Good evening. It is 6:30 and I call this regular meeting of the Victoria City Council to order. Please join us in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> The first item on our agenda this evening is announcements. The city council will hold its next workshop on Monday, October 13th at 6 pm. We will be reviewing the Victoria Fire Department paid on call duty crew firefighter staffing model. We also invite everyone to visit our community events web page and learn more about the ongoing engagement opportunities happening throughout September, including our first ever park after dark event on Friday, September 26th from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. at the Bayfront Park. Check out the city's website for additional information on that event. Please enjoy uh join us at the Victoria Fire Department's annual community open house for an engaging evening with our local firefighters. Explore fire safety tips. Enjoy hands-on activities like riding in a firet truck and test your skills in interactive demonstrations. This event is September 29th from 5:30 to 8:00 p.m. at the Victoria Fire Station. That concludes our announcements for this evening. I do have a proclamation at the dis which I will read now. Uh proclamation 202507 to recognize October 5 through 11 as fire prevention week. Whereas the city of Victoria is committed to ensuring the safety and security of residents and visitors. And whereas fire is a significant safety concern locally and nationally and homes are the locations where people are at greatest risk. And whereas the Victoria Fire Department responded to $410 calls for service in 2024. And whereas economic loss due to fire in Victoria was estimated at $173,000 in 2024. And whereas lithium ion batteries power many of the devices we rely on daily, including cell phones, laptops, power tools, and electric vehicles. And whereas lithium ion batteries can present a fire hazard when they are damaged, improperly charged, or used with incompatible equipment. And whereas residents can risk reduce their risk by purchasing devices and batteries that are listed by a qualified testing laboratory only using only the cords and power equipment that came with the device and following manufacturers's instructions. And whereas residents should always charge devices on hard, flat surfaces, keep them away from beds, pillows, and other flammable materials and stop using any device that shows signs of swelling, overheating, or unusual odor. And whereas residents should always charge and whereas first responders are dedicated to reducing the occurrence of home fires and injuries through pre prevention and protection education especially related to emerging risks such as lithium ion battery safety. And whereas residents who are informed about fire risks and prevention strategies are better able to protect themselves, their families, and their homes. And whereas the 2025 fire prevention week theme, charge into fire safety lithium ion batteries in your home, highlights the importance of making safe choices when purchasing, charging, storing, and using battery powered devices. Now therefore, I, Mayor Deb McMillan of the city of Victoria, do hereby proclaim October 5th through 11th, 2025 as Fire Prevention Week and urge all citizens of Victoria to support the many public safety activities and efforts of the Victoria Fire Department and other emergency service organizations. Our next order of business is to adopt the final agenda. Council, can I get a motion to adopt the final agenda? Move to adopt final agenda. >> We have a motion. Can I get a second? Sec. >> We have a motion and a second by council member Ivanski. Um all in favor signify by saying I. I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. The next item on our agenda is open forum. Open forum 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 in advance to speak this evening, but I understand there's someone interested in making a comment on an item that is on the agenda. Um, at this point in time, I will invite that person to come forward and provide two minutes um to the council. >> Good evening. Welcome. Please state your name for the record. >> Thank you, mayor. My name is Danny Devany from Fredericks of Byron. I'm here on behalf of the Browenss and Wolinskies. Um I I was retained today and this pertains mayor to and council members to I believe it's agenda item 6.3 on the regular agenda which is the cup application for an accessory structure. My clients own the properties on either side of that property that's at issue. Um and admittedly playing a little catch-up here today and and my my clients were as well as this matter just came to their attention um as well. Um and I I so just to clarify what we're requesting and the reason that we're up here is um we're requesting a continuation consideration of this matter so that there can be an opportunity to be heard here. Um and the reason for that is um I guess an issue of notice and and the opportunity hasn't been available yet to my clients. Um to that end, my plan is to briefly address the council. I'll try to be as efficient as I can here. uh my clients are here and they are prepared and would request to speak to the council if this matter is going to be um considered this evening. Um but to summarize the issues for the council members um again it comes down to notice um the hearing and um really what's at at issue here in the cup request. Um the there's generally a 10-day notice requirement published and and mailing. Um to be um to be frank, we're not sure exactly what was done in terms of notice. All I can say is I was talking to the browsens and I believe that they actually got notice of the planning commission hearing where the recommendation was made on the 16th. I believe it was on the 18th or 19th. So they were not aware of it at all and did not have an opportunity to attend. Um as far as I can tell in the record, um there's not a statement or indication of notice. That being said, um actual notice wasn't received, so there wasn't an opportunity to attend the hearing and present information and evidence. And the significance of that is the the nature of this particular conditional use permit um on a lot that is right adjacent to their house. Um it's for an accessory structure, excuse me, that is near 1350 with square feet, which is the maximum allowable. Um it does have a significant impact on their properties. Um and um again they are here to potentially speak to that. Um it's a conditional use permit. So it is not considered a matter of right. Um but subject to the standards that are articulated in the ordinance. Um one of those standards and this is under 31-2A as that the applicant has the burden of proving that standards will be met. The standard, one of them under 31-2B is that the proposed use shall not negatively impact surrounding lands and includes consideration of the effects on valuation or aesthetics of surrounding properties. And um that just wasn't something