mitigation. They are proposing to place wetlands and buffers within outlots that are deed to the city. And then the sewer and water would be extended from Creekide Lane and then down the private drives to serve those existing or those new homes. So with that, I do have some suggested conditions for the city council to consider this evening. We don't have any unique standards here. These are all of our boilerplate requirements, uh, such as providing a letter of credit, getting all necessary permits, uh, complying with the plat opinion, entering into a development agreement, things like that. So with that, I only have one sample motion for you this evening. Staff can stand for any questions, and the applicant is in the audience tonight as well. Thank you very much, Mr. McCann. Those private those private streets, those are those will be maintained by an HOA. >> Correct. >> Okay. Very good. Thank you, council. Other questions or comments? Gone through a lot of this with them. I don't think there's anything that jumps out at me. Anything else? >> I guess I just have a question about the parks, right? So, you said the likelihood is probably the parks that we've been discussing, the two parks that we've been um uh you know, designing and such. Um I mean I I know you know I know they can do the the we asked for the fees in L or park dedication fees. I'm just wondering if there's any type of partnership there that we can, you know, since these pe they might be going towards their lake where we could, you know, help us with th those two parks at all. You know, more than just what this amount is. I I don't know if that's even a possibility or feasable, but you know, we're looking at building two big parks in that area and if this area is going to use it. I know it's not a lot of homes, but um >> to share in that. >> We've talked Well, we've talked about trying to do more to take care of our parks and to build them. So, I just I was wondering if there's anything out there that we can do, I guess, to >> Yeah. >> have anything to say about that? >> I do. Yeah, I raised my eyebrows. You saw that, Mayor. >> Yes. >> Um yeah, mayor and council u uh park dedication requirements are something that cities have the power authority to do. legislature. Uh most many cities, most cities in the metro uh require that. Um that's been a pretty hotly contested thing as council member you might know. Uh and um and basically the law around that is that while cities have fairly broad authority to require the dedication of land or as you pointed out in lie of that as we've done here, payment of a fee in lie of dedicating land. Uh that's really kind of the scope of city authority over park uh obligations. Now, of course, you can always negotiate with a developer. If a developer believes that parks are an important amenity and other parks not on the development property are part of that important amenity, you can always get developers to agree to provide support for those offsite uh park amenities. But we really can't uh demand or require that as an exaction, and that's the term used in state law. So we we've got we've got our system for parkland or fees and loo and beyond that it would have to be by just agreement and and consent of the developer. Thank you. >> Very good. Any other questions, comments? >> I'll go down the state statute. So is there a limitation on what we can charge as a state law or is there not? >> Yeah, mayor and council. Uh it's a great question and it's been a a hotly contested topic. There is a court case out there arising out of the city of Burnsville um that uh sort of sets parameters around what's legal, what the courts have said is legal. Um there is a generally held view that the court's uh sustaining of Burnsville's amount is probably near the top end, but there no there is no statutory maximum on that. But there is a perceived maximum based on that court case. Thanks. Sorry, Greg. Or I kind of jumped in when you were getting >> That's great. I I'm just um actually moving on a different topic than the park dedication. It just uh we seem to be clearing a pretty fair number of trees here. We're not uh meeting the 60 we're not meeting the 50% development open space required. enlarging that the 60% um council how do you feel about uh instead of allowing a contribution of the tree fund to hold to our requirement of having all 456 caliber inches of trees replaced in this >> is that a space issue though like there's not enough space >> mayor and council members that could potentially become a space issue When we're talking about um 120 in approximately ofation of 2 and 1/2 in trees, that's in the ballpark of 50 to 60 trees that would have to be placed somewhere. Uh between 13 single family homes and an outlot that is likely going to be maintained by the city and deed to the city. um that may oversaturate the area and cause some complications with various things such as snow storage, maintenance, um route accessibility, things like that. That's just something to consider. >> Any other comments, thoughts? >> I guess I I mean I I raised my eyebrow, I guess, to the the amount of that you know 118.5 inches remaining that you know that they're going to pay but I think and then I kind of like there's not enough space for it and it's going to cause issues then yes we want as many trees as possible but it's going to also fit so good all right seeing no further discussion I will entertain a motion >> adopt the resolution Approving the final plat for Enclave at Huntersburg. >> 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. Our next item on the agenda this evening is item 6.5 is to consider a determination of an environmental assessment worksheet or environmental impact statement for Bell Maple Farm. Kicking off this item this evening and introducing our consultant is city engineer Cara Garin. Miss Garin, welcome. >> Good evening, mayor, members of the city council. Um, we have representatives from Stantech here tonight that I will be passing this over to, but um, you have a detailed memo from Stantech in your packet. um Stantech staff is going to give you a general overview and then I'm gonna share a little additional information about infrastructure planning since that question seems to has have come up in communications quite a bit around this topic. So >> very good with that I'm going to turn it over to Courtney. >> Okay, very good. Courtney, welcome. Please introduce yourself for the record. >> Yes. Uh Courtney Bot. I'm here with Stantech and I'm also here joined by my colleague Erin Sakura. Just to give you a little bit of quick background, um I've worked in the field of state, environmental, and federal for over 25 years. Erin also has about 14 years of experience as well. This is what we do on a daily basis. Um so we're happy to be here tonight to speak with you about our review of the petition. Um we were retained by the city to review the petition um prepared by Kings Road Neighbors and we prepared a response um to that as a support service to the city of Victoria. Um it was after our review of the petition and associated materials that we developed our opinion and our conclusions and based on the project information provided. Um neither the Bell Maple residential project or the sewer project independently or collectively according to our professional view and experience exceeds the state environmental review requirements. So triggering an environmental assessment worksheet or an environmental impact statement. Uh this memo uh specifically addresses right out of the gate as we're as we're introducing our thoughts and our opinions in this memo. Um that um while the petitioner identifies that there was a uh 60 home acre area 80 acre area plat that was used um for some of the city planning in and around um the subject that um while this was prepared um this is type of material that would be used by a city as part of planning and engineering um staff in their normal course of business to examine the potential for future utility needs of an area geographically adjacent to undeveloped areas. Um, this does not necessarily infer or guarantee those areas are going to be developed and the absence of the proposed project details about any of those areas beyond the sewer and the 8.33 acre Bell Maple um development demonstrates the absence of that phase development that was um mentioned or brought up in the petition as part of the phased action um statement. Our conclusions were further um supported by the fact that the comprehensive plan amendment um was limited to the 8.33 acre Bell Maple residential project. Um, we recognize that there are concerns that were identified in this petition and um, while there are not any EAW or EIS triggers um, in our professional opinion um, including the absence of a phased action, it's important to acknowledge that local and state permitting in Minnesota in of itself considers a number of environmental factors as part of and prior to issuance of permits. Um, so this would include city review that has yet to be completed. um if there's any county coordination for the trail piece um for um doing the uh uh construction of the sewer um beneath the trail uh owned by Carver County. There would be Minhaha Creek Watershed District involvement likely Minnesota Department of Natural Resources as well as the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. So there's many layers of re review and permitting that are likely to proceed and each one of those parties would be considering environmental factors as part of that process. Um I don't want to be um short on considering um another element of the petition which is could there be future development? Could the impacts be greater? Should it be looked at at this stage? And I think it's important to remember that in the state of Minnesota, just because a determin determination like this is made at this point, that doesn't end um future consideration or preclude future decision that an EAW or an EIS would be triggered. if other um elements of a proposer's project were to come about for instance if a same proposer were to come back and propose um a significant level of residential development for instance and I'm just hypothesizing here and that were to bring it closer to a state uh environmental threshold at that point in time then you as the RG or the regulatory governmental unit would be looking at that threshold again um