Good evening. I now call to order the regular meeting of the Victoria City Council. It is our tradition to be begin with the pledge of allegiance. Please stand and join us. 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. Uh come join us for Sweater Weather Bingo. Grab your coziest sweater and hang out with us for an afternoon of bingo, coffee, and camaraderie. The event will take place on October 23rd at 1 p.m. at the Victoria Recreation Center. There is a $5 per person fee for bingo. Halloween in Victoria is a fun-filled, family-friendly event hosted by the Victoria Lions and the Victoria Business Association. The event is held downtown and will take place on Saturday, October 25th from 1 to 3:30 p.m. There are no further announcements this evening. I do have a proclamation in front of me that I will read from the dis declaring October 2025 as domestic violence awareness month. Whereas more than 10 million adults experience domestic violence and over 1 and a half million high school students are physically abused by dating partners annually in the United States. And whereas more than 23,000 calls are placed to domestic violence hotlines nationwide every day. And whereas calls to our local domestic abuse crisis line, Southern Valley Alliance, have s significantly increased in the last year. And whereas the impact of domestic violence is felt not only by the individuals and families, but communities and the nation as a whole. And whereas the city of Victoria joins with others across the state of Minnesota and nationwide in supporting domestic violence victims and survivors, the advocates and organizations who serve them and holding offenders accountable in the city of Victoria. Now therefore, I, Deborah McMillan, mayor of the city of Victoria, do hereby proclaim October 2025 as domestic violence awareness month awareness month and encourage all citizens to engage in the work and events sponsored by the Southern Valley Alliance and other organizations working toward the elimination of domestic violence. The next 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. >> 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. We'll move on to the next item on our agenda, which 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 in application form that will be coming to the council at a future date. We have one individual who has registered in advance to speak this evening. Miss Kim Los, community outreach manager for Southern Valley Alliance. Miss Los, if you are present. Oh, we have somebody else. Please step. >> Not Kim. Mayor, >> you you are not Kim, but please uh state your name for our record, please, and welcome. >> Thank you very much, members of the council and mayor. My name is Brady Juel. I'm the chief of police of Savage Police Department. I'm also a Chaza resident and today I'm speaking to you and the members of the audience here as the president of the board of directors of Southern Valley. And if you have a few minutes, may I read something, >> please? >> Thank you very much. Can everybody hear? Okay. Uh again, thank you for having me here today. As mentioned, October is domestic violence awareness month, and now more than ever, it is imperative that the city recognizes and works to combat domestic abuse. Thank you so much for doing the proclamation. We really appreciate that. Southern Valley Alliance is the only organization to provide services to victims of domestic abuse in Scott and Carver counties. Within the last few years, SBA has helped more than 31 survivors in Victoria alone. Answering over 2,000 calls on our crisis line annually, we assist victims and survivors in their greatest time of need by providing crisis intervention, emotional support, resources, and safety planning. SVA is a prevention and solutions focused organizations and we partner with law enforcement, social services, and health care providers to make the communities of Scott and Carver counties a safer place to live. Southern Valley Alliance was founded in the early 1980s by a Bell Plain woman who experienced spousal abuse. SVA moved to shockby in January 2024 and since we've experienced a 20% increase in the demand for our services because of the greater accessibility to our advocacy center. Victims and survivors are now able to reach us more than ever before. As a community-based and communityf funded organization, Southern Valley Alliance is facing significant federal, state, and local funding cuts. Amidst these cuts, it is imperative that the city of Victoria recognizes domestic violence awareness month and does all it can to support the victims and survivors today and throughout the year. And again, for the proclamation and just mentioning it, you're bringing awareness to this situation in your community. And I'm truly appreciate that. We encourage community members to follow us on social media and learn more about our website, svamn.org. There you can make purchases of collector police patches through the purple patch program. This is a program I spearheaded with the other chiefs of police in all of Scott and Carver County. Now in Carver County, you have the Carver County Sheriff's Depart Department that provides police protection for your community along with the Chaza Police Department. And then there's another nine organizations in Scott County that provide law enforcement. I got them all together to create a first of the kind in the state where every department created a purple patch that some of the officers are wearing on their uniform to uh bring awareness to domestic violence especially during this month. You can go on sbamn.org shameless plug there for you and buy one or all 10 of these patches to show support. 100% of the proceeds go to helping victims of domestic violence. Um, again, I want to thank you all. Just even reading that proclamation brings awareness. Every community, no matter how fluent or how poor, faces domestic violence. Uh, I myself am on my 30th year in law enforcement. 23 of them served to the south here at the Chaza Police Department. So, I'm very familiar with the issues in our communities. Uh and it is no different over in Savage, over in uh Shakipi, any place we we all our communities face domestic violence. And what is so significant about SCA is every time we go to a home during a domestic violence incident, as soon as it's safe to do so, we put that victim on the phone with an advocate. And research shows that the sooner you get a victim to resources, the better the outcomes. And our main goal is to demate to break the cycle of domestic violence. With that, again, thank you so much. I can answer any questions if you have any. Otherwise, I'm making the tour. I'm going to Chanhassen in a couple weeks to just bring awareness to October domestic violence awareness. >> Thank you, Chief Juul. Thank you for your service to our community and thank you for um representing Southern Valley Alliance this evening. Uh council, any questions for Chief Juul? >> Seeing none, thank you. It's an honor. Thank you very much. Appreciate the time. >> Is Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to address the council on an item that is not on the agenda and not an application form? >> Are we able to speak? >> Um, we are this is not a public hearing this evening. So, and it is >> Aren't you signing? >> We are. Yeah, it is on our agenda this evening. >> Well, we we aren't taking any public comment on anything on the agenda this evening. public. >> Um the public hearing was held at the um the planning commission. Correct. >> Okay. Some people got a week before. >> You can't just signatures and I have a map that shows how many people are against us. 93% of the neighborhood. >> Thank you. >> And who wants the petition? >> No, we've received the petition. >> We've received the petition. Um council, uh how are you feeling about this? Do we want to >> when you work for us? May >> mayor if I if I can jump in on the on the process question. So >> I mean for the benefit of the residents and I suspect they they know this but um the way the vast majority of cities in Minnesota work is well first of all statutoily it's required that to the extent you have a planning commission that you hold zoning related hearings at the planning commission. Um, and uh, I am not going to say here tonight if the council wishes to hear from folks about this again. You've given an opportunity at your planning commission. I'm certainly not going to say that you can't do that. You you could do that if you wanted to. Um, but I would say that as a general practice, it is a bad practice for cities to have a public hearing in front of the planning commission and then sort of reopen or have a separate public hearing in front of the city council. What you get then is you get different input at the planning commission than you get at the city council and that is to be avoided. Cities want to have a single record of the input that residents give. So the best practice is to do it once if council wants to hear from folks. Again, I'm not going to stand in the way, but the best practice is to follow state law, which is what the vast majority of cities do. >> All right. Very good. Thank you. >> Attorney. >> Okay. Um you can why don't you uh go ahead and leave the petition and things with staff and um please feel free to join us for the com conversation on the agenda. Um any other comments from council? All right, moving on to the next item on our agenda is the consent agenda. Consent agenda items are routine administrative and do not require deliberation or are housekeeping items that are required by law. They're approved with one vote unless someone requests an item to be considered separately. Miss Hardy, does staff wish to pull any consent items for separate discussion and vote? >> None from staff. Madame Mayor, >> council, any members uh that would like to see items pulled for a separate discussion and vote? >> Anyone in the audience wanting to pull something from the consent agenda item for separate discussion and vote? >> Seeing none, can I get a motion for our consent agenda? I'll make a motion to adopt the uh October 13th consent agenda. >> Thank you. Can 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. Our