that there was an opportunity to specifically address at the hearing among other issues. Um and this is that the the brows and the mealies can speak to in detail the impact of a structure of this size. um right on the border of variance, the impact that that does have on valuation and aesthetics. Um it's 60 feet long. It's much different than the situation there. That's all to say there wasn't an opportunity in the the hearing to address these issues and it wasn't specifically considered by the commission. Um, so what what we're spec specifically requesting, excuse me, council members, is for now, uh, that this matter be continued and tabled with an opportunity to further address these issues. Um, I'll note that based on my understanding, again, just looking at being able to look at documents today, the application was submitted, I believe, in late August. So, there's still plenty of time within the general 60-day time frame um, to consider and make a final determination on this. Um but again the the key thing and what we're asking for is an opportunity to be heard. Um and so my clients are prepared to speak if when this matter does come up on the regular agenda and would request more time. Um but we we submit that the best approach is to either through some manner or another notice and conduct a hearing whether it be by the council or with the planning commission just so there's a full opportunity on this because this is a significant project significant development and they haven't had that chance yet and I'm happy to answer other questions right now as I can. I know my clients are happy to answer questions and happy to present um to the extent that we're permitted. we would ask for that opportunity later, but I I think I've gone over my two minutes. Um, again, doing my best today, just being coming aware of these issues to present the matter to the council. >> Okay. Thank you so much. Um, council, I'm going to I'm going to ask us to hold our questions until this comes up on the agenda this evening. >> Thank you. >> All right. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to address the item the uh council on an item that is not on the agenda or not an application form to come before? Please step forward, introduce yourself and provide your address for the record, please. >> My name is Mark Gerling. I'm the applicant for the conditional use permit. I really don't hear too well and I couldn't hear exactly what he said, but I see no reason to continue uh the permit application approval. Uh, it's my understanding that the question before us is, does my application meet the existing building and zoning ordinance? And Travis has told me that it does. >> Thank you, Mr. Curley. >> Okay. Is there anyone else in the Oh, okay. If this is related to that topic, I'm going to wait till we're on the the >> one more thing. I would like to start construction this fall and any delay would probably prevent that. >> Thank you. >> All right. Is there anyone else that would like to speak to the council on an item that is not in application form or on the agenda this evening? All right. Seeing no one, we'll move on to the next item on our agenda, which is the consent agenda. Items on the consent agenda are routine administrative and do not require deliberation or are housekeeping items required by law. Consent agenda items are approved with one vote unless someone requests an item to be considered separately. Miss Hardy, does anyone wish to pull any consent agenda items for separate discussion and vote this evening? >> None from staff. Madame Mayor, >> a member of the council that wishes to pull any item from the consent agenda? >> None. or a member of the audience wishing to pull anything from the consent agenda. Seeing no one, seeing none, I will uh entertain a motion for our consent agenda, please. >> 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. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. Moving on to our regular agenda. The first item on our regular agenda is item 6.1, which is to consider our maximum tax levy and general fund budget for 2026. Presenting on this 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, we are going to ask council to adopt the max tax levy. Just to review um in a few short slides here um the general fund budget includes 1.67 million in transfers to capital funds and 7.46 million in operating expenditures. So, in order to achieve that balanced budget and maintain a fund balance of at least 30% of the following year's operating expenditures at year end, $193,000 increase to fund balance will be needed. Then on the um other side, we're projecting 1.7 million in revenues and a 7.61 million in operating levy. Looking at the general fund budget in more detail on the revenue side, we have six 7.65 million in taxes and franchise fee revenues. Those franchise fees are for cable, none electric or gas, which we reviewed at the last month's workshop. The remaining 1.66 million comes from licenses and permits, charges for services, and other revenues. The expenditure breakdown is general government at 3.15 million, public safety at 2.27 million, public works at just slightly over a million dollars, and park and wreck at 957,000. And then the capital fund transfer of 1.66. The max tax levy is 9.96% higher than 2025. The tax capacity rate is estimated to be at 30.47% which is 007% higher than 2025. And the breakdown of the $9.78 million levy is 2.27 million in debt service payments and 7.6 6 million in general fund levy. The net tax capacity is 10.4% higher than in 2025. Our median home value of $583,100 is 5% higher than 2025. The tax on the medium value home is 1.7 or $1,776 annually or $87 higher than in 2025's medium value home. And the year-end population is expected to increase about 3.4% and the tax per capita would be at $746. Looking at the long-term financial plan projections through 2035, the we we expect the tax capacity rate to be at approximately 30 to 32% each year. Um this would maintain that minimum of at least 30% of the following year's operating expenditures in the general fund unassigned fund balance. We anticipate a continued growth in population and a continued growth in number of households. So, as you can see there, we're we're projecting about 13,240 people um for population by the end of 2026. Does council have any questions or comments for staff before I ask you um to adopt the resolutions? Council questions, comments for staff. >> We're well well familiarized with these numbers. Been working on them for a while here. All right, seeing none. Okay. So, um these are the two resolutions that I would ask um for council to consider this evening. >> Very good. We have two resolutions in front of us. Council, uh seeing no questions or further discussion, I will entertain a motion. >> I'll make a motion adopting the preliminary tax levy for the city of Victoria for collection at 2026 in the amount of 9,879,558. >> Thank you, Council Member Evansky. 