the same would go if there was any infrastructure improvement ments that sort of rose to that level of approaching an environmental review. Um, and what we like to call the three-year look back rule usually looks at anything that has happened in the past to the point that you might be approaching one of these three three or thresholds. So if three years from now um again hypothetically there was going to be a significant number of homes um by the same proposer in the same general geographic area of course then those would be needed to those would need to be added to the 15 homes that are currently proposed and you would see if you have met an EAW or an EIS threshold. So with that that concludes at a very high level um the um elements of our uh conclusion on summary on the petition review. Do you have any questions? >> Very good. Thank you so much. Council questions. >> I'll start. I have a question here. So you had mentioned that if if at some point in the future it is within the three-year time frame >> that this developer comes back with an additional phase, does it just requer or is it any developer that would would come back >> who had come to the >> for like the the residential development example, you would be looking at it have to be the same developer coming back and your threshold is, you know, above 200 in this area would be for this type this size of city. So you'd have to have this same developer coming back and proposing, you know, 260 plus homes in the same geographic area. >> Okay? So the environmental review only is only applicable to the one developer >> for if you're just looking at the residential, but you would in looking at EAW or EIS thresholds down the road. So, in this three-year window, um, and again, I'm just using this as an example. If there was more development to occur and an infrastructure trigger were to be there because of the size of development, you'd also be looking at that. So, you would look at every factor in the EAW or EIS thresholds as this area were to grow out, if that is the case to see if there's any of those that would be triggered. So, it wouldn't just be residential. if you also had like infrastructure that um was increased out of size that it triggered one of the AWIS thresholds. So that would be of course in this situation you would be the city and the city would have to be looking at those sewer improvements as well. >> Understood. >> Mayor, can I weigh in? >> Yes, please. >> Yeah. And um I don't want to comp this is a complicated area. We've got a expert outside consultant to help us with this because it is such a complicated area. I think I would I would actually had I been asked that question I might have even punted a little bit uh on that question. I I think that uh whether some future phase of development that grow in effect grows out of this relatively speaking small development that's in front of you now whether it's part of the same development or not is something I'd want to look at when that new development came in. I mean, if it was literally what appeared to be the extension of the existing development, I think we take a step back. You I think you understand, council, that you have in front of you a petition that seeks to have you do an environmental review either because there are some state rules that mandate further review. There are some thresholds spelled out in state rules that say if these are thresholds are met, you must do a review. And then there's also a discretionary you can do it even though these thresholds aren't met. Um I think if that future fa that hypothetical future phase came in and I totally agree with with Stantech folks that this is not a proposed phase development. That's not what you have in front of you. A ghost flat is not a proposal for a future phase development. But if if a future phase came in, I think we just have to analyze it at that time. So I think it's very difficult for your I I've forgotten your name. I apologize. Yeah, I uh it's very hard for for our representative here to say for sure uh unless we knew all the facts. So that's that would be my pont had I've been asked that question. I think it's theoretically possible and of course you can always exercise discretion down the road if you wanted to engage in a further review viewing some further development as really being part of this current one that's in front of you. >> Very good. >> Does that make sense? >> It does make sense to me. Yes. Thank you very much for that. Any other questions from council? >> Um, I guess I just have one. So, we had we got an email regarding this, I think today or yesterday, about the MCWD is planning on doing a site visit apparently out there um about the wetlands. And I mean, is there anything that they would find that would change what your You might not know what I'm talking Yeah, I um Carrie did mention to me that um that site visit was going to h or was planned. Um I don't anticipate that would have any correlation. Um we as part of our review looked at what the resources are in the area. Um and obviously it would it was desktop and it wasn't to the extent of being like a wet a desktop wetland delineation, but we looked at what the water resources were in the area. Um because of the again based on the project information that I have the footprint from either the residential development or utilizing the easement um across the um or from the west of the development. I don't I'm not anticipating that that would have any there's nothing that would rise to the level of significance. We're only at 07 acres of wetland impact at this time. Um, and you need to be at one acre. Um, additionally in let's assume all of this was sensitive uh sensitive shoreland area, we would need 20 acres of impact to the forested areas. And again, you have an 8.33 acre site. Even if there was some clearing along that easement, I think it would be a huge stretch for us to get to any threshold that even like on the forest aspect of it, which is outside MCW80. But just again looking at what the footprints of this project are, I I don't anticipate there would be of anything of significance that would change how we looked at the AWS thresholds. >> Thank you. Can I just ask one clarifying question to that? You you said 07 >> is our >> on the residential site. >> Got it. Got it. Thank you. >> Great council. Any other questions, comments? We have our expert right in front of us. Now is the opportunity. Okay, seeing none, I will now entertain a motion. >> Motion to adopt the resolution denying the petition requesting an EAW or EIS for the Bell Maple Farm Residential Development. >> We have a motion. Can I get a second? >> I'll second that. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. Moving on to item 6.6 is a preliminary plat comprehensive plan amendment and easement right ofway vacations for Bell Maple Farm Residential Development which was tabled from April 13th. Um back again is our city planner Brian McCann. Mr. McCann, back to you, sir. >> Thank you, mayor and council members. Uh yes, tonight we are picking up where we left off from the Bell Maple Farm development consideration from your meeting on April 13th. So they're requesting the preliminary plat for 15 single family homes as well as a comprehensive plan amendment to regguide some of the area from lowdensity residential to conservation residential to allow a lower density than was typically allowed within our lowdensity residential district. and then also some easement and rightaway vacation proposals to facilitate that development. Um I'm not going to go through the whole presentation. Again, um all the packets had all the relevant information. So we're staying high level here on just a general overview of the project still and then we'll get into some of the specifics uh based on the April 13th discussion that still need answering. So um 7050 Kings Road is the development site. It consists of about eight acres and a small portion of right of way. Uh this small strip of land here. It's adjacent to the Chanhassen border. So everything to the east of this north south line I'm highlighting is within the city of Chanhassen's borders. There is one existing single family home as well as a private access for the p uh property owner to the west here to this site. Uh generally the land is flat um previous farmland, some areas of elevation as you can see on the image and some tree coverage on the edges of the site is also within close proximity to the Lake Minnetonka regional trail and within 1,000 ft in portions of uh Lake St. Joe and Lake Tamarak. So the edges of the site catch that shoreland district, but in the middle is mostly outside of the shoreland overlay. As I mentioned, they are proposing a 15 uh single family home development on a temporary turnaround which would be extended from the city of Chanhassen Street here, Mil Creek Lane. uh they would be extending Victoria utilities through the site through an easement with the Minnesota Landscape Arboritum uh to get to the site as well as Alec Wilson's property here just to the west. Uh a storm water basin was also proposed on the southeast corner of the site of the development with some screening uh proposed to help uh screen the lift station and storm water pond site from the neighborhood to the east. And then they did provide some additional right ofway to the south um for that project. So, uh, looking at I guess the last time you really had a full review was at the meeting on January 26th. So, the 120day period, we have already exceeded that. We knew that going into the April 13th meeting that we were coming up on the 120day deadline. The applicant did agree to an extension to facilitate the petition analysis that was just discussed. Um but at the January 26th meeting we noted four requirements that the city council would like to see before coming back to the das this evening. So the first one being sidewalk on both sides of the street for the proposed development uh preservation of a single tree number 1249 and uh providing parkland in some form within the development and also the feasibility of the utility corridor. So, I'll take care of the first two here. Uh, the applicant did provide a sidewalk on the south side of the street for this development and they also are preserving tree uh 12409 as requested by the city council and then I will pass it over to Cara to talk about the utility feasibility. >> Miss