first item is item 6.1, which is a mid-year report from our senior advisory committee. Presenting this evening is our chair Alina Pasarelli. Did I do did I do that right? Chair Pasarelli. Welcome so much. >> Thank you so much, mayor and council members. It's a pleasure to be here. My name's Alina Paselli and I'll answer anything close to that. Um we're excited to um just report on what we've been working on and what we hope to achieve in the next year. Um our 2025 goals and what we've accomplished so far. I also have uh my vice chair here, Sharon. Uh she will be um piping in on some information as well. Um so the first uh item that we want to talk about is uh we created the seniors uh resources packet which is available on the website. Um I've only been part of this committee for a year and I can tell you that our neighboring cities emulate it and have really appreciated the fact that we've put together those resources for our uh senior community. Um part of our goal for this year is to make that available in a n digital form to members um trying to figure out how to get how to reach our seniors who don't have access to the internet or don't know how to use it. All right, so that is a big agenda. If you ever come to our meetings, you'll know that we're trying we're working hard on that. Um we are also um learning a lot. So, we recently uh were involved in the Carver County um senior um meeting down at the arburetum with our other city senior advisory committees and just learning from each other. And um what we've learned is a lot of them are able to reach their seniors in the community through utility statements through, you know, ways of that are already happening. Um, and to be honest with you, a lot of them, I'm just going to give you for instance, my 80-year-old mother lives with me. She's walker bound, doesn't drive. So, she doesn't get down here to grab a resource packet, right? And so, how do we get to her? And I think that we're we're getting there. So, we're excited to hopefully see us reach more seniors um with resources and access opportunities. Um, we have also become a community stakeholder in the downtown west phase one and two planning discussions. Um, we have been included in conversations about central green public spaces and amenities. Um, and we're so thankful for that. U, so I can just tell you that a lot of the seniors that we've spoke to over the summer really happy that the trails have had um, great signage about the ebikes, right? So things like that have have made a big difference and it's nice that we're being heard. Um we were part of developing the walking trail and plan on the walkability study in 2023 and 2024. Um we were able to review the walking plan and we have several council members that use it and um we're part of that planning process. So we really appreciate being part of that. Um we continue to engage in the Carver County Office of Aging. We actually have a staff member that attends our monthly meetings now and um has given us great insight into um what other resources we can be adding into our resource guide um and what our surrounding communities are doing. One of the big uh topics of uh conversation right now are transportation options um and getting that information to our homebound seniors here locally. So we're working on that. Uh rehab and southwest transit are options but they money and a lot of people just don't have access to that ability. So, we're working on that. Um, we are deeply engaged in conversations about what a senior community center would look like here. Um, we have visited all of our local senior community centers. Um, we see what they are able to do. We um have been in conversations with the rec center and how we could potentially utilize a certain portion of that area for regular engagements with our senior community. Um but we have big plans. We have big ideas. We would love to see, you know, weekly gatherings um whether it's games or um health opportunities, technology training, you know. So we're we're we're working on that. Um um recently we uh just approved some furniture for the lower lobby of the rec center um that will be a little more senior accessible kind of down where uh the public library is right now the community library. >> Um so we're kind of excited about that just to see hopefully we see a little more gathering and social socializing happening uh with people but we want to expand that. Um, one of the things we've done this summer is we um actually got out there in the community and we were uh we had popup events at new park engagements and at the car show and were able to provide the senior resource guide and then ask, you know, from our community members what they'd like to see in Victoria to be a more accessible active living senior community for 55 plus. And Sharon is going let you know how that great. >> Thank you, Alina. Sharon, please. >> Sharon and I live in Abelite right off Lion's Park right in the senior community. This is our senior resource guide that has gone statewide. We developed it. If anybody hasn't seen it, we encourage you to go through it. We have phone numbers, addresses. We have a growing senior community coming. As you well know, we have a lot of development here in Victoria. So, I went this summer to several agendas that we had the car shows and I was at a table with other senior committee members for senior basically brochures to update seniors. We have seniors here with a real digital. They're not aware or knowledgeable with their even with their phones. Some of them don't have iPads or laptops. So, we don't have a newspaper, do we? So, now how do we get to them? So, this is what we'd like to do. We have paper flyers that we'd like to get out to the community and we're going to have to do it through the mail and we need resources for it. But, we have to keep working with our seniors because We're all getting there, right, at one point or another in our life. So, we don't want to leave them behind. They have a real um a lot of questions were for um help, you know, how do we get and transportation, how do we get here, how do we get there? So, we have to help them along the way. Um and we really only have and Southwest transit, so they don't always connect but we're still working on so yeah and it's very useful to go to donuts in Victoria because I try to encourage a lot of the seniors to come if they can >> great and be sure and get a resource guide because you'll know what we're talking about and what we've done okay >> thank you and I'll be at Donuts on Victoria tomorrow morning So, so, so thank you for the good work that you are doing and um we stay very in touch with what's happening and uh through the staff contact. Um council, any questions for these ladies on the senior committee? >> More of a comment. Great job again on awareness, creativity. Uh you mentioned you're at the uh popup events, the local. That's excellent. So, great job. Sure. And I have one >> lots of good information in it. Not only Yeah, it's not just for seniors. >> I Yeah, it is a statewide It is a statewide example and we so very proud of that. So, >> I'm interested too in you pursuing the communication with the utility bills as well. Um, I don't know the ins and outs and how that all gets done, but can't wait to hear more. >> Very good. Anything else? >> The only comment I'd say is that uh I think that I share the rest of council's opinion that you guys have done an amazing job. There was a time when we had a senior committee that was then disbanded and then brought back and you know it just came back with a vengeance and you guys have just done an amazing job and thank you for um also bringing to mention the uh new furniture going to the recreation center. I was going to pull that off the consent agenda just so that we could talk about the great job that staff has done with the collaboration between council having uh our workshop out there and hearing the voice of the community saying, "Hey, you know, this would really be something that would be wellreceived." And then, you know, kudos to Jenna and her team for being able to bring that $10,000 under budget. That's that's a huge thing. So, thank you for all of that collaboration. shows that when we work together, we can do great things in the city of Victoria. So, thanks. >> Very good. All right. Anything else? All right. Uh this is forformational purposes only. So, there's no action required by the um council on this item. So, the next item is 6.2, which is the midyear report from our park and recck committee. Uh presenting on that this evening is our park and recck committee chair, Larry Schultz. Chair Schultz, welcome. How many years is this as chair of the park and rec committee for you? Uh maybe six maybe. >> We appreciate your durability. >> Thank you. >> Pretty soon I'll be in the senior group. Right. >> Right. There's always room for you there too, Larry. >> Well, good evening. Uh several things I want to talk about as an update. Uh first of all uh one of our major uh areas of focus has been on how do we engage the public in our parts and right decision making and to that end uh staff put together a policy for us to review on different levels of engagement for our public which we reviewed passed on to the council and I know that uh you adopted uh that process so that's very helpful. We've actually begun that. We had three engagement events during the year where we used a new popup trailer. Is that what we call that? Okay. And uh we were uh at Huntersbrook uh a new park area and Marsh How and we also did one uh in Lions Park for the trail system. Uh I was uh pleasantly surprised at the two park locations where we had maybe 60 to 70 people at each one. A lot of those people are new to in those areas are new to Victoria and they had a lot of good ideas of what they'd like to have in the the parks in in that area. And I I think that the value of parks I'm going to give you a couple examples of what I observed uh at those meetings. uh families came uh but a lot of people were meeting each other for the first time being new to the community and uh I remember one family just had a newborn and another one was there and said oh my daughter could babysit if