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. I will entertain the second motion, please. >> I'll make a resolution adopting a preliminary 2026 budget for the general fund. >> We have a motion. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. Uh, thank you very much. Uh, next on our agenda, item 6.2 two is a public hearing for the vacation of drainage and utility easement at 6525 Hawks Point Lane. Presenting on that this evening is associate planner Travis Brierly. Mr. Brierly, >> good evening, Mayor and Council. >> Welcome. >> Thank you. Give me one second to get this set up. tonight. Uh the first topic, mayor and council, as you pointed out, is for an easement vacation at 6525 Hawk Point Lane. Um the request is for a partial vacation of the rear easement that's on the property. The purpose of the vacation being requested is for the installation of a swimming pool behind the home. And this easement was put in during the platting process primarily for storm water management. And then we do need a public hearing. It was uh properly noticed in the paper as well as mailers out to properties within 350 ft. When we look at easement vacations, we need to consider a couple different things. The appropriateness is the number one thing to look at. Um, this requestification uh could have been done when there was a grading permit submitted a few years ago that moved a mound back from the property, moving the storm water actually closer to the rear of the property. Um, the swimming pool is an appropriate use for a single family uh property and then the standard sideyard uh easements of the 6 ft would still remain with it broken down. um storm water management. By vacating this, the storm water is not going through the area anymore and then there's no utilities in the ground. To kind of break that down in a simpler way, on the left side of the screen, uh there's the proposed pool, there's the area in orange, which is the area being requested to be vacated, and then the rest of the yellow is the large easement that's in the back. On the right hand side, you'll see the blue arrows were the original plan for storm water to cross the property needing that easement area. And with the new grading permit, the mound being pulled back, the storm water now goes closer to where the red lines are. So the the purpose of the vacation or excuse me, the purpose of that portion of the easement isn't being utilized for its intended effect. So with that, uh, staff doesn't have any concerns going forward and we verified with the city engineer as well on the storm water controls for the site. With that, I can stand for any questions. >> Very good. Thank you, Mr. Brierly. Council, any questions or comments on this? >> Just a quick question. What's the proposed impervious surface uh of this lot after the pool is taken into consideration? Uh, council member, we don't have a specific uh, uh, application that's been submitted for it yet that I'd be able to speak to that directly, but the limit is 25%. And they would still need to be underneath that. So, even as staff when they submit the permit, they still have to meet all those requirements. None of there's no variances being requested. So, they still need to all the other rules. >> To be clear, we're asking the easement to be vacated ahead of the application for the reason that we're vacating the reason the easement Yes, correct. Because it if the if the easement is vacated, it doesn't create any adverse impacts for the storm water management or to the city. Um, but what it does do is it allows for flexibility when finalizing the design of the pool and that area for the staff review on the application. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions, council? >> All right. Seeing none, I will entertain a motion. Motion to adopt resolution number 2025-58 for a partial oh mayor and council we do need to have a public hearing tonight. >> Oh sorry sorry about that. At this point I will now open up the public hearing on this item. If anyone is here to speak to this item please step forward. If there's anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this item, please step forward. And one more time. Seeing no one, I will I will now close public hearing and entertain a motion. >> Motion to adopt resolution number 2025-58 for a partial vacation of the rear drainage and utility easement for the property at 6525 Hawk Point Lane. >> 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 our agenda, item 6.3, is to consider a conditional use permit for an accessory structure at 1200 Highway 7. Again, presenting on this item is our associate planner, Mr. Brierly. Mr. Brierly, please. >> Thank you, mayor. Uh, a little background on this application. Uh the application for conditional use permit for accessory structures is required when an a detached accessory structure is going to be between 900 and 1,350 ft. Um the applicant is requesting to move an existing garage and then put an addition on which would bring the total footprint to 1,336 ft. A public hearing was properly noticed and was held at the September 16th planning commission meeting where no comments were received and um unanimous uh recommendation for approval was given by the planning commission. There is a 60-day rule that applies with this with any land use permits. Uh that rule will expires on October 27th of this year. the proposed um plan for the conditional or the proposed plan for the new building. As you see on the left side, there's two blue squares with the arrow. This the lower blue square is the existing garage and the plan is to move it across the yellow area which is a sewer easement that the city has and then to put the addition on on the right side's a little bit pulled out more to where everything would be due to the topography of the land as well as the size of the structure. moving it to the north side of the of the drainage or excuse me of the utility easement uh is a more appropriate place. Uh different factors were considered when we go through and look at condition use permits. We have to look at consistency with the comprehensive plan. This being a single family lot detach accessory structures are part of that. Uh health, safety and impacts of general welfare while going through the lists of different things. uh it doesn't appear it's staff's opinion that it doesn't create any adverse impacts um on adjacent properties or the neighborhood itself. Compliance with standards of current and future regulations. What we're looking at that is if it was to be approved, would this be something that would be completely out of the ordinary forward the direction the city's h heading with different type of land use um arrangements uh public infrastructure and services. This uh structure does not plan to be attached to city sewer nor to city water. So therefore, there's no effect on the city infrastructure. Screening and landscaping buffers. Uh behind the behind there's still going to be trees between the the building as well as the property line