Garen, welcome. Mayor, members of the city council, I'm going to um go a little bit high level relative to infrastructure planning because of the questions that have been raised about um some of the decisions around uh the particularly sewer sizing of the area. Um so big picture um sewer and water infrastructure planning happens often and behind the scenes and not necessarily something that's routinely reviewed with the city council. Uh it first begins with the evaluation of um the city's comprehensive plan which occurs every 10 years. So on a 10-year basis, your engineering team is reviewing um sewer and water system expansions in order to serve development. that gets further refined as actual develop comes forward and then specifically on a parcel by parcel basis sewer and water are installed to serve adjacent development. Um and the reason for all of that is make sure that it doesn't become cost prohibitive to um provide city services to property as it develops. So we have to come up with an orderly logical way to put that infrastructure in the ground. But um speaking of sanitary sewer specifically, you have a let's say an 18inch diameter pipe, only so much waste can flow through that pipe. So the size of the pipe constrains how big of an area can be developed and served off that pipe. So we're having to make these decisions well in advance of when development happens. And I'm I'm just going to run through a couple of examples for discussion purposes. I don't expect you to follow exactly where I am on this map, but for reference, this is the Auburn neighborhood and the Lake Bridge neighborhood. We have a park right over here. Um, as development occurred throughout like between 2007 and 2014, a trunk sewer line was extended through this development. and we had to plan and size that infrastructure to serve essentially everything in our orderly annexation area. So we have to make decisions about sewer sizing well in advance of development to make sure that we have a large enough pipe to serve the area. Another similar broadcale uh look of that has been in our south growth area. The first piece of infrastructure that went in the ground that ultimately serves the south growth area went in 2003 as part of the watermark development. So we put a 30-inch pipe in the ground on 81st Street by Kirk Locken Park that ultimately serves this whole giant growth area. And finally, right now are looking at the West Creek Village development that you were just looking at that extends a trunk line to serve this whole area. Um, but then even on a more micro level. Um, so what you're looking at on the screen here is the Deer Run neighborhood. So this is Ridge Ponds Drive, which is that uh really long dead end that we've had a lot of conversations about over the years. Um, when this development went in in the 90s, um, with the last phase being about 1993, a sanitary sewer stub was extended in this location to serve all of this area and a roadway connection um, was built. It's actually, you know, there's pavement and curbon gutter out at the end of that neighborhood. There's a short little dead end that was put in the ground to serve, if you recall, potential development for this property was just in front of the city within the last 6 months. Um, so from 1993 until within the last 6 months, there had been no development activity. Um, but we had to make those decisions at the time of the Deer Run development to provide both road access and sewer service. There's also a water line here too um to serve that area in the future. And then another one that's probably a little bit more similar to this particular circumstance um the Hillpoint neighborhood has a lift station um that was constructed by the developer of Hillpoint and has a um gravity sewer stub coming up to the north. it was necessary for the city to size this lift station to serve essentially um all of this yellow area. So, at the time, the developer put together a sketch plat. The city planner at the time took a look at how he thought development could potentially occur within this yellow area so that we were sure to not make the lift station too small. If we made the lift station too small and then these land owners would exercise their right for development, the city would have had to come back and rebuild expensive infrastructure in order to serve that additional area. Now, the probability of development in this area is really dependent on um the decisions of these land owners. It's multiple large lots um with single family homes on it, one of which is quite large and quite new. Um so if and when development occurs in this area is anybody's guess, but as the city engineer, I needed to plan for the potential that we would need to extend sewer to this area. There's also a road stubbed through um to the property to the north. At the ghost plat time, the city took a look at how access would potentially loop back over to Bavaria um through some of that ghost plat type work that we do often with development. So, moving specifically then on to the subject parcel. So, um we are looking at this property in the middle and um they are looking at extending city sewer from interlockan in order to serve the area. And so this area is all guided for single family residential. Um so what that signals to us and Matt Council is that we are planning to extend city sewer to the area. Um, but as we look at how they should construct the specific infrastructure within this parcel, it's necessary for us to take into account what the potential for additional sewer connections might be in the area. So that what they put in the ground is sized to accommodate development and around it. Um, I think we'll probably talk about this a little bit more on a future slide, but the the area in question is pretty unique. Um, this development to the north, um, Fox Hollow has three individual homes on it. Um, there exists a development agreement that says that the lots can't be further subdivided and there's actually an agreement between Chad Hassan and Victoria also stating and the developer also stating that it wouldn't be further subdivided. Um, so the development potential to the north is somewhat limited, but at a minimum we could end up with a situation where septic systems are failing and the city would be asked to um provide sewer service to the existing home. So one, two, three, four, five, there might be a sixth up there. I don't know if that's an actual lot there. Um, and then same thing to the south. Now, it's entirely possible that these land owners could um come to the city requesting the ability to develop their land within their rights. And so, um there are no specific restrictions like I referenced with this development for these parcels. Um but so through the ghost plat exercise, the city was attempting to get an understanding of what development could look like in the area. So specifically then as it relates to the utility extension um the developer has been exploring two different options under the current um work that's been happening since the development was tabled. So the first and this is consistent with what you saw on January 26th. They're proposing a lift station that would be located generally in this area. Um so that lift station then would provide gravity sewer to the lots within the neighborhood. Um the lift station would be sized to accommodate um additional units should add additional sewer need to be extended from this area. And then a force man. So you have a gravity line running through the street. Then you'd also have a small diameter force main um that would also run through the street up to the north and then over to the um Swiss mountain neighborhood where that small diameter force main would tie into existing infrastructure. The second alternative that the um developer took a look at was providing a um low pressure sewer system. So doing so would eliminate this lift station proposed to be located on a city outlot. Instead, each individual lot would have their own pump. So they would have their own um system within their home that would collect the waste water, grind up the solids and then pump the solids into a small diameter force mane would come together in one force man and then it would be directed back over to interlockan. So, um, the city doesn't have a ton of these systems, but it has been a system that has been implemented in circumstances that it made sense. So, um, there's two lots across the street from the fire station, for example, that could not be served by gravity. Um, but the landowner wanted to be able to sell the lot for development, and the city allowed um, those two lots to be served by grinders. There's a couple in like the Huntersbrook neighborhood where for environmental reasons they could not get gravity to the area. So there's a couple of lots in that neighborhood um that have grinder systems. The only other bigger example is up in the Aster Trail neighborhood adjacent to Lake Virginia. That was actually a city-led project. um they previously didn't have sewer in the neighborhood and when we reconstructed the streets we worked with the property owners on both a gravity and a low pressure sewer option and the residents were being assessed 100% of the cost for those improvements and through a whole lot of work and dialogue the residents opted to have the low pressure sewer system installed instead of the um traditional lift station and gravity. So they aren't they aren't systems we're unfamiliar with in the city. Um but we don't use them super widespread. So um a couple of just comparisons I guess between the two options. Um the lift station option is just a little bit easier to um plan for system expansion in the future. Uh just by the nature of the type of system it is. it's easier for us to decide how big to make the wet well and make sure that we're oversizing it enough for the area um compared to the low pressure sewer system that has less capacity for system expansion in the future. Um but given some of those constraints that I noticed noted to the development property to the north um with the three lots and the uh development restriction, we aren't necessarily seeing a need for widespread expansion. So we do think either system could work in this area. Um a second area of difference would just be related to maintenance. So, the lift station option has more maintenance for the city's public works department over