you get older and there was a connection right there and people getting together they had no other reason to get together other than they happen to be in a park uh talking about things they'd like to have uh at that same event uh three uh women uh were there and each of them had moved to Victoria within the last six months at different periods in time hadn't met before uh they were there the whole hour visiting with each other connections in the community new friends they have the welcome to feel part of people going through the same thing coming to our community and us encouraging them to be part of the community by u giving us their input. Uh we also uh put out a survey uh to our residents about the entire community of what they like to see in these parks and uh we received 620 responses which is absolutely amazing from places I've lived before. If you could get that sort of a response that's very helpful for for input. Um we are going to be reviewing the results of that survey at our meeting next Monday night. Our other area focus has been on uh looking at the parks that we do have and part of that was looking at non-traditional parks and uh those are are ones that aren't developed and what are some ideas we could use for that. And we com we reviewed each park and came up with various ideas. Some of them like picnic tables, uh fishing pier, um items like that, uh for uh getting people to go there at picnic tables and things as part of connection to the bike trail. Um one of the other things that we looked at is uh staff put together a list of all the amenities we have in our current parks. You know, what do we have? what are we missing? And we had a good discussion about that. Came up with a list of things that uh we we don't have. And some of the examples, some of the ideas, uh sand volleyball pit, uh obstacle course, uh to name uh just just a few of the items. Disc golf was another one. Biggest one was a water feature of some sort. Seems like there's that came up in our earlier survey this year. It seems like a water feature and trails are the the top two topics that we hear most about. Uh speaking of of trails, uh we had some discussion on that and uh there are that continues to be a a thing in our community that people are interested in. Uh we've uh taken steps to try to better communicate how we're going about trails with the city's uh policy of kind of focusing on new developments and taking advantage of uh new road construction and putting paths in there because we all know that it's not cheap to put in trails as as we found out and >> most people I don't think understand the the cost involved of fixing existing trail gaps. So to the extent that we can avoid um avoid having future trail gaps by taking advantage of our new projects and developments, we're going to be better off overall. So we're u continuing to look that we'll continue to put the list of priorities uh on those trails as well. Uh there's also emphasis this year on on maintaining the trails that we have because it doesn't do any good if we let those go because it becomes more expensive to if we don't take care of the the ones that we already have. Same with uh playground equipment. Uh one of the other things that we did this first half of the year was we focused on the ordinances that affect parks and wreck and reviewed those. Um we've also uh taken a look at a review of the Emerald Ashore management plan uh which is seems to be going well and preserving some of our beautiful trees in our community. Um so those are probably some of the main areas of focus. We also reviewed some of the plats that are coming out as far as trails and parks or um fees in lie of parkland and we pass those recommendations on to the council. I thank you for your ongoing support of our our parks and wreck in our community. Um I I think that a lot of communities would be jealous of having the parks that we do have. Uh, I would say that as you are, as we're growing as a community, as we're adding parks, that when you look at, you know, this next year planning is is done and budgets approved, but as we move forward and you start thinking about 2027 and beyond, uh, I believe with all the new parks we're adding and repairs to, some of the things that we do in our parks, uh, we're going to need some significant investment at some point in time to continue to be uh able to boast our Victoria, the city of lights and parks. So, just keep that in mind. And I think same with probably um there'll probably be extra expenses on operating expenses, too, as we have more parks uh for maintenance and staff time, etc. So, just kind of keep that in mind. I'd like to thank Jenna Smith uh for her outstanding work to keep us organized and on task. So with that, thank you again and I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. >> Thank you, Chair Schultz. We appreciate the good work that you guys are doing. Any questions, comments for Chair Schultz from the council? >> All right, seeing none, keep up the good work. We have one final update this evening and that is from the planning commission and we have vice chair Eric Ree here this evening to share an update from the planning commission. Chair vice chair Re. >> Thank you mayor uh council members staff that have helped out on this. I'm going to go through kind of a high level and then go through some of the details. So what our work is really to do is to provide recommendations to the city council on all plats, preliminary plats, variances, conditional use permits, and those things related to city planning and land use. Um as part of that, we're also looking at uh reviewing ordinances for potential amendments or changes. Uh we're continuing to look globally at the zoning code itself and have made some headway in that. Um, we are reviewing those sections with with recommendations for you to consider. We're also monitoring different things that are related to legislation. So, the missing middle housing legislation, other city related planning, u legislation at the state, uh, and then the comp plan, uh, that's going to be coming up. So, we're starting to think about how these actions, the changes to the zoning code and ordinances are going to play in potentially support those ventures down the line. Uh, and then of course supporting some of the primary projects that are of interest to the council including downtown west and the south growth areas. So, what have we actually done over the past few months? It's been four sketch plats, uh, two preliminary flats, an annexation, one site plan and building material review, uh, three variances, three conditional use permits, two comprehended plan, comprehensive plan amendments, two reasonzoning and plan use developments, uh, as well as two ordinances. We've held six public hearings during that time. And just to give some context for the zoning, we've gone through six of these uh with staff. Um and that is related to updating our zoning ordinances. Um there's about 130 pages and I believe we have three left to get ready um before we present that forward. Um and then you know some of the notable things that we've been doing throughout the community in in the activities that have gone on. So, West Creek Village, the Shores of Marsh Lake second, the Bell Maple Farms, Victoria Gateway, you know, we're just the the city is growing and we are seeing a lot of that come before us over, you know, the past few months. Um, so with that, that's really what we've done. It's awesome to be on this commission and to be working with the staff and looking at how the city is going to be growing into the future and here to answer any questions. >> Very good. Thank you so much, Vice Chair Ree. We appreciate the good work that you do. Heavy lifting, lots of you guys are digging into the details for us and we so appreciate that work that you do. Um, council questions, comments for vice chair ring this evening. >> I'll just throw a quick plug for you guys. Like a couple of the members of the council have sat in your chairs in prior service to the city. So, um, can't say thanks enough and just the valuable service that you bring, like the mayor said, digging through the details, doing the heavy lifting so that by the time it reaches council for determination where we go, we I personally take a lot of pride in knowing that you guys kept council's back on this and have have done the yman's work that it takes for us to make decisions off of good So, thank you. So, on behalf of the commission, I appreciate that and hearing that and and again, I would pass it back to the staff. Staff is awesome. >> We do have awesome staff >> for us the information in a digestible way. So, it's a team effort for sure. >> Great. >> I appreciate that. >> Very good. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Thanks, Eric. >> All right. >> I have a question. >> We are taking questions. If you guys want to carry >> people ask questions the other two speakers >> that that's for council discussion. >> It's for council discussion. >> So >> not getting away with this. >> There's no more discussion on this item this evening. So we're going to we aren't taking any action. So we're moving on. And the next item is 6.4 which is an update on system statements from the Metropolitan Council. Um, joining us this evening we have our Metropolitan Council sector representative I'm sorry our Metro Council Metropolitan Council member Deb Barber who's acting chair of the Met Council currently and McKenzie Young Phillips >> Walters >> Young Walters I'm sorry. >> Um, thank you. So while you guys get settled we're going to have um the staff kick us off on this this evening. Mr. McCann, is that you? >> Sure, Mayor. Oh, >> would be me. Um, yes. So, we have recently received the system statement updates from the Metropolitan Council as we start looking towards our 2050 comprehensive plan cycle. Um, and I will pass it over to Deb and Mackenzie to cover the important details. >> Miss Barber, please. >> Perfect. Thank you and thank you so much for having me here tonight. Um, I have uh been on Metropolitan Council for a little while now. I was first appointed by Governor Dayton in 2015 and then reappointed twice by Governor Walls. And as the mayor mentioned um I was recently um uh put into position of interim chair um about a month now. So um I still obviously we have great people here to help with district 4 and you guys will always have my fondness for sure and uh any questions you can always reach out. Um, District 4 itself is most of Scott and Carver County. It's all of the cities within those jurisdictions except for the cities of Chanhasson and Savage. So, all told, it's 38 communities. It's two counties, 16 cities, and 20 townships. It's a very big geographic district. And that's why one of the ways council is divided up. There are 16 geographic representatives um who are appointed by the governor and then there's a chair that serves at large. And it's those groups that work um and come out and try and connect with our local communities, bring information back, connect you with the right resources and all of that. Um just want to do a quick little >> There might be a switch on the side to turn it on. >> Got to be smarter than the remote. All right. Um so a little history about what we are. Uh so the council was established by the Minnesota legislature in uh 1967 and to quote it was in response to rapid and fragmented development. State legislators created the council to coordinate the orderly and economic development of the seven county metropolitan region region. As they uh talked about it they were talking about really looking finding a way to balance regional and local interests. When I look at it they were looking at things that cross boundaries. So if you look at our wastewater system or some of our transportation systems, obviously there are local decisions, we think that's very important, but there are some things that we do better when we look at it and step back and look at it as a whole region. With that, we have roles in planning and roles in operations. Our primary things are as we manage the regional wastewater system. We operate Metro Transit's bus and rail system. We issue rental assistance. That's one of the things we are the H for Carver County. uh and that's a big role for um that we help um to uh support local governments by taking on that role. We draft long-range plans including the regional policy which is part of what we're here to talk about today and we also help with maintaining the regional park system. We have planning and three uh regional systems which is wastewater, transportation and parks. So, as we go through the planning cycle, when we do our overall 10-year plan, we do system plans for each of those. So, when you're looking at your comp plan amendments and you're looking if something complies or is consistent, it's are they consistent with all these other plans and that's how those things tie together. We work in the development of housing, land use, and climate policy to help guide development. Um there are many things like for example if you look at climate it wasn't part of comprehensive planning previously but the legislature has included it. So our job is to make and provide tools so to make it easier for local governments to be able to do that kind of work and McKenzie will talk a little bit more about that. uh we serve and or we create a regional development guide every 10 years that is by state statute and uh we serve as the metropolitan planning organization which is basically from the federal government when they look at how transportation and transit funding they're looking at the MO and that's one of the roles that we serve. Key role with that is the regional solicitation which is transportation funding allocation from the federal government. We've had some conversations about that out here. were able to get some money to the area. But um that is a key role because that money comes in to what's called the transportation advisory board and then that is a 34 board member a bunch of mix of elected and appointed officials that look how are you going to distribute that money and one of the things that we look at are these policy plans but we always look at geography to make sure there's some balance with it and then we also like you said provide transit and race water services. Our role in uh overall planning is this 10-year cycle. So if you look up at the at number one, everything kicks off with the census. So as we know, we have census every 10 years. That translates over to the regional development guide. Many of you probably have heard of Thrive 2040. That is what you built the comprehensive plan that you were working under under Thrive 2040. The new version of that that we're working on it or just that we approved actually was the imagine 2050. And that's what we're here to talk about today. Talk about some of the differences, some of the changes, even some of the new tools because with when we released the regional development guide, we also released at the same time all the system plans. It's kind of nice everything came together um all at one time. everybody sort of knows what the what the playing field is, what the kind of vision for the region is. But the next step is piece that we're going to get in into a little more detail is the system statements. So the next thing is that will feed into your comprehensive planning cycle. How all that works and the way that I like to think about it is uh people ask how do we plan, how we build, what do we do when we're looking at the regional wastewater system or the transit system. We actually look at your comprehensive plans and figure out where we build. So where should we plan, where should we invest, where should we go first? Uh it's very very efficient. Like take example for our wastewater system is one of the most efficient in the entire country because we do it that way. And what's the end benefit is that we have very low wastewater rates. So there are a number of things that work very well. I will never say everything's perfect. I've done this too long and know better than that. But there can be a big asset to our region because we look at planning uh in this way. And I'm going to turn it over to McKenzie uh to kind of dive a little more deeply into uh the next steps with local planning. >> Very good. Welcome. Mr. Young Walters, please. >> Thank Thank you very much. So, uh one of the things that tends to generate a lot of discussion as a portion of the regional development guide are the regional forecast. That's something that we do. It's a big part of the tenure update and it tends to be what communities end up basing a lot of their land use planning on. Um, essentially the council looks at the census data and then we have a model that projects where we expect growth to occur in the region and how much growth will occur. We do, as we mentioned, it's an iterative process. So part of that is looking at your community's land use plan, where you've assigned different lands and then areas that communities have available to grow. Um, this is not just us coming up with numbers. There are a lot of conversations. We produced uh draft forecasts, which I think you all saw late last year, early this year. We work with city staff to adjust those if there's local factors we aren't aware of. And we also do adjust them continually. Whenever you amend the comprehensive plan to upguide or downguide a land use, we look and see whether or not that would necessitate a forecast change on our part. So, it's a continually evolving feedback loop to try to get it as close as possible. Um, Victoria's long range forecast looking out to the 2050 period um is continued rapid growth. Between 2030 and 2050, about an extra six another 6,700 people are projected to be added to the city. Um, a lot of the numbers come down to we look at observed trends. We see a lot of development happening in Victoria. We see a lot of open land available in Victoria and that leads to a pretty high growth projection for the area. Um, based on the population forecasts, we then look at the amount of affordable housing that is projected to be needed in the region and based on relative growth as well as some other factors like uh naturally occurring affordable housing. We assign each community an allocated share of the region's affordable housing that we ask them to provide land at high enough density to allow the construction of those units potentially in the future. Um, as mentioned, we are a wastewater organization. So, of course, we also forecast out the sewer population so that we can make sure we're appropriately sizing our system. Um, speaking on the wastewater system, the vast maj well vast majority of Victoria is within the municipal urban services area. The only portion that isn't is the Carver Park Reserve where obviously we're not planning on seeing a lot of residential or commercial development. Um, you will also notice that the area of uh Lake Township that is under the city's orderly annexation agreement is also part of the I know it says 2040 Musa there. My apologies. should be 2050 Musa, but that's areas where we expect that in the next several decades based on the 2040 comprehensive plan that uh Victoria would potentially be expanding and engaging in residential sewer development. Um, one of the other things the regional development guide does is it groups communities with similar characteristics into community designations and based on these community designations, different regional policies come into play. Uh, Victoria is almost entirely a suburban edge community. Again, there is the Carver Park Reserve which is diversified rural. Again, reflecting the fact that that's not an area where development is anticipated to occur. Um, probably the most important density uh most important policy that affects the community designation is the council's density policy. Um, when we first began talking about imagine 2050, um, suburban edge communities were proposed to be uh have a required net residential density of four units an acre. based on the feedback the council received from communities throughout the region including Victoria um that was re-evaluated and the metropolitan council voted to uh change sorry change that to 3.5 units per acre. So we did listen very seriously to the concerns that were raised and we adjusted uh density policy to try to reflect and