which is about 22 ft. So that type of vegetation will still stay. In addition with that, there's uh the tree removal uh doesn't trigger any type of vegetative review by the city staff. architectural and design standards. When we have a struct or detached accessory structure over 200 square feet, it's required by code to be in a similar design to the principal structure. In this case, we worked with the applicant as well as their architect uh to make sure that that was stated in the beginning and that's how the design came out to be. Uh zoning code compliance and consistency with other uses. Everything being proposed is with inside the zoning code. It meets setbacks. It meets height requirements. um access points. Um so that type of stuff is being met and detached uh structures such as these would be permitted on other properties in that neighborhood as well as throughout the rest of the city. The the last thing that we look at is traffic impacts because this is being used to primarily store vehicles. Um those vehicles we're going to stay for a while, but it shouldn't increase the amount of or any noticeable increase to the amount of traffic that is going to the property. uh access to the property uses a private road that comes through the property and the driveways about right down the center. So what we're looking at with the proposed conditions that go with this is that a building permit is required. So no construction would be able to start prior uh to the city council uh approving a conditional use permit. Uh the garage can't be located with any setbacks or any easements and that's just to ensure that the garage is properly replaced as it was designed. Um and it can't be used for housings of persons. It does have a area above but that wouldn't be used as an ADU. Um but it could be occupied throughout the day. Um other attached accessory structures have to be removed. There's another shed that's on the site. So currently there's more than the permitted uh accessory structures. that shed would be coming down with this project. Uh so they would be within the zoning code and then all the other regulations within the city's municipal and zoning codes also have to be adhered to. Uh there is an application that's been submitted and staff has done a preliminary review of it and we don't see anything that would prohibit um moving forward with approvals outside of the com the conditional use permit requirement. >> And with that I can stand for any questions. >> Very good. Thank you. Um uh council attorney vos since we had a um it appears we did notice and conduct our proper notification on this. So let's talk through what our options are here. >> Yeah, mayor and councel. Thank you. So yeah, two points mayor uh along those lines. I mean first of all to be clear uh council um pointed out that he was retained earlier today. I of course then heard about that this issue coming up a couple of hours after presumably he was retained. I appreciated the the heads up from council about this issue. I passed it along to staff. I was in a meeting so I didn't pass it along until an hour or two ago. So we're all we're all sort of um we're all in the same boat here on sort of um appreciating this issue for the first time today uh just in the last couple hours. So, uh, along the lines of what you're asking about, mayor, I mean, first of all, the the, uh, statutory requirement, and it's consistent in our city code. Our city code has the same requirement, and that is that when you're going to consider a cup, you want to get input. You are required to get input from your planning commission. And the hearing that's held in front of the planning commission has to be noticed at least 10 days before the hearing occurs. and mailed notice has to be given to neighbors within 350 ft of the property that's seeking the CUP um so that folks can be made aware uh in case they want to come and make comments. Um Mayor, to your point, my understanding from Travis and from staff is that that occurred uh that there was published notice 10 days or more in advance of the hearing and there was mailed notice. I think what I understand from council and from the comments that council made uh that the neighbors just sort of didn't appreciate their opportunity. They didn't recognize their opportunity to make comments in front of the planning commission. They are recognizing that now and they and they want to say something. So to your point, mayor, I think the city has complied with the notice requirements here. That said, are you prohibited from continuing this and getting more input? No, of course you're not prohibited, but you have complied. The city has complied with the notice requirements. You've held a public hearing in front of the planning commission, and I don't see any legal infirmity with how this has gone down so far procedurally. I think the city has complied. The other point is, and I think it's self-evident to you, it the request has to be understood by by the neighbors, the request has to be understood not just to table this and take more input. It's really a request to table this and send it back to the planning commission for a new public hearing. I mean, there is no other process that we could have where the applicant who's here, who has made comments in response to the issues being raised. The applicant has a right to respond to opposition or input. Um, and the way we do that is we go to the planning commission. We hold a hearing. The planning commission gets to hear all that and make a recommendation to you. So, it's entirely up to you what you want to do about that. But I I think you have to understand the request before you is not just to table and take emails or something else from folks here. I mean really the request is to start over and go back to the planning commission and have a new public hearing and let the two sides or the multiple sides have it out in front of the planning commission and then have a new recommendation from the planning commission. And I'll stop there. Council questions, comments, thoughts >> about the 60-day rule. Um, if we did uh go back to the planning commission, what would be the date and would that still be an option >> be within that 60-day rule? >> Yeah, please. Mayor, members of the council, Council Member Right. Um, so I think the as noted on the the presentation, the 60 rule 60-day rule expiration is October 27th. Um, so there would if we're I I guess a process question for our attorney. would we have to we'd have to publish a new notice. >> Um, so if we did that I'm doing some math now. So if we did that on this if we did that this week the plan so it would be the October 7th planning commission. No. Nope. It would be the one after that. The October 21st planning commission would be the new public hearing and that would bring you to the last day for the 60-day rule October 27th council meeting. So yes, Council Member Refe, members of the council, um there would still be time procedurally to meet the requirements