time. Um, the public works department needs to come and um inspect, keep an eye on um the lift station with some frequency. The lift station would be attached to the city SCADA system. So, the city would get alerts and notifications if anything was um problematic with the lift station, if power was out, things of that nature. But the city does still inspect those systems regularly. And then of course there's pumps associated with the lift station that the city would be responsible for maintaining and replacing over time. Um, comparatively with the low pressure sewer system, that would be less maintenance for public works, but it's shifting that maintenance on to the individual homeowners who would be purchasing lots within the neighborhood because they each house would have a pump that they would need to be responsible for maintaining and eventually replacing over time. Um and then the other distinction that I identified here is that the lift station is more expensive for the applicant compared to the low pressure sewer system just factually. Um so the other piece then that we've been taking a look at after the city council tabled the um application was to look at how the force man and water man would be extended from interlockin. So what you're seeing here on the top of the screen is a plan view look at the current submitt for how they would propose to extend both the forest man and then the water man through the easement that the city retained um from the land that is being transferred to the University of Minnesota and then through an easement that the applicant would be required to obtain from Alec Wilson's property. What you're seeing down here on the bottom is a profile view. So these darker lines here are the proposed pipes. Um this dashed line um here is the existing conditions of the ground. So there's a lot of topography that we're dealing with in that area. Um that was one of the things we talked about when we talked about it at the previous council meeting was um concerns by public works about the pipes getting too deep and becoming problematic works to maintain. So um the developers engineer went through a couple of different iterations for um how to install propose to install these pipes. Um they would be installed using a directional drilling method um that would allow them to um bore the lines underground um essentially the duration of the easements. Um they are showing what you're seeing here though is some proposed grading mostly affecting the Alec Wilson property. And what they're trying to do is fill in this um low area through here in order to minimize the up and down that would have to happen to the lift station and force main. So, um, they were only able to take this so far at this stage of the process and within the statutory time limits that we were working in. So, I just want to talk a little bit about what this process looks like going forward should the council um provide a conditional approval. All of these developments and this is our typical process. So an applicant gets preliminary plat approval from the city and then they carry on through the other jurisdictional permits that are standard for all development within Victoria. In this particular case, the developer will need a permit from the Minia Creek wershed district and it won't just be one permit. We refer to it as a Mini Creek Wershed District permit, but they have a whole host of regulations that they permit under and the applicant would be required to follow and comply with any and all applicable wershed permits. MCWD doesn't issue permits until after the city issues preliminary plat approval. Um, that there's a very distinct reason for that. the watershed district doesn't want to infringe on the city's land use authority. Um so they they don't want to be permitting things that the city hasn't approved from a land use perspective. So um after preliminary plat approval, an applicant prepares much more detailed engineering plans and goes through the permitting process with MCWD. In addition to that, they'll need a permit from the MPCA associated with the sanitary sewer extension. Metropolitan council has to sign off on that um MPCA permit application or the MPCA won't review it. So, that's when M council takes a look at it to make sure it's consistent with the city's comp plan. We've we've raised some concerns about them doing that, but that's what they do. Um, in addition, a project like this, because of the proposed crossing of the um Lake Minnotonka Regional Trail owned by Carver County, they would need permission and permits from Carver County in order to um complete that extension. So, um you know, there's been some concerns raised about the potential of, you know, is this a ravine that's getting filled? That's going to be things that Minak Creek wershed district will look very closely at as part of any permitting approval that um they would grant. So if the city council were to move forward um and Brian will get into this on future slides, you'll see conditions related to um specific things. If the conditions aren't met, then um the project can't move forward. So, let's say under an extreme scenario, the Mini Art Creek wershed after they took a look at this denied the permit. The project wouldn't be able to move forward at that point because it can't move forward um to construction without those subsequent permit approvals. Do you have any sewer questions maybe you want me to answer before I turn it over to Brian? Or do you want Brian >> all these pipes? Do you want Brian to finish his spiel before we take questions? >> Uh, Council Member Patterson, why don't you go ahead with your sewer questions at this point? >> How deep is this boring? >> So, generally um they're proposing to not have it um it can't they're not proposing it to be shallower than 7 and 1/2 ft at its deepest point 20 25 ft which is within city standard. Is that common to be at that depth or is that super deep and like these things never break so we never have to fix them? Is this going to be a complete mess to fix at some point in time? I if I don't it would depend on what the what the failure point was. Um we have similar type um force mains to this up north of Highway 7 um connecting those neighborhoods that are on the south side of the lake and north of Highway 7. Um they have smaller lift stations and force mains running between them. In the 25 years I've been here, we haven't had to excavate any of those. Um but >> keep your fingers crossed. >> Never know what happens. I depending on what the failure was, would you look at just replacing the line? It's in in its entirety. I mean, these systems are designed to last 70 80 years. Okay. >> So, I don't really want to speculate on what that would be without knowing what the what the issue is. >> So, you mentioned 30-inch pipe for the sewer down south. What is this interlock? And it looks to me like 12 in. Is that right? >> The sewer is 8 in. So, a standard lateral um sewer main in the city that isn't a trunk man is 8 inch. That's our standard size. And that's what these would be. Um, that's what they the if we go the lift station in gravity line, it would be an 8 inch lateral to a three or 4 inch force man. >> Okay. And if we go with the lift station or the the grinder method and force mane >> that those are all two or three. >> Three inch. >> Three inches. Okay. >> I don't know on the water man. We are showing nothing to me. >> Water man we are showing is a 12 in. So council member Patterson that's what you're seeing. The 12 in is the water man. Um it's likely we're going to talk about downsizing that to an 8 in. When the 12 in was put in in Swiss Mountain back in the 90s it was assumed that that 12-in would loop through to Highway 5. Um once the University of Minnesota purchased the Tamarak properties that really made the prospect of putting a loop through there cost prohibitive. So um we have the other op alternative would be to look at looping it to the north up on that far west. So it seems unnecessary. So that water might drop to 8 inch. >> But these are all pretty standard. >> Correct. We have um the sizes are typical, the depths. Um sewer varies. We have sewer that's 40 50 feet deep in parts of the city on our trunk system. We try to keep the lateral 8 in under 25 to 30. So they were working within those parameters when they um tried to come up with a route through here for this. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah, just a >> member. Just a couple questions on the uh lift station versus the low pressure system. I think I understand the pros and cons of both for the most part. Um I understand we're not first of a kind for the low pressure system in Victoria. We have a few. How about around surrounding areas? Where are we at with that? I know everything's different outside communities, but we also need to think about that. What What >> Sure. So, as usual, I limit all of my expertise to the city of Victoria relative to surrounding communities, but these are not uncommon systems. They're really common in lake areas um where you're dealing with topography that create a lot of challenges. It's a pretty typical installation. Um, our consultant planner works in a couple of other communities and he references that they're fairly common in the communities that he works in. >> Okay. >> From a magnitude of maintenance for homeowners, what what does that do you have any sense of, you know, is that $10,000 a year? Is it Do you have any sense of that? >> I'm going to take a look at the applicant or applicants engineer. I'd prefer them to speak to that. come on up to the microphone >> and introduce yourself, please. >> Madame Mayor and council members, I'm Pat Hiller, one of the partners with Norton Homes. Um, we spoke to the uh firm that sells these E1 grinder systems. E E W N E is the is the brand name, and there's there's thousands of these installations in the upper Midwest. And um the way they work is that the unit brand new costs about $8,000. Um he they last for 25 years. He said about halfway through the lifespan, there are these brushes inside that can wear out. Um, and he said it's like $150 part in an hour to change them out. So, over that 25 year lifespan, um, there's little to no maintenance on them. We've installed several of these in homes that we've built along the way and we've never got a phone call on on them. So, they appear to work pretty pretty flawlessly. They've got alarm systems and um the Yeah. So very little maintenance to the homeowner after the initial installation >> treated like a hot water heater furnace air. >> You got to maintain your furnace and your hot water heater. It's it's not these are not large expenses to maintain these things. That's what I wanted to mention. >> Very good. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> And I'll just add that um our team engineering and public works did follow up and had the same conversation and heard the same information from the supplier that was just relayed to you. So >> great. So um so from from the Victoria public works standpoint the maintenance is actually basically in the forest main and the which is not different than any other neighborhood. Correct. So in the low pressure sewer system um they would want to clean the forest main. So they would want to um blow water through it um with some frequency. Now, we haven't had to do that with any frequency up on the Aster Trail um installation. That's not something that has become a challenge for them that they've noted. Thank you. I I'm sorry, Council Member Rif. I I got >> No, no, that was good. That was my question. Um, you know, I think and I think uh the uh builder answered it, but my question was, you know, what if somebody moves in in three, five years right away, what kind of maintenance are they going to have on top of it, but I think you answer my question with on average 25 years, 20 25 years, whatever that I think you said 25. So that answers my other question I had. So I'm good on that. >> Okay. Council member Roberts, something on your mind. couple. Um, so I mean, so safe to say, right? So because we know the topography is an issue in this area, so like the only reason public works would probably with the grinder would be if there's a leak or there's pipe light pipe issue or to as you said to force water through to do a and is that easy to get to? Like I guess I just am concerned for whether it's safety or just like like cost of how how do we get back there with this topography? I guess how um does that look I guess? >> Sure. Council member Roberts, as the project would move through the development process, um they'll start refining things a little bit further. Um but typically we're looking to have um access points or cleanouts in a way that are accessible. So, the plan we're seeing right now, it was looking like public works would be able to access the facilities that they need to access for routine maintenance. I would note the um water man does need to be flushed like we do all of our water manes. So, um taking a look at where hydrants would be located that they would be able to flush out of is part of our standard review as we move into a final plat submitt. >> Um and then I'm correct, right? If we went with the grinder option, any future development in the future, they would all then have to be on grinders then as well because we're not choosing to do the lift station option. >> That is correct. So any additional development in this area would have to have the same low pressure sewer system serving it. Do we want to continue on the topic of the the the sewer or do we want to have Brian finish his presentation because um I mean I have a question about Fox Hall Drive and those properties. Do we I think that's somewhat relevant to the sizing of the of the sewer. Do you why don't we um why don't we go ahead and and let Brian finish up his presentation and then we will circle back. >> Thanks. >> Sure. Thank you, mayor and council members. Um so that was item three of four on the list for consideration. Uh the last piece is regarding parkland. So, um, previously at the January 26 meeting when this was reviewed by the city council, this area noted now, uh, with a red outline labeled outlot B was previously right of way, uh, for the potential of the properties to the south to develop so that they would have a way to have a public street uh, connect to Bell Maple Road and then uh, to the remaining areas eastward. So, uh, when we're looking at parkland here, we're having three options being considered. The first option is changing that rightway designation to an outwot and have that being a temporary park and then that park would go away and become a road in the event that the properties to the south ever wanted to develop. Um, so that is option one. Option two is if the city council chooses the low pressure grinder system that was just discussed, um maybe there is a small outlot that could be carved out here for a small permanent amenity for the neighborhood. Um maybe like a a patio or a bench or something uh to be considered. It's not a large area, so you'd have to be thoughtful in what goes out uh out in this area, but that is a more permanent solution. And then option three, as we start looking towards our 2050 comprehensive plan, uh this is a snippet from our 2040 uh comprehensive plan and our future park search area. You'll note we don't have any existing parks up in this area and we don't have any designation in our plan for a future park in this area. So maybe as we look towards 2050, that's something we could incorporate. Um, and you could do any blend of any of these three options pending your decision on the uh sewer system being discussed tonight. But these are three options that staff came up with uh in coordination with the applicant on how this parkland issue could be resolved for this area. And then uh my last few slides here, these were the suggested conditions of approval that were included with your packet this evening. Um, so you'll see a lot of these are are typical uh requirements, but we also have a few additional ones. So if you choose to approve the development tonight, they still need to get approval from the Metropolitan Council on their comprehensive plan. They still have to comply with any of staff review memos, including any potential grading or tree removal that is done within that utility corridor um within those drainage and utility easements. They also have to comply with the MCWD's rules and regulations as Cara mentioned earlier. Um, also entering into a development agreement, providing letter of credit, obtaining all other necessary permits including city permits, county, PCA, other regulatory agencies such as uh the DNR. Um, also submitting title work and complying with the city attorney's plat opinion and submitting that plat within two years of the city's approval of the preliminary plat. And then also a demolition permit would be required to remove the existing structure on the site. And then here are a few more in-depth uh conditions that would be required. So providing verification of that feasibility and constructibility of the public utilities which we've been talking about this evening. We have two options in front of us that could potentially work. Um then next providing fully executed easement agreements with that adjacent property owner uh Alec Wilson to the west who that uh easement corridor runs through to serve those utilities. We would need verification from him that he's agreed to the utility extension and the easement on his property. And then all grading and construction activities within Carver County's area owned um and the University of Minnesota landscape arboritums area uh regarding that Lake Tamarak properties that was mentioned earlier as well as the Lake Matonka regional trail. Um so that's item 14 here for the verification of that utility corridor and then providing all executed documents, easements, uh access provisions and then also clearly defining the long-term maintenance responsibilities that come with uh this area. So with that, I do have some sample motions for you this evening. The first one being the um subp parts here where you need to decide between the lift station or the low pressure sewer system option. And then the second subpoint here on the parkland if you want to decide between a temporary parkland within an outlot the no lift station small corner parkland or the designation the 2050 plan or some combination of those. uh with that staff can stand for questions and we have representatives of that application in the audience. >> Thank you, Mr. McCann. Council member, why don't you kick us off with your questions? >> So, Brian Cara, I I think you mentioned that the land to the north of this property cannot be further subdivided. Correct, >> mayor and council members. That's correct. There's a recorded agreement uh with the county and the city of Chanhassen limiting uh development of the Fox Hollow Drive neighborhood to three single family homes. >> Well, if the property owners of those parcels decided they could recombine those and sell into one purchaser. Correct. >> Um mayor and council member. Yes. I believe so if I'm understanding the question if all three property owners were to combine into a single property and sell >> yeah do I mean does anybody have a view if correct like these are limited to being divided further but the other possibility in terms of future development in that space could be that if somebody were willing to pay the property owners you know their air quote their price uh they could recombine those parcels and and then then create a new developable developable parcel that could support future development. Mayor and council member, I see two potential conflicts with that. The first one being that um we don't allow more than one single family home on a parcel. So combining them um into a single parcel with three homes would not be a possibility per our zoning code. And then secondly, that agreement is still with the city of Chanhassen and the city of Victoria. So the city of Chanhassen would also have to agree to absolving that agreement. >> Okay. But I mean if if you know for instance we we guide this area in the 2050 comp plan and on the basis of that these owners decide you know hey there's a lucrative offer to develop these this land into more homes than the current three that are there. There is that potential that could happen. >> Correct. >> So which kind of naturally leads to my my next question about the I if we were to if that were to take place and it's a long shot but certainly if there there's only one way to now at this point bring utilities to this section of the city and that is through the easement that we've taken on parcels that we've previously owned and never really had the