address those concerns. Um, I should mention that when we talk about the um future net residential density, this doesn't mean that every development in Victoria is expected to be 3.5 units per acre. It's that the balance of all the developments, the high density developments in the town center, the conservation residential that might go on in sensitive ecological areas are expected to average out each decade to be that 3.5. Um to provide a little bit of context, I pulled the uh plat data for the city for the last 10 years and your average platted density over that period was around 4.3 units an acre. So you're already approving stuff, you know, well in excess of this just to provide a little framework for those numbers. Um that being said, uh we did all of these numbers and things are detailed in the system statements that you received. The system statements are the individualized report for the city of Victoria. They contain the forecast, the community designation as well as a highle discussion of the regional policies from that regional development guide that intersect with the city. Um, and we are required by the state statute to submit these to the cities. Um, in three months when they become fully final, that starts the three-year clock for the comprehensive plan update. So the 2050 comp plan um you all know a lot about it. Um the comp plan is the highlevel visioning document for the community and a high level policy document. Um it's designed to provide a framework to help guide decision-makings as well as create expectations for the community to signal where and how it plans to grow into the future. Um, as your uh, planning commission vice chair mentioned, your zoning ordinance and subdivision ordinances all are required to be consistent with the comprehensive plan. So, there's always a lot of work reconciling those two every time you have a comprehensive plan update. um in order to assist communities in navigating the comprehensive planning process because we do recognize it's very difficult to be experts at something that you only have to do once every 10 years. We have a local planning handbook that's uh basically a one-stop shop for comprehensive planning. It has an individualized checklist of minimum requirements for communities where we've went through the system statements, went through the regional development guide, and highlighted every policy that can apply to the city and let staff know um your staff know exactly what they need to do to meet those requirements. Um, philosophically, we've tried very hard to pair every policy requirement with a resource so that it's very clear um, what we're asking for and how it can be done. Um, whenever we have the data available, we want to provide it to you. We don't want you to have to work and expend resources creating data that we already have or that we can assemble. And we'll talk about some of that as we move on. Um there's also a lot of other supplemental resources just to increase um general background knowledge and help folks understand the why behind some of the requirements. Um with regards to the water resources, um this year we have a detailed how-to guide for completing the uh water section of the plan that's necessitated because the water section um touches many different agencies. the surface water management plan will need to um be done in coordination with the local wersheds and water management organizations, groundwater appropriations with the DNR. And so we really wanted to create a guide and templates to help communities coordinate all of those different moving parts and make it as uh streamlined and painless as possible. Um, transportation has created specific resources for all of their sub elements. Um, especially the new bike and pedestrian stuff that, uh, communities may be a little less familiar with than the things that were present in the last cycle. Um, as well as some resources for communities that are looking to do some of the extra things and do more in-depth planning than is required by the uh, bare minimums of regional policy. Um, one thing we're really excited about is one of the newer new requirements this time around is the natural resources component. Um, recognizing that we did not want to place a burden on communities, what we did was we assembled a GIS map with all of the major natural systems that were present in all of the different communities in the region. Um, how we've set this up is it has exactly what you need to meet the minimum requirement. Now, we understand a lot of communities will have information that goes well beyond ours. You can download the shape file. You can add um your own database. You can add information that shows features that, you know, our highle data doesn't have. But what you're looking at right there is actually city of Victoria's basic natural resources map that would read our meet our requirements. And we have a bunch of different tools that can go through. They also explain all the different minimum requirements, how they relate. Um, it's a really useful interactive tool that we think is really going to minimize the uh amount of data collection that's needed from communities and free you up to do the visioning and policym that you're uniquely suited to do. Um, similarly, we did receive a lot of concerns about the new greenhouse gas reduction criteria. Um, communities were very concerned about how they would generate the data that's required under state statute. Um for every community we have broken down the missions for every one of the statutory required sectors. Um and you can see Victoria's are up here. And then we also created a tool where you can go in and so I pulled up residential and we have a bunch of different strategies that you can play around with. So one might be um more energy efficient housing um electrification of existing houses. I can't remember all of them, but we have many different strategies and you can pick on a slider, you know, what percentage you'd like to shoot for when you'd like to implement it. And then that graph on there actually shoots out the impact that would have on the community's greenhouse gas um emissions over the planning period. Again, the idea was that the community should not be responsible for creating this database, for creating, you know, that type of in-depth analysis that you probably don't have the in-house technical expertise to do. But you should be free to figure out what strategies work best for you and identify the ones that you want to implement and the extent that you want to implement. Again, the ideas, the communities are the best suited for the visioning and policy in these regards. So, we're providing the data and giving you free reign with it. Um, this can also be downloaded and modified. If you do have internal data that's better than ours, we strongly encourage you to use that. But again, we've provided the baseline. Um similarly because we know that a bunch of different communities um are have different levels of resources when it comes to climate adaptations, we have a climate action toolkit we've created. Um something we're really proud of is we've we're trying to link the different actions that are potential actions to the different types of community designations, whether it's a urban community, a suburban community, or a rural community. Recognizing that an action that makes a lot of sense in Minneapolis might not work as well in Carver County. And so we really want to equip staff and city councils to look through these identify actions that they say, "Yeah, this could really work here." And pick those and move them or modify them as they need. Um we're also flagging the amount of uh effort we believe. So it's easier for council to say, "Oh, this is a lowhanging fruit." Or, "Oh, this would actually require a lot more sustained effort on our part." And so we're really going to be building this out. Um these will be coming online throughout the coming year and we'll be communicating with your staff as these resources are fully fleshed out. Um the last thing I wanted to touch on is Planet. This is something we did last year. It's a very large archive of trainings, resources. It's also workshops and conferences we hold uh to provide that direct technical assistance to help you and your staff navigate the comprehensive planning process. Um, and that concludes my prepared remarks. >> Very good. Thank you so much. Miss Barbara, you have something to add? >> I do. Thank you so much. Um, uh, I fully, um, like we've gotten a chance to play with some of these online tools and they are amazing. And I think when I came on in 2015, that was the last round of comprehensive planning 20 and that local planning handbook and the online tools that provided was like a game changer as I was going out and talking to communities. Uh even now you can go out and there's community profile pages. You can look at your community, local communities, neighbors, all of that, which I think one thing we're really really good at is data and maps and information and tools. And we're trying it, especially with the improvements in technology to make this easier for all the communities. I think McKenzie said it well is to allow when you look at imagine 2050, it was council's vision and and kind of our our run at what we thought the regional regional plan should look like. This should free you guys up to be able to do that on a local basis, which I think is, you know, really really a great opportunity to figure out what do you want the community to be as you grow and expand. I I don't see you not growing in the near future. So, I think it's really important to do that. But it's a great opportunity use the our resources and tools for the data part you know and focus on the vision of what you want to be. Um as I mentioned uh because I am serving as interim chair even though I've been district rep uh for rep for a long time. I want to introduce both of you talked to Mackenzie but we've also got Michael Sund here. He is our community relations person. So, if you can't get hold of me over the next little while, these two will take good care of you. And I know they will because they are always the ones who provide all the information for me. And