um to hold to send back to planning commission and hold a new public hearing. So that again that would likely be held on October 21st uh with the planning commission and the new public hearing and then October 27th it would come back to council. >> Thank you for that clarification. >> Should we hear comment tonight um without continuation? >> Is is that allowable or is that reopening a public hearing that's already been closed? >> Yeah, mayor. and and pardon my being direct and blunt and I certainly don't you know I just need to be clear because it's a great question mayor and it's a correct question um there is no more process that is due to the neighbors that have a problem with this and so any additional process that you afford here is to accommodate them uh and so if you wanted to sort of consolidate that and do that right now um I I I'm not going to tell you that that's illegal or problematic. I think you could do that now. I mean, the only concern I have is that again, the applicant presumably wants to be able to hear the comments that are being made and wants to be able to respond to them and I don't know what the comments are going to be. And so my my only concern is just sort of this is not sort of normal process, but you're affording process. you're affording an additional process beyond what the law requires if you elect to do that um to try to accommodate folks that that have not had comments yet. >> So, I don't know if I've answered your question. Are you compelled to do it? No. Are you prohibited from doing it? No. >> This is this is unprecedented. We we've never done this before. We we hold our public hearings. We notice them properly and and then we close the public hearing. So, to take this additional comment is concerning. >> So, can I say something? >> Yeah, please. Council member, >> obviously I'm sympathetic to um the groups that you know have an issue with this and would like to be heard. Um obviously we also don't want to set precedent on you know opening things back up basically. Um, that being said, I mean, I personally would not be against at least hearing from them because my main thing is is on the face of it, what we've been told by Travis and staff is like like I I don't see a reason not to accept this, right? So like I would like to hear like is there what is this major reason that you guys feel that we should not be accepting this and does that change my right like >> so I for me I'm like >> I would much rather I'd feel better accepting something that I'm leaning towards accepting and here like is there some major reason that changes my mind and I back to that setting precedent I you you know, not every situation is the same, right? So, the next time if this ever comes up again, god forbid not, that you know, if the circumstances aren't similar, right? Like I feel like every situation is different. So, you're kind of >> making it up as we go. >> All right. Thank you, Council Member Roberts. At this point in time, I will look for consensus from the council about hearing additional comment on this. >> All right. Well, I'd like to the the applicant has due process in this matter and that due process has been followed. We have a planning commission. This is where these matters are for public hearing. The public hearing was held. It was held to in the best of our belief in accordance with uh the the rules that govern that. And so with respect to a public hearing, the matter is closed. Now, we can choose as council to extend a courtesy to have neighbors be heard before this body. Um but with respect to the decision making capability about what is before us that that's what we're here to decide tonight and make those decisions on the basis of what staff has pres presented and then weighing in uh within our capability as a council to grant the conditional use. It's a conditional use based on the conditions that are presented for and we're the ultimate arbiter of that decision. So, um, but with respect to going back to the applicant, I I don't think that we rejudicate the matter that's already been settled. >> Council members, hearing comment. >> Go ahead. >> I'm open to hearing comment. >> Okay. Council member Patterson. My only question was during open forum I just heard an objection to the fact that things were not properly noticed. I believe that we did advertise in the Wakonia paper I do believe that things were sent out properly. Um I'm open to hear the comments but when it comes down to the letter of the law I can't see what would stop us from approving this. As a courtesy, please step forward and we will hear your comments. >> Please, >> please introduce yourself and your address for the record. >> I'm Celeste Browen. I'm at 6485 Virginia Drive. The four of us, the two neighbors on either side, we were gone. We were gone 10 days weekend. I think a week. We left on September 7th. By the time we came back, this that planning commission had already happened. We did not get our mail delivered till like I don't know by the time they finally got it to us I think it was the 17th 18th we did never we never got notice that's what I want to say is and we're responsible you know citizens we left on September 7th and that was a it was a Sunday we never got that letter we got the two letters from um the city of Victoria on that one and on the um Hawks Point deal on the same today but this the planning commission had already happened otherwise we would have jumped on it because I what I want to c >> yeah can you just provide your comments for us I mean we there's no way that the city can monitor when everybody's on vacation >> so that so I'm just telling you >> so yeah so go ahead and go ahead and provide your comments >> notice and the other thing I'd like to say is that um you know 31B2 talks about that um we should um propose that we should not negatively impact the effect of surrounding properties including valuation aesthetics and scenic views. This is our this is our driveway. These two cones would be that's 60 ft. That's what this building would be right along our driveway. This is the woods we have. There's no way you can cover a 60 foot 22 story 22 foot tall building without seeing it. And so is it affecting our scenic views and our aesthetics? Big time. It really is. And this is what we're trying to trying to stop. And Mark was our friend never said anything to us about this. So we had no idea until we got our notice. and then we have been scrambled to try to you know approach. >> Okay, thank you. Um please state your name. >> I'm Celeste husband. I also live at 6485 Virginia Drive and I just want to make a comment about uh the process. Um we did get that uh notice last Thursday. Um I left a message for Mr. Brier Lee um late in the day on Thursday asking what it's about because the letter was one paragraph. It didn't describe what was happening. And So I contacted him, left a voicemail. He promptly called me back the next morning first thing, which was great. And in that conversation, I explained to him that the aesthetics of a 60foot warehouse right next to our driveway was going to be a huge impact on on our our property on on the aesthetics, the beauty of it, and the valuation. And what Mr. Briarley told me was and I asked him to come out. I said, "Can you please come out today?" And he explained to me, by the way, what the project was and that had already been approved by the planning council. I said, "Can you please come out today and he said I can, but I want you to know that aesthetics don't matter." That's his direct quote. And uh what I learned last night when I read in the code, um I think it's 31-2, it says aesthetics and valuation. I don't know the language exactly. scenic views. >> Scenic views must of the neighboring properties must be considered. It said that in the code. But I learned from Mr. Barley, he hadn't been out. No one had been out to view it from our perspective. And so I got to believe that that process wasn't followed and the diligence by the planning commission wasn't followed. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much for that. All right, council. We've heard we've heard comments. Um, Mr. Brierly, you said this is 22 feet in from the >> mayor. It' be about uh escaped me a little bit. It's about 22 feet from the property line. Uh, is where it'd be. The minimum setback standard is six feet. >> Okay. And just so I so I'm clear, can you do you know where the driveway is? Can you can you point to that on this? >> The mayor >> the um >> neighbor's driveway >> the neighbor's driveway. I'm sorry I missed your last browsen driveway. >> Mayor, their driveway is located where my cursor is. >> Okay. >> Um I don't know the distance from the property line. That's not something I looked up. >> Okay. And you said there's trees that are in Right. in front of that. So trees would actually block view. Am I right about that or no? >> Correct. Correct. Mayor, there there is ve there's trees and other vegetation there. As far as how much view it blocks, that's a question that is is subjective. >> Understood. Understood. All right. Council questions. >> That vegetation and those trees are all staying there, right? All the construction's being done fully within this in the other property. >> Uh council member, that's correct. Uh speaking with the applicant about the process for construction, uh where you're going to see tree removal uh is going to be where the structure is and then going to the east. Uh there might be some removal that'll need to be done for the construction project, but it'd be pretty minimal based on the conversation with the applicant. the the current structure appears to be closer to the browsen's driveway than the new structure is going to be. >> Okay. Council questions, comments. So if this were 900 feet, we wouldn't need a cup at all. It would just happen. >> Council member, that is correct. And then any structure that is over 200 square ft uh and needs to meet the requirement to be of similar design to the principal structure itself. If >> it was attached to the home, it absolutely wouldn't be something that would require a cup. Correct. >> That is correct. >> Thank you, >> Mayor. Mayor Counselor, please. overstepping my bounds. So, shut me down as soon as I've gone too far, but I'm intrigued now just looking at the picture. Can staff just explain how the subject property, how the applicant's prop, how how is access obtained? Where is the access? >> Uh, the access will come down the driveway and it'd be off the existing driveway >> and but with the cursor, show show the route of access. >> So, it be coming in like this >> to where then? to right here and then it'd be accessing on the east side of the structure. >> Right. Right. But point out to the road where access is coming from. >> So there's a private drive or there's a private uh road right here. >> Yes. >> And then the applicant's driveway comes in. >> There's an existing private road through there. >> Correct. And there's and it'd be just off the driveway. >> Got it. That >> So the existing driveway for the subject property is to remain unchanged. Is that a fair statement, >> council member? That's correct. And then just a quick question on um the the commonality of multi- or maybe eightcar garages um or sorry. Yeah, we have basically two twocar garages that we're going to construct. Correct. >> Uh council member. So on on this image here on the bottom, the existing garage that's being moved is the garage that's grayed out. The addition is the part that's not. So it'd be doubling the size of the garage and then having another room with inside it as well as a room uh that would be more like a loft type area. >> And this is connected to the existing home. >> This would be a detached structure. >> It is detached. Sorry. So, just to reiterate, the the image on the left shows in the where the arrow starts is the existing garage. The applicant's proposing to move it across the sewer or excuse me, the utility easement that's there. Um, and then so moving from here to here and then putting that addition on uh to the north side. >> Are there active utilities in the easement? >> Uh, there is an active sewer line in the ement, council member. And then so a fourcar garage in this area is it atypical or is it somewhat common? Not highly unusual. Uh council member, I can't speak to every property up there, but there's um my understanding of the properties that are with inside the Lake Mitanka residential district vary in size as well as the capacity to store vehicles. Uh so is as is looking at it that'd be a difficult question to answer specifically but when we look at things as staff and go through applications that come in we look for the current zoning regulations uh and we look for compliance with that if there's issues we work with the applicant to bring it in compliance. Uh the other thing that we do when we look at things that are a little bit larger we look for what if it needed to be denied how would we do that? So, we kind of play devil's advocate to try to get ahead of of any concerns that come up. And in this case, uh, all the zoning requirements would be being met. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And the aqua line is the property boundary, correct? >> Correct, Mayor. >> And can you said it a few times, I think, how far off the property line is it? >> It'd be about uh 22 feet. >> And the requirement was >> six. >> Thank you. What what's the height of the new >> uh the height of the new structure? >> 23 >> 23 feet. The max and then council member, the maximum height of an detached accessory structure in the Lake Minnetonka residential 35. >> Can you go back to the picture that shows the two? Yeah. So, I mean, it looks like it's really kind of perpendicular to their garage as well. So, like I I'm not really like the views would be out the back of the hut, right? Like I like I just I'm I'm not seeing why this would be a >> Okay, >> other questions, council. So, we're actually moving the garage and then putting an addition on. >> Correct. >> Is that correct, >> Council Member? That's correct. >> All right. And then that orange is the the entire represents the old garage plus the new addition. >> Correct, Mayor. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Any other questions, council? I mean, we've heard about I would they say 31B the like I mean how like I mean can you speak to that I guess Bob a little bit? >> Yeah, mayor and council first of all I see council sneaking up to the podium here. I I I would just say that um I I think you've shut down now any additional input. I mean there has to be an end point, right, for public input and I think we've reached that point. So, I'm not going to look at council because I don't want to bother him. But, uh, I think I think we're done now hearing from folks. Am I right about that, mayor? Correct. Okay. >> So, as to as to um uh your your question um restate it again because I had it firmly in my brain until I started talking and then I lost >> 31B has been mentioned a few times. >> Yes. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. So, and and that the point about aesthetics I think is the particular point that's come up about that. I I would just say again I'm going to fall back on process about that. Of course, in a conditional use permit process or a variance process or any of the zoning processes you go through, the staff doesn't independently go out and evaluate the standards against what's being proposed. It's an opportunity for supporters and opponents to come in and make arguments about the standards. Right? In other words, the staff absent any input from anyone doesn't go out and evaluate properties and come back with reports on appraisals and and you know their own impressions of the site and whether it's a aesthetic or not. That's for neighbors and folks that are interested to make those arguments. So, it's a fair point that the code language apparently, I mean, I don't have it in front of me, but apparently refers to aesthetics. Would aesthetics be an appropriate issue to raise? Yes. But the staff doesn't I mean that's not the staff job. So >> Okay. >> Uh I have another question for Travis if you can answer it. Do you do you have a sense of on this parcel the percentage of impervious surface that this proposed addition is going to go from and then two >> council member the applicant did provide a building permit. I'm pulling it up real quick. I can tell you what the impervious will be. Um, but we did look at it beforehand as well. If you can indulge me for one second, the total impervious cover with the with what's being proposed will be 24%. And the maximum is 25% for zoning. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. All right. We're we're not taking any more comments, sir. request. >> Very good. Quickly, >> so thank you, Mayor. Um, I think what we're hearing here, I think what we should do as we presented is respectfully the city's council is confirmed that notice was proper, the actual notice didn't happen. We don't know on the record what did. The other thing that we've been talking about now is the types of things that should have been addressed at the public hearing if there were an opportunity. So we ask an opportunity to do that. There's still time to do it. Um the burden is on the applicant to show these standards. Um so respectfully, um if we think there's not a sufficient record for that, we would ask for some additional process just to make sure this is done right. I do appreciate that. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. All right. Um any other comments? >> No, I would just like to address council's comment about these things which should have been addressed. This is the purview of the city council to ask these kinds of questions and make these kind of inquiries. It's fully appropriate and it doesn't really bear relevance to what the public hearing of the planning commission had. So, I I think we're well within our space to probe deeper and ask further questions about the appropriateness of the structure because frankly, if we chose if we thought that the planning commission aired in this, we would have the authority and ability to do that. But we also have within our purview to accept the planning commission's recommendation if we so choose to do that. >> Okay. Do you have any further questions that I do not answer? Thank you. >> Any other members of the council? >> Mayor, I I I want to respond to council's additional point there. >> So now I mean now we're really getting in the weeds here, but I I'm we're that's where we are. So the the statute that governs the notice that's required to consider a conditional use permit reads and I'm going to be paraphrasing a little bit but mostly I'll be quoting uh it says public hearings referring to public hearings in particular on variances but the cup statute refers to the variance statute etc. So no zoning ordinance or amendment thereto read that to mean no cup um shall be adopted until public hearing has been held thereon by the planning agency or the governing body. A notice of the time, place, and purpose of the hearing shall be published in the official paper of the municipality at least 10 days prior to the hearing when an amendment that doesn't matter irrelevant. Um, notice shall be given to uh each owner of affected property or property situated wholly or partly within 350 ft of the property to which the read cup relates. For the purpose of giving mailed notice, the person responsible for this is the important for the purpose of giving mailed notice. The person responsible for mailing the notice may use any appropriate records to determine the names and addresses of owners. A copy of the notice and a list of the owners and addresses to which the notice was sent shall be attested to by the responsible person and shall be made part of the records of the proceedings. I heard council raise the question of were was the list of people that received the mailed notice referred to at the planning commission meeting. I don't know if that's the case or not, but let's just knock that down. Now, I understand Travis from what you've sent to council before the meeting tonight to be a copy of the letter that was sent. Is that right? >> That is correct. >> Okay. And you're you have personal knowledge that those letters were sent. >> Those letters were mailed on August 29th. >> And is that more than 10 days prior to the hearing date? >> That provides uh 17 to 18 days worth of notice. >> Okay. And you are that's true and correct that you're attesting to those facts? >> I am. >> Okay. So that we've covered now what the statute requires. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. Very good. Uh final questions, council comments. Seeing no further discussion, uh this item has two motions. One to adopt the ordinance amendment and the second to authorize summary publication for a resolution. So councel, I will entertain a motion. Motion to approve resolution 2025-59 for the issuance of a conditional use permit application for an accessory structure to be no greater than 1350 square ft on the property at 12,200 highway 7. >> I apolog >> we have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. Um my apologies. There is only one motion on that. Thank you very much. All right. Uh, item 6.4 is a item that considers an amendment to chapter 22 of our municipal code which covers streets, sidewalks, and other public places. Presenting on this item this evening is once again Mr. Brierly. Welcome back. >> Thank you, Mayor Councel. Um, little background on this. Uh, this refers to rightway applications. >> Um, Okay. Um, and with that with inside the the language that's with inside the code, it states that there's a review has to be done within 10 days of the application being submitted. Uh, there's no statutory requirement for that as long as it's done within a reasonable amount of time. It's access to our rightways. There's different regulatory bodies that deal with that type of permit and those things. Um this has come to us from the city engineer primarily because we have a lot of rightaway permits that have been submitted and sometimes it takes more than 10 days to review them. Um a public hearing is not required though there was uh proper public notice that we were required to do a staff and which was completed correctly. The proposed amendment is fairly straightforward. Um basically if an applicant has submitted the requirements to this division meaning the application city shall issue a permit within a reasonable amount of time after receiving the completed application uh that provides some flexibility for our engineering staff to do review as well as public works and makes it so that we can be more compliant with our code. >> Okay, very good. Can you back up one thing? There was just a little bit of disturbance and there's no statutory requirement. That's what I was looking for. for the city to >> have a have a set time period. Um, so the the statute doesn't say it has to be 10 days or five days or 14 or anything like that. >> All right. So, we're going to we're going to amend it to within a reasonable amount of time. >> All right. Very good. Thank you, >> Mayor. >> Yes. >> One incredibly technical um nuance on that. So, the state rightaway law covers two different issues, which is utilities that put stuff in the ground. >> Yep. But it also covers small cell wireless, you know, the wireless things that go on poles. There is a time limit for action on the small cell wireless stuff. It's 90 days. There is no time limit on the traditional utility stuff. And so this language is totally consistent with the statute. >> Very good. Thank you. All right. Carry on. Here we are. All right. Any other any questions for Mr. Brierly? Any other comments? I I want to just follow up on Bob's question and um so there's two sections of this in statute. One section is either silent or doesn't specify any time frame. One says 90 days um a reasonable amount of time. Could that be a period of time that extends beyond 90 days? >> Yeah, mayor and council in the normal course for sure. um there are sufficiently complicated applications that a staff could require more than that period of time. I guess I would always read though and I was I would always advise a a city client to read reasonable amount of time to be limited by law. Other words, it's not reasonable to take longer than you're legally entitled to take. So I would always read reasonable amount of time to be consistent with whatever statutory time limit you have. >> Does that make sense? >> It does. Thank you. Y >> Okay. Any other questions, comments? All right. This is the one we've got two motions on. One to adopt the amendment and the second to authorize publication. So, uh, council, I will entertain a motion. Motion to adopt an ordinance 469MC amending chapter 22 section 22-167 of the Victoria Municipal Code and to adopt resolution number 2025-60 authorizing a summary of publication of ordinance 469MC. >> Uh do we want those in two separate motions? >> Yes. >> Okay. So let's let's start the first one um to amend Amend adopt the proposed aort. Okay, I'm gonna let's start again. Council member Refe. >> Okay. Motion to adopt an ordinance 469MC amending chapter 22 section 22-167 of the Victoria Municipal Code. >> Very good. 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. And the second motion, please. >> Motion to adopt resolution number 2025-60 authorizing a summary publication of ordinance 469MC. >> Second. >> Wow, that was >> We have a We have a motion and a second by Council Member Patterson. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. Pardon me. The final item on our regular agenda this evening is item 6.5, which is a closed session to discuss land sale terms for downtown west phase 2 pursuant to Minnesota statute 13D.05 subdivision 3C1. I'd like to make a motion to close the meeting to discuss the land sale terms for downtown west phase 2 65231030 and 65231020. Uh 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. We will now go into close session. Once we're done, we'll return to reconvene the regular meeting of the council. Good notes. Um, I would like to call for a motion to reconvene this regular meeting of the city council. Can I get a motion? I I've made a motion. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Um just pursuant to the closed motion, uh city council gave direction to staff and legal to uh work on the deal points of a um developer agreement and sale of land. All right, council. There are no more items to come before the uh body this evening. So we are moving on to reports and emerging issues. Attorney V, you're up first. >> I don't have anything, mayor. Thank you. >> All right, Miss Hardy. Anything from staff? Nothing to report. Mayor, >> okay. Anything interesting from the city council members? >> Attended uh >> council member Refe >> attended some great meetings out in Washington DC. Um our city engineer and I and many others from the county etc. were in in meetings with Congressman Tom Emmer, uh, Senator Tina Tina Smith, Senator Amy Clolobashar, and made some great headway on the Highway 5 corridor and that that gap we need to fill right on five. And it was very evident that they um know a lot about the Southwest Corridor, number one, and number two, they kept saying, "We're so glad you're all here in front of us." and and uh in person versus uh you know remote etc. So it was a great great couple days. Um said the engineer I'm sure would agree but it was uh well worth our time and and a great experience. >> Very good. Thank you so much for representing Victoria out in Washington. Appreciate that. All right. Any other final thoughts from the council? Seeing none, there are no more items to come before the body this evening. So I will entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> We have a motion. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. We stand adjourned.