intention to turn those into develop a We kept that easement and uh put it in place for serving the existing areas that are there and then any potential uh development that might play take place pursuant to our our comprehensive plan and how it's guided. So I mean I think that then that leads into the discussion about um this is our one chance to have a properly sized utility system coming into these areas. And um you my view on the the the option that would be the the most prudent view for the future would be the lift station option. so that we have capacity for what we intended when we kept that easement. And that that easement was to support the existing properties there so that they could at some point connect or if development then serves that area that we have a way to get back to the a properly sized system for future development. Setting aside what what's being proposed to us today. Uh the lift station also um would be a more stable platform for 15 homes as is the uh one power outage taking all 15 grinder pumps out at once is going to be problematic. These are not going to be uh inexpensive problems for somebody to have if they have a sewer backup. Whereas a lift station you know portable power could be brought there relatively quickly by public works or a generator could be put on lift stations like we've had. So I I think with the amount of uh you know the the expense of you know million plus homes to have $15 million worth of plus of property at risk in a power outage because they they can't get a a sizable uh waste treatment out of there is something that we should consider. and the water usage of these size homes is going to be a lot greater than some of the installations that we've seen in some of the smaller installations throughout the city. Um, so I where where I'm at is that I it's the low pressure system that will basically be sized for little beyond what's here is not the best use of uh our granting the utility easement to be used to bring just the bare minimum for 15 homes over. I think it's incumbent upon us to think about some of the other uh places that this area could be served. This is this is the place to get this done at this time. >> Is that Fox Hollow neighborhood in Victoria or Chanhasset? >> Mayor and council members is within Victoria. >> It is. >> Anything else? Council member Ivansky, any other thoughts on >> uh No, I mean I think that's some of the other things that we raised like I think we can get to where we we were on parks and things like that, but um with with respect if we're going to talk about and continue to talk about the uh way we're going to handle the sewer treatment, to me it's very evidently one option. Why don't we go back to that list of decisions we need to make here and we will just take those one by one. So um questions other thoughts on a lift station or a low pressure system? I guess I I am in favor of going with that low pressure system. I think um I think it's a it's a it's a reasonable coste effective uh way to get sewer service to those homes. And I do understand council member Ivansky's point about thinking kind of into the future but I also know that those that topography gives us a little bit of challenge as well. So other thoughts on um lift station versus low pressure system here? Oh, yeah. M. >> Yeah, Mr. Hillyard, please. Yeah, Mr. Hillard, please. >> I wanted to clarify something that perhaps we didn't do a good job of clarifying. Um, with these E1 grinder systems, the the 3-in force mane that's going all the way over to the interlock and culde-sac is sized for up to 60 homes. There's going to be stubs provided north and south. And the uh manufacturer says you could easily um put up to 60 of these grinder pumps on that system for the future expansion. Um so it is no way undersized for this area. For what could be done or would likely be done, this system would easily provide the capability. Um and then regarding the power outage, um the plan we had been going with um is to put backup generators on each of these homes to account for that. The backup generator would keep things going. I'd say in a quarter to a third of the homes we're building now anyway, our customers are asking for backup generators just because they don't want their meat in the freezer going bad and all the various reasons. So, we could counter that. Um, we could deal with that concern um with a backup generator and we're happy to acquire those. If you want to require those on the homes, we could deal with it that way. But, I think the system would be plenty capable. So, >> just wanted to clarify. Thank you. >> All right. Other other thoughts? >> The reason I like the low pressure system is it gets rid of the lift station that um some of the residents in the area were opposed to. That's kind of my thoughts on it. >> Yeah, I guess I I probably would agree with that. Um leaning towards the low pressure system. It may be, you know, I know it, you know, there may even be less likelihood of future development with the low. You know, it sounds like yes, we could do 60 homes it sounds like, but you know, maybe whether it's them or another developer may say we don't want >> I I would agree. I like up to 60 homes and I also think we should require a backup generator >> as well uh for the power outage situation. I think that would be >> I don't know if I would require it but >> recommend >> recommend I'm sorry >> I would recommend you can require um question on the comprehensive plan amendment. So we are looking at making a comprehensive plan amendment to conservation residential with my words here residential cons conservation based on that comprehensive plan what is the possibility what's what's the order of magnitude of number of houses that could be out in that area with under that comprehensive >> sure >> under that >> uh mayor and council members so the amendment is only specific to these areas within the shoreland overlay district here. Um, basically what that area does is per our zoning ordinance, our shoreland overlay district language says that homes with more than 50% of their area, their lot area within this blue district. Um, they need to have a minimum lot area of 20,000 square feet. So that's what the developer has achieved with their proposed preliminary plat. They have a 20,000 square foot lot here. Um, as well as within these areas here. Um, in regards to the comprehensive plan amendment, our comp plan says for the low density residential district, you need to have two and a quarter units per acre minimum. Now, with a 20,000 square foot lot size, you're only going to get two units per acre at that designation. So what's being allowed or what would be allowed if the comprehensive plan amendment was approved was that the density in these blue areas would be lowered um to 0.5 to 2 and a/4 units per acre, but I think it comes out to about 1.6 still within those areas. So >> thank you. >> It's a pretty minor amendment. >> Very good. Thank you for that. Okay, let's go back to our our sheet. Do we need to take all of these items separately or what what's what's our plan here? >> Do we need to? >> Mayor and council, I would think you'd invite a motion that addressed all of these in a single motion. Um, that seems like the most expedient way, but that's your call, mayor, ultimately. >> So, um, do we need to do we just do we just need consensus on lift station versus low pressure, or do we need that to be a motion? Anybody? >> Uh um if I understand uh city planner uh hand, your resolution contemplates that these decisions will be incorporated into the resolution. >> Correct. Uh, and so I guess I'm contemplating that somebody would make a motion to approve the resolution with lift station low pressure system with temporary parkland or not. So a single motion that incorporates the decision points here that all go into the resolution. >> Got it. Thank you. >> Let's have a let's have a conversation about parkland. >> Can you go back um I think to your uh actually go forward one more and one more. Thank you. I thought there was something that I saw that I wanted to ask a question. Oh, yeah. What um I don't know if we see it very often, but drilling under uh the regional trail, like how likely is it could I mean obviously Carver County could say no, but I mean I guess generally speaking, have we seen that type of request before? Do they generally say yes, that's fine, like go ahead and do that? Council Member Roberts, Mayor, members of the council, um Carver County just took ownership of the regional trail within the last year. So if it was um the previous trail owner, they have permitted um utility crossings in the past. So um the conversations we had with Carver County, it's sequential. is the city approving the preliminary plat and then we'll look at what the proposed impacts are and figure out how to mitigate those impacts to the extent they need to be mitigated. But, you know, it's harder for me to answer since >> new owners, >> but we do have sewer and water running down the ement across the easement throughout the corridor within the city. So, all right, let's have a conversation about parkland. Um I my opinion on the parkland is I don't know that it is required. I I don't know that I would put any park amenities. I'm not opposed to any open land that we call a park. Um but I don't know that we need amenities here. I know there are a couple of parks. I mean it borders the arboratum. It borders Carver Park. it borders and there's a there's another park nearby, albeit a Chanhassen Park, but um I the the park thing is not as critical to me. I I'm not seeing a I'm not seeing a real reason to put park amenities out here, but I am >> entertaining. I mean, I would want it, but it's so small of an area that I'm not really sure it the juice worth. >> I'd like the open space just have Maybe we just have grass or something of that nature where you can go out there and kick your soccer ball around or play catch or whatever, but we don't need anything too elaborate. I would agree. Is there a legal reason why we can't All right, let's just say down the road, we've all seen the ghost plat and all that. I know we're not discussing it, but if we make out lot B into parkland, is that does that take it away from ever becoming a street or is that something that we can redo down the road? >> Mayor and Council Member Person, yes. If you're saying you are taking out lot