uh so I definitely know that we sent out notes to everybody. So hopefully you all got it and have their contact info. So they also know where to find me. So if we need to elevate something, you know where where I'm at. But I just wanted to take a minute and just say again, thank you for having us out. we're more than happy to come out even as you're doing the comprehensive planning process and all of that. With that, I just say, do you have any questions for us? >> Um, I want to say thank you for these planning tools. This is a big lift for us here in Victoria. We're a small staff and and we're already pretty pretty uh strapped for time. So, any tools and assistance along the way is much appreciated. Um, council questions or comments for this group from the Metropolitan Council. All right, seeing none, there was nothing to uh decide on that. This wasformational only. So, thank you so much for your time. Thank you for joining us this evening. >> Thank you all. >> All right. Uh the final item on our regular agenda this evening evening is item 6.5 which is regarding the proposed R1A Oldtown Residential Zoning District. Before I turn this over to the staff to present this item, I want to take a moment to acknowledge that the city is in receipt of the updated petition and we'll make sure that that updated petition is scanned into our records. Um, and I also want our community to know that the city council has had an opportunity to review the petition and the public comments related to the proposed new zoning district, included listening to the comments made during the public hearing at the planning commission. We've reviewed emails received from community members as well. We will not be taking action additional public comments on this topic at this time. This is council's time to discuss. However, I'll ask that our staff retain the the petition as part of the record which we have and um it will be included in the agenda packet which will be found in the binder um which will be included in the public records online. looking to city administrator to make sure that that's all accurate. All right. Um, so we've we've received a lot of these questions and comments that we've seen circulating. Um, many of them will be addressed this evening in the in the presentation. So, with that, I want to turn this over to our associate planner, Travis Brierly. Mr. Brierly, the floor is yours. >> Thank you, Madame Mayor and Councel. Uh, tonight we are looking at R1A zoning district zoning district. Quick background on it. Uh we've titled it Oldtown Residential. Uh it's an alternate solution to a a zoning amendment that was submitted earlier this year to which would affected all of our R1 or all of our single family zoning. Uh we did hold a public hearing on October 7th, which was last week at the planning commission meeting. A postcard notice was sent out uh with uh to all the residents affected by the R1A zoning as well as all properties within 350 ft and was also published in the paper all in accordance with statute. Uh because this applica or because this proposed zoning is not being done by an application by a resident, uh there's no 60-day rule. This is council direction to see if it see if it would work. Just quickly touching on what an R1A zoning district would be. Uh R1A is you take your R1 and basically all you're doing is you're going to modify it slightly or deviate from it a little bit to meet specific goals and specific purposes. The intent is not to create a brand new zoning district that is wildly different from our current lowdensity zoning districts. Um deviations typically are for the types of housing setbacks, dimensional standards, performance standards, and that's all done with inside a limited scope. The goals of the R1A district is to focus on infill redevelopment. This is generally going to be one or two properties at a time and it's market driven. We're looking at the principal structure being the focus of the property so we don't have large accessory structures that are attached detracting from a single family home and establishing reasonable design standards um such as making sure it's compatible with the existing homes in the neighborhood. Um, the other thing that the zoning looks to do is mitigate any adverse effects of redevelopment on the existing property, keeping with a similar character to the neighborhood as it is today. We didn't during the public hearing, we had 11 uh persons who presented comments. Uh, prior to that, we had six email comments that were sent to city staff as well as a number of um post-public hearing emails which have come in the last week. A petition was brought to the zoning or excuse me to the planning commission meeting which staff had accepted um in addition to the one that was submitted tonight. Uh concerns that were raised were uh the effect on reduced lot dimensions, duplexes and twin homes, multifamily which is three or more units for residential properties, properties becoming rentals, historical character and charm, and the effect on property values and taxes. to touch on those real quickly. Multifamily is not a proposed permitted use. Um in addition to that, uh properties are allowed to be any property owner can currently right now put their property up as a rental property within the R1 zoning. Um the design standards are to protect the historical character so nothing gets built that would could be seemed out of place and the effect on the property values and taxes. Um I did reach out to the uh county residential assessor and have that discussion and uh she feels there wouldn't be any direct effect if it was just a parcel here and there throughout affecting the values of different properties. Uh like I said, multifamilies prohibit or the prohibited housing includes the multif family. So that's your traditional type of apartments, triplexes and bigger trailer homes and trailer parks, RV parks, tiny homes, row houses, which are single family homes that are all in a row. If you think of like San Francisco or or uh Brooklyn, you got a bunch of homes in a row. They're all individual homes. They could share a wall, they could not, but they're all in a row. And then town homes as well, which is a single structure compa containing multiple uh residential units. >> Mr. Brierley, back on this slide here, this is prohibited housing. So you could have a duplex, so two units, but no more than that. >> Correct. >> In this zoning. >> That's correct, Madam Mayor. >> Thank you. >> One of the things that we look at as we go through the proposed zoning is we have to look back into our comprehensive plan. Our comprehensive plan is the highlevel policy document which guides any type of zoning decisions uh that we would make with our zoning code. The zoning code as well as the comprehensive plan need to be in alignment with each other as far as what would be permitted and what wouldn't be permitted and things in that. This is still a low density residential district where we're looking at the average density range between 2 and a/4 and six units an acre. Now, the document also or our comp plan also says that that'd be single family homes, duplexes, as well as twin homes would be the type of housing we would want to see in our lowdensity districts. When we were looking at the area of where the R1A would be, when we were looking at the feasibility of it, we took a look at the older part of the community. This is south of Highway 5 going down to Lions Park and then east and west off Victoria Drive. Um, and the type of subdivisions that you see up here, the dates are the dates of when the subdivision was approved by the city. So, they go all the way back to 1914, as recently as the mid to late '7s is the area that we're uh this zoning would target. To simplify that, all the blue on the screen are the residential properties that are being proposed for the R1A. Like I said, it stretches down Alliance Park and to um Highway 5, so it does not come into our downtown area. Um those would be two separate zoning districts. We look primarily at the bulk standards of what could change. Right now, our current single family or R1 requires a 12,000 square f foot minimum lot size that's 80 ft wide and 130 ft deep with setbacks of 30 ft for the front and rear yard as well as a 10-ft setback for the sideyard. In the proposed R1A, we'd be looking at going from 12,000 ft² minimum to 9100 ft² minimum for a single family property. Based on that, you're looking at a density change going from 3.6 units and acres to about 4.8. Both are within our comp plan ranges. The other thing that staff looked at was as far as redevelopment would go is lot width and looking at sighteline distances and trying to maintain the character with the proposed R1A having a variety of lot widths and lot depths is proposed to be 75 ft on corner properties and 65 ft for the interior properties as well as reducing the minimum depth of a property from 130 to 110 ft as well as reducing the front and rear setbacks from 30 ft to 5 ft. One thing that wouldn't be changed would be the minimum sideyard setbacks of 10 ft. So you still have appropriate separation within our lowdensity districts that we currently see and that we see in other areas of the city as those redevelop. The two items that we did add were twin homes, which would average out to be about three units an acre. Um, and what a twin home is is it's two single family homes with a shared wall. They're on two separate parcels themselves. And then duplexes would be two residential units on a single property and that would have a density of about six units an acre would be there. So if properties get larger that density goes down. Staff did take a look at the neighborhood or at the proposed area and did lot sizes and took a description. There is a map that was printed out and handed out to the city council night for your reference as well. Uh what we're looking at here is the proposed area is split by the shoreland district. Through the center of the screen, you'll notice that there is a blue line. That's where the shoreland district ends. From that line going west is underneath the shoreland and has specific overlay regulations. We'll notice that the properties on here. There's some black parcels, there's some red parcels. Um and then there's some yellow and some green. The yellow or the black and the red parcels would continue to be legal non-conforming. um even with the smaller lot sizes that are being proposed. We're looking at the yellow parcels would become conforming with the proposed uh regulations at least on lots or minimum square footage and then the green and blue parcels are the parcels that are currently conforming at least to the minimum standard of square footage of the property. Um, I would like to note that uh when we talk about duplexes, uh, duplexes could be in the blue, but unfortunately to the west part of the shoreland, there'd only be one property that'd be large enough to be able to do that because the shoreland requires higher numbers such as 26,000 ft to allow for duplexes. Um, there would be one property that would meet the dimensional standards currently that could do twin homes. And then the other properties that you see that are in red, those properties could be subdivided into two single family homes. And then within the district on the southern yellow highlighted parcel, uh that is currently a duplex. And then we have a 12-unit apartment building on the north side. When we look at the principal uses that we want to lay out, these are the same as the R1 except for the addition of twin homes and duplexes. So single family homes still can be constructed, they can be reconstructed and we can continue on with the type of housing that we have in the area. We also look at residential group homes uh which is underneath a statute requirement uh municipal facilities and city parks uh places of worship as well as utility services. When we look at the current standards of the R1 versus the R1A, when we look at permitted housing, again, single families permitted currently and with the R1A, that would be expanded to be single family, twin homes and duplexes. Lot size and dimensions are only would be reduced slightly to accommodate a slightly higher density as well as allow for smaller parcels to be redeveloped as homes age um and as the community continues to develop over the next 5 to 20 years. One of the things that the R1A does propose that the R1 does not is the housing scale, size, proportions, and character that fall underneath their design standards. With that, if a property in the current proposed R18 district wanted to uh demolish a single family home and rebuild it, the size restrictions would be limited to height and impervious cover in and could be out of place to the neighborhood. So you could have smaller homes and then take down one of those homes and rebuild a threetory 35- ft home right next to um a Rambler or onele uh home with a basement which would defeat the purpose of keeping the character in staff's opinions. We also took a look at setbacks. Uh right now the current setbacks for the front and the rear 30 ft and the proposal is to do it down to 25. And the main reason for that is to allow for the smaller parcels to have better redevelopment opportunities and to get a little bit more flexibility. It's not a significant amount, but it can make the difference between um putting in a three-bedroom home versus a two-bedroom home. When we look at design standards, um all the design standards are written to support and encourage redevelopment while maintaining that character. every standard we look at is trying to stay with the type of housing that we have currently in the proposed R1A and not create something that would be really modern or really out of place or anything of of that type of nature. So some of the couple of the standards that go in there is the relationship to adjacent buildings. We would encourage uh anybody who redevelops a property to stay adjacent with the the front yard setback as well as rear yard setbacks if possible. uh within the proposed zoning district, we have front yard setbacks of anywhere between homes being at 20T as well as them being back to 40 feet and so on. Um so we'd want to kind of keep that balance so when you do look down the road, it looks like a neighborhood. It feels like a neighborhood. It doesn't feel like things are out of place. Um we also would want to make sure that primary entrances uh face the street. Um the homes that are within the proposed R1A currently do face the street. A lot of homes that have detached garages have separate entrances on the side of the home between uh that faces the detached garage as well as the front door. But we want to make sure that if that's the case for redevelopment, we want to continue that type of design. The um the other thing we look at is a 15% windows facing the street. The intention behind that is so that you don't have just a blank wall facing the street. we can keep with that traditional design where you have a larger window near your your family room which traditionally can be towards the front of the house or near the entrance. Uh building materials and architectural architectural design that again goes back to looking at when the design of the building comes forward that it's similar to what's in the neighborhood. There's still some creativity that could be done, but that'd be very limited in scope. We just don't want to infringe on anybody's uh right of free speech or anything like that, but we still want to keep that character. Um, and the other thing I talked about was the sitting of the principal structure. That goes to where that setback is as well as lining things up. When we look at the bulk standards for our accessory uses, the accessory uses are the same as the R1 uh that's currently in place. uh staff didn't make any changes to the setbacks as well as the size or any of those performance standards. Um when we do look at accessory structures, there is limited to of attached and detached. So an attached garage or a detached garage in a shed or what have you, you're limited to two. The other thing that we want to do is is keep the focus on the home itself. So with that, the footprint of your accessory structures, whether attached or detached, can't be greater than the footprint of the principal structure, the home. Keeping that focus there while also limiting it up to the 900 square ft um which was proposed by the planning commission, which would be in line with our permitted detached accessory structure size currently in our R1. The other thing that we want to do is make sure that the the height of a an accessory structure isn't greater than the principal structure. And that goes back to the focus being on the single family home um and not on um having an oversized garage next to a property where the garage is what catches your eye instead of the the beautiful home. There are conditional use uh that are proposed. One is accessory dwellings. Accessory dwellings is what you can think of as kind of like your mother-in-law suite or if you have multi-generational families, a separate living area that's either attached or detached from the home. Um, uh, they do count towards your total impervious as well as your accessory structure footprint if they're detached and must meet those setback requirements. Um, in addition, off- streetet parking would need to be would be required. If you want to do an ADU that way, we don't have multiple vehicles on the street. There is an off- streetet parking spot form. Uh, daycare facilities as well would be a conditional use permit. Uh, the main purpose behind this is that employees are not parking on the street taking up space from other residents. uh being able to enjoy that type of parking as well as making sure that play equipment um is constructed behind the home not to detract from the the curb appeal of the home and make sure that none of that type of stuff is placed within an easement which could cause uh issues in the future. Um, as we st as we stated in the beginning, there's some quite there's a lot of comments that were brought forward to uh the planning commission as well as an emails and from there. And I just kind of want to run over a couple of the ideas and some of the the information that that might have been misstated out into the community. Uh, the first thing is if there's going to be section 8, there's no section 8 planned, nor is there any section 8 proposed within any part of Victoria, especially within the R1A district. Another concern that was brought forward is uh trailer homes. Trailer homes are not proposed to be permitted, nor were they um ever something that staff was going to bring forward to the planning commission, the city council requesting for a permitted. We currently don't have a zoning district which would allow a mobile home and there's no intention by staff to to bring any proposal similar to that forward. Uh another concern was uh losing property. Um part of this uh I believe was back to defining what a setback is. Setback is the distance between your property line and where you can place a structure. It doesn't actually adjust your property line. It just says what that distance is. And I think there was some confusion of what that term means and how it would affect. It would actually allow you to use more or put structures closer to your front and rear property lines compared to the current regulations. And that's only a difference of 5 ft. Uh twin homes and duplexes the only permitted uses was another uh comment that uh staff had become aware of. Uh, no. Single family homes are definitely permitted. It's something that can be rebuilt and part of the in or part of redevelopment. Any single family homes that currently exist that wanted to convert to a duplex would be able to do so if they met the reg or the performance standards for it, which in this case there's a limited scope to where those properties could be. Um, as far as redevelopment to twin homes and multif family, there's a cost benefit ratio that needs to be made by anybody or by a developer. If they came in to even devel redevelop one property, the cost benefit ratio is is pretty there's a thin margin there. So, it's unlikely that a developer would come in and remove a single family home to build a duplex uh on most of the properties, especially not twin homes. Uh, the other question that came