B as permanent parkland, that's something that can't ever be changed. In this scenario here, we're talking about outlot B um having some sort of agreement on it, acknowledging that it's a temporary park and if development occurs to the south that outlot B would then be converted back to right ofway. >> I I I think that's complicated. I'd rather keep that as an outlot with right of way. I don't >> I would agree. >> Right. Any other thoughts on >> No, my my thought is that we are going to have this subdivision connected to our neighbors. Kings Road is going to at some point need to be resurfaced, repaired, rebuilt. Um this, you know, the city of Victoria's um not necessarily being a good neighbor by saying we should rely on Chanhass and Sparks. Um I I think that we're going to put demand on the resources of our neighbors and we we have a responsibility to try to mitigate those uh those burdens and I I understand that it's there might be some complications but later if we turn outlaw B into a right of way then it would be incumbent upon us and that knowing we had that structure to if anything develops further to the south that that gets replaced somewhere in that new uh addition and then you know that just goes to you know further my position that if we're planning for that kind of future it's the same thing with the sewer system planning. So, I'm I'm leaning towards us taking the long view on this because this is the time that we have to get this right because if we we take shortcuts, we uh foreclose on the future of this this area. The hard part I have is is that I don't I don't mind this little development. It's the houses look nice. They're, you know, Not, you know, when this first came to us and we kept hearing a lot of complaints, I was like, geez, they're building shanties next to big, right? Like, but no, these are million-dollar houses. They're nice big houses. Um, but I don't know, you know, again, we don't know when that other section might develop or if it will develop. And the other thing is is we would still have to approve it, right? like, you know, I don't know if I have an appetite right now, like to say, "Yeah, let's put 60 more houses in this, you know, quaint little area." Um, so to do things for something that may never happen is also I don't I I get we want to do it right and we want to make sure things are there for the future, but you know, if another council someday, you know, is dealing with it, I mean, they those houses can have grind pumps, too. So, and yeah, and then there potentially be a park there later. But I'm like I I mean, how that outlaw be like what could we like legitimately even fit there? Like that's where I'm like is the juice worth the squeeze? Like like it it's you know, yes, we all love parks. We want parks. But if it's gonna just have a bench like you said on the the little outlaw a right like where the lift station was. I'm like well then what's the point right like it's got to be worth it to me to just do something otherwise then a grass field is right like let the kids play soccer on grass field right >> this this option three with the designation in the 2050 comprehensive plan. >> Say say a little bit more about that. What would that kind of look like? >> Yes, mayor and council members. So, in our current 20 240 comprehensive plan, we have an exhibit here. It's a map that is over the entire city. I only took the north portion just because that's the relative area we're talking about. Uh, but what this does is these yellow dashed arrows, um, these green circles, these are all highlighting potential future parks and trails. If we have a similar map in our 2050 comprehensive plan update, we could place um a green circle in this area, noting that if any more development occurs out in this area, the city council has something where a park could potentially be required because it's in our comprehensive plan. >> I like that option. That gives us I mean that reserves our rights to a a park for the future. um it does none of the options that are available to us at this point in time make real good sense to me other than if you just leave it an open field. So I I would opt for option three and saying let's designate something in our 2050 for a future park in that area of town. I can get on board with that. give anybody heartburn? >> No, we do both, right? I mean, we keep it an open field as an outlot and then we also designate it in the 2015 plan. >> Yeah. I mean, >> we can keep it an open field out without saying this is a park and people will still kick a ball or throw a ball. Okay. Mayor and council members, maybe I should just say if the right-of-way proposal that they had proposed on January 26th, they weren't going to install the road at that time. So, you can still plat it as right of way and have it be an open area. Um, something to just keep in mind about that is I'm not sure how often our public works crew will go out and maintain that area if it's not a road being used. Just something for consideration. >> And I would agree. I don't know that we want something that's maintained. It's just an open field. All right. Any other thoughts on that? Otherwise, let's move on to our motions and I will consider a motion. Make a motion to adopt the resolution approving the preliminary plat for Bell Maple Farms residential development using a low pressure system and temporary parkland with a designation for a park in the area in the 2050 plan. >> Do you want me to combine the rest of these or is that good? >> That's that's what Let's take these one at a time. So, we have a motion. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion on this? >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> Any opposed? >> Opposed. >> Is the dension noted? >> Very good. I will consider a second motion. Motion to adopt the resolution approving vacation of easements and right of way for the Bell Maple Farms residential development. >> We have a motion. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion on this item? We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> Any opposed? >> Opposed. >> Is a dissension noted? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Thank you. We have a third motion, please. Motion to adopt the resolution authorizing submittal of a comprehensive plan amendment to the Metropolitan Council for Bell Farms residential development. >> 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? >> Opposed. >> Is the dension noted? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Motion carries. I think that's all of it. Is there one more page? Oh, no. Very good. All right, the final item on our regular agenda this evening is item 6.7, which is a preliminary plat conditional use permits, shoreland variance, site plan, and building materials review and right-of-way vacations for the Hotel Victoria commercial development. This item was tabled also from our April 13th council meeting. So, presenting on this item once again is our city planner, Brian McCann. Mr. McCann, back to you. >> Thank you, mayor and council members. Uh yes, as you noted, this item was also tabled from the april 13th city council meeting. The applicant this evening is requesting preliminary plat approvals uh as well as conditional use permit approvals for a hotel use within our central business district and a commercial use in the shoreland overlay district. They are also requesting an increase to the maximum impervious with a shoreland variance from 80% to approximately 88.3%. They also have a site plan and building materials review request and some right-of-way vacations proposed. Uh this is another item that we discussed in depth at the April 13th meeting. So I'm going to keep this discussion high level as well and then focus into what the applicant has changed since then. So for the location and existing conditions, they're located at 7929 Victoria Drive, which currently occupies the Winchester and Rye building with some green space to the north where the hotels proposed to go. They are surrounded on streets by all sides, as you can see in the image on the left. They are also within close proximity to the Lake Mitanka Regional Trail and within 1,000 ft of Stiger Lake. The site is about approximately 50% impervious currently. So, the hotel itself is proposed to be a 46 unit uh boutique hotel with various amenities, including a covered parking garage with capacity to store up to 41 uh parking uh vehicles within that garage with a valet service. They're also proposing a fitness center, a lobby with a breakfast bar, and multiple meeting rooms and spaces throughout the building. They're also proposing some on street parking modifications to Stiger Lake Lane and Randy's Way. And then the building is approximately five stories at the tallest point uh being about 57 ft and then uh closer to 48 feet adjacent to Winchester and Rye, which is actually how height is calculated within our shoreland overlay district. So this was the slide that you all saw at the April 13th meeting which sparked the on street uh parking discussion. They are still expanding Ry's way to 20 ft on the northeast corner. And there was some discussion about the removal of eight parking stalls. Uh six of them or four of them, excuse me, on Stiger Lake Lane and then an additional four on Ry's Way. They have since come back uh with a new design. So, here's their old one still showing how um they went down from six existing stalls to two here. And then on the entirety of Ry's way, they went down from 22 stalls to 18 stalls. So, that's how we got to that minus 8. With this new design that is being proposed this evening, um they're altering the north side of Stiger Lake Lane. There's 10 stalls existing there currently. they would have uh bumpouts incorporated and some angled parking which would result in 14 parking stalls. So they would gain four there. And then they've also added three additional parallel stalls on the south side of Stiger Lake Lane. Uh so their mitigation only requires one additional stall which they've incorporated here adjacent to the entrance of the building. So, with all this said and done, this gets them to a net zero of on street parking. Uh, but it does require um some sidewalk removal, grading in the area, a60 foot wide retaining wall, and this is all within Carver County's property since they recently took ownership of the Lake Matonka Regional Trail. Uh, so it is subject to their approval. Um, so with that, these were all of the conditions that were previously incorporated when you last saw the item, but we have some new suggested conditions of approval, including uh compliance with this net0ero on street parking plan, as well as receiving approval from Carver County for those modifications to the north side of Siger Lake Lane. And then additionally, um, their requirement for parking is 46, uh, stalls. They're providing 41. So, there's potential, uh, for them to seek a conditional use permit for shared parking to mitigate those five stalls they don't have capacity for in their underground garage. And then lastly, providing a sidewalk connection from 1600 Arboritum towlit uh to help with their contractor and staging parking at the 1600 Arboritum Boulevard site. So with that, I do have two sample motions for you this evening and the applicant is in the audience in case you have any questions. >> Very good. Thank you, Mr. McCann. I want to go back to the new parking plan and ask is does it remove the sidewalk from the north side of Stiger Lake Lane? >> Uh, mayor and council members, yes. U, that's something I should have clarified. They are proposing to remove it, but then they would replace it as well. Uh, that's what this polygon is here next to the parking stalls and would connect into our existing sidewalks. >> Very good. Okay. Thank you, council. questions, comments, thoughts. >> Um, I mean, I just, you know, I think at the last meeting, we all stated how much we loved the idea. We thought it was needed in Victoria. We wanted to see it work. Um, we just had concerns about some of the parking spots we lost. And now that we're back to net zero, I don't see any reason to not move forward. So, I mean, I'm glad we were able to work it out and make it work. So, um, yeah. >> Great. Any other thoughts, comments? >> Thoughts is like this gets us where we needed to be >> because I would agree. We uh we're not taking away. We're leaving things as they are. And um I I think it's a I think it's a great solution and it it's going to be something that, you know, I this is just more of a home run. This is going to provide positive benefit in that space to the city and its residents. So, I'm pleased that we took the action we did and, you know, made made the efforts to to get a quality product. So, thanks to staff, thanks to the uh the applicant. >> Yep. I like home run, game changer, whatever you want to call it. I think uh great to figure out the parking side of it. I think that's important to everyone. Um, I just think this year bringing in wallets into Victoria and have them stay in Victoria. So, excellent. >> I have no comments. I'm add on to all of that. I just want to make sure if there's the ability for the shared parking piece where there's a conditional use permit to get five extra spots that we allow a vote or however we do that. Mayor and council members. So, um the applicants engineer and I talked about that a little bit about what that looks like when we are processing a conditional use permit. We have to post it in the paper, go through all the regular processes. Um it was realized a little bit too late to incorporate that with the approvals tonight. Uh that's why we have it included as a condition, but that uh process could be completed with the final plat when they come in with that. >> Okay. at that time. >> So, make sure that they get that opportunity and that's done however we get that taken care of. Thank you. >> Okay. Um >> I just had one other question just like I don't know if maybe we've talked about it at other meetings. I just was curious >> uh since Mary's here. Uh >> when is the uh when would the grand opening potentially be like if everything moves? >> Hi Roberts. Um, Miss >> Mary May, thank you. Uh, it takes about four months before after we get all our final approvals >> uh with the construction drawings, with the ordering of concrete before the process can so we're battling right now to get in for fall. >> Okay. >> If we miss fall, it won't be for another year and the project takes 15 months. >> Okay. >> Thanks. >> Yep. >> Okay. Any other questions, comments? Thank you. Okay. With that, I will consider a motion. >> I'll make a motion to adopt the resolution approving a pre preliminary plaque, shoreline variance, conditional use permits, and site plan, building materials review for Hotel Victoria. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. I will consider a second motion, please. >> Motion to adopt the resolution approving rightway vacations for Hotel Victoria. >> 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. Council, there are no more items to come before us on our regular agenda. So, we'll move on to reports and emerging issues and atone attorney Voice, you're up first. >> Thanks, Mayor. Uh, I have nothing to report. >> Okay. Miss Hardy, anything from staff this evening. >> Thank you, mayor, members of the council. Yes. I'm going to pass the baton over to our city clerk, Claudia Edisfold, who has an update for you on our partnership with um Deb Zeller Art Studios. >> Very good. Miss Edisfold, please. >> Yes. Thank you, uh, mayor and council members. As part of our continued collaboration with Deb Zeller Studio, I present our new art exhibit. Um, it is by Howard Bolter and his charcoal portraits. Um, the exhibits are open to the public Monday through Thursday 8 to 4:30 and Friday 8 to noon. Very good. Thank you. Again, beautiful new artwork here in the city council chambers. We encourage uh members of the public to come and view this gorgeous art during office hours. Um, members of the council, any reports from any of you? >> I just have one thing. >> Yes, please. Council member Roberts, >> I think we've all probably received emails, maybe phone calls at 11:30 at night on Friday, uh, about the noise uh, at Floyd's. Um, and I guess I just wanted I, you know, uh, we've been telling the public, you know, that we're working on our ordinances and, um, would hopefully have something by the time springtime came around and the, uh, concerts started. Um, so I guess I just wanted to ask Miss Hardy to give an update on that so they know the public knows where we're at with it. >> Very good. Miss Hardy, please. >> Thank you, Council Member Roberts, mayor, members of the council. Yes. Um, as you know, this the noise ordinance review is part of our comprehensive review of all of our city ordinances. And with that, we had prioritized the noise ordinance. And um, it's a lot more complicated than we thought. Um, and so we've been doing our research and really what we want to make sure is what we've learned is we don't really have um, uh, a real good way to practically enforce the code as it exists. So, as we were working through various revisions, that is the concern or the lens that we were looking through and we keep getting stumbled up on that. I think we've worked through a solution and have found a way to move forward. So, um, our plan right now is that we are finalizing a draft. It's probably um t we are targeting in sometime in June hopefully the first meeting if things go well. Um, so we hope to have a revision before you for that sometime in June, hopefully the first June meeting, but it would require a public hearing and so we would be um actually it's municipal, so it's not going to require a public hearing. So we would just be bringing that to council, but we will be posting um those draft revisions on our ordinance uh shortly within the next week. So, we would encourage anybody who's looking, watching, paying attention um to please go out and be watching for those revisions um and provide us um comments. They can email me, they can email our city clerk, they can email all of you, um phone calls, um stop in and share comments. Uh we'll be pleased and happy to take those, but that will be coming before the council shortly. >> Very good. Thank you. >> Can I just ask one followup question? Uh, attorney Bose. Um, so tonight we um approved liquor license and it sounds like what staff will bring before us will hopefully take care of some of these noise issues that we're having hopefully. But how do does does do city councils have authority to if you know someone is a bad actor, not a good neighbor to resend or to deny a uh or put conditions in the future on liquor license um you know if if what our new ordinance that hopefully we you know pass doesn't stop what we're trying to stop. Yeah, mayor and council, that's something that staff uh and I have talked a bit about and the answer is yes. What I've basically said though is that in any license, but liquor licenses in particular, if you're not going to have sort of a standardized set of conditions in your licenses, and you like most cities don't, you just issue the license without specific conditions. If you don't have standard conditions and you're going to impose a a special condition on a particular bar, particular whatever the lency is, you really need to have a pretty firm record of problems and probably even problems rising to the level of violations of your code in order to sustain or defend those kind of conditions. Uh and so in this case, uh you've heard some complaints about a particular bar. Um, I'm not sure that you've got a real thick book though on those kind of complaints. And so the better approach in my view, and I think staff agrees, is to just have generalized new requirements related to noise at your bars in town that would apply to all of your bars in town, you enforce those against all of your bars. To the extent then you impose those new requirements on bars and they get violated by a particular bar, you certainly the next go around can impose conditions on that bar related to those requirements. Obviously, you always have citing the bar and then enforcing through prosecution violations of your code, but maybe a simpler approach would be, hey, we've got these requirements. We don't think come next year at license time, we don't think you've been complying. We're now going to impose a condition on you related to those requirements. That's perfectly appropriate as well. >> Great. Thank you. >> All right. Anything else from council this evening? >> All right. Seeing nothing, I will take a motion to adjurnn. Move to adjourn. >> Second. >> We've got a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries and we stand adjourned. >> Does the second