up is could multif family apartments be built? No, try three units or greater would not be permitted. Um, there were comments made at the public hearing regarding apartment buildings within our downtown area. Any type of building even close to that wouldn't even be permitted. So, two units is all you could have on a property. So, you could do a single family home, you could add an ADU, you could do um a twin home, or you could do a duplex. So, those are our minimum standards, but apartments, no additional apartments would be be allowed. there is the 12 unit that currently exists that's a legal non-conforming property and will continue to be able to stay within that classification and operate as they have. Um other thing is the ordinance will it protect the character of the neighborhood? Absolutely. The design standards are set in place specifically to stop having large homes being built in a neighborhood where it would be different. It would be something that would be out of place. A lot of the homes in the area are are one story. Uh there are a couple twostory homes. Depending on where you are within the zoning, we wouldn't want to see someone come and redevelop their property into a three-story McMansion sitting next to somebody who's been able to enjoy their property with a home similar to the size of their home and yards and everything else. We don't want anything to overpower it as well as with the design. So, the primary focus on that is looking at similar scale, similar size, similar proportions, and a similar character to the to the neighborhood. Like I said, the biggest thing is focus on the home and try to keep the homes to line up with what what is currently existing, but still allow that flexibility and redevelopment. Um, rental properties, there are comment about not wanting rental properties. The city doesn't currently restrict rental properties in any of our zoning. And in the R1 zoning that currently exists throughout the community, if a homeowner wanted to rent their property, again, they would have that ability to do so uh without uh any uh real city interference. Um, with that, mayor and council, I stand for any questions. >> Very good. Thank you, Mr. Riley. Council, questions, comments? >> I just wanted to clarify a question on a twin home. This is two separate parcels where the two units would be joined together. This basically sitting on the property line of the two parcels. >> Council member, that is correct. So today, if somebody to construct a twin home, they would even need to take an existing parcel of sufficient size, cut it in half, divide it, resubdivide it, and then put a twin home on that property line. Correct. >> Correct. That would be one of the methods. >> Or there would be two smaller parcels that would need one would need to be purchased, the other one would need to be purchased to then create a twin home. Correct, >> council member. That is correct. >> Okay. Thank you for clarifying that for me. >> Very good. Anything else? Council member? >> No, right now. Thank you. >> Uh, council, any other questions? >> Um, I have a few questions. Um, from the planning commission meeting, we determined that there are no plots that would allow a townhouse, correct? Or a town home of three or more. Correct. >> Uh, council member, uh, town homes as well as any three or more unit building. So, triplexes or greater um are would be prohibited to be constructed within the proposed R1A. >> And then the information that was put together during that meeting was that there were no parcels that could support a twin home. That's not necessarily true. if you were to buy two properties, demolish the homes, and then build your twin home on the property line as um Councilman Ivansky just said, >> Council Member, that's correct. Uh I would like to point out that uh we did have a resident reach out who had us re-examined one parcel. Uh that parcel is in the center of the screen in the the pink/p purple. uh that parcel does meet the dimensional standards where it could be red it could be subdivided into a twin home. Um a lot of that's market driven. Single family homes tend to have a higher margin of profit for developers than twin homes. Um but that would be all based on the market if that would be allowed. >> Okay. Thank you. Um and a duplex can basically go in just about any property. Is that correct? Uh, council member, duplexes would only be able to the properties that'd be able to fit a duplex are listed in the blue. Um, I would like to reiterate that that is a dark blue on the right side of the screen. On the left side of the screen, you'll see that there's one parcel that's highlighted in orange. That would be the only parcel under the shoreland uh regulations which would be permitted to have a duplex. The main reason for that is because the shoreland requires a 26,000 minimum uh square foot size of parcels to build a duplex. >> Thank you. Um, for me the biggest difference between these the R1A and the R1 zoning district is 5 ft from your front and rear setbacks and then a bunch of regulations put into place to stop people from overdeveloping these areas. And then you throw two things in there, duplexes and twin homes, which are not allowed in R1 single family residential areas. Is there any way we can take the duplex and twin home out, redline those two things, and move forward with it? >> Council member, that's an excellent question. That's something that we did look at. Um, and with that, that would create an inconsistency between our low density residential and our zoning code compared to the 2040 comprehensive plan. Um, and we need to make sure that those two items line up with each other. Um, as the the Met Council actually mentioned earlier today, >> if we do nothing, it's still going to line up with the 2040 comprehensive plan. So, I still not totally sure and understand that. So, if we change the zone to R1A, we have to align with something that we're currently not aligned with. >> Council member, that is correct. >> Doesn't make sense to me. Um, I guess those would be my questions for now. Thank you. >> Yeah, Miss Hardy, please. >> If I could just speak to that council member's question for historical probably the only staff person that was in the room when those discussions were had. So to your question about that not being able to reconcile um why we aren't in compiance with our current requirements and that is um because uh way way back when we adopted the plan we had adopted the plan with an R2 district. the R2 district no longer exists. And that R2 district was our tool to get us to um to that um those duplexes like not necessarily just a greater density. Um and so after some review and discussion at the planning commission um council maybe about five years ago um eliminated the R2 district um and we have not had a tool that would allow us through uh straight zoning to get to um that level of density with those two housing types. So, this would be one way that we could do that through straight zoning. >> This affects just a small amount of homes um within the greater Victoria area. And as our um Met Council person said, we're already at 4.0. So, I don't know. I think everything about it, and you guys have worked your tails off on it, obviously. I'd like everything about it as far as retaining the integrity of the area. I still have a problem with the duplex and twin home aspect of it. Anyway, >> well, I mean, to lever off of Council Member Patterson's comments, I'd say that the sideyard setbacks coming down are actually really a benefit to this zoning in that we we now have the give greater flexibility for redevelopment in terms of um the existing footprints right now are going to keep existing homes more or less in the same size that they are because they probably took advantage of the setbacks to the maximum that they were. By allowing a little bit more breathing room in that, I think we're actually increasing the ability of the value of a parcel in Victoria in these spaces because um when these homes reach their periods of functional obsolescence where renovation just doesn't get it, when there needs to be a complete tear down, that's where I think the value ad of this sideyard seback is meaning remaining the same, but the rear and front yards actually being a benefit. benefit of this versus the current structure. And then um you know and then beyond that the ability to um you know keep the accessory structures from you know getting sizable out of hand so that we don't have you know for instance a larger lot where somebody wanted to put it say up a pole bar which would be incompatible there are now design standards to prevent that from happening where there are no design standards today. So, I think that those design standards are probably a net increase to um you know what would otherwise be, you know, a property value question. So, um but I I do share your concerns about the heartburn of the duplexes and the twin homes. Um economically speaking, as Travis points out, uh probably a difficult hurdle to get over. I don't see somebody with a 14,000 square foot lot that has right now a 4,000 foot single level home selling it to a developer and a developer says come on I'm going to knock this down and turn it into a duplex. Certainly the design standards of you know staff reviewing it and saying that would not be compatible within the neighborhood would be the safety valve on that. But um I I think I share concern that we could take this away and figure out a way to um either limit those down to you know a certain percentage or eliminate them all together. the density question that we have. Um, I understand that. I think we we're both viewing that council saying, "Hey, you know, we want you to have them, but we're already there." So, then we can look for other places in the city to keep those density standards um to to bring us in line with that. So I think we can get some middle ground and compatibility and and drive for a solution that addresses our concerns there. >> A question for you. One of the when we talked about this initially um for me the big thing was we didn't want to be caught in this trap where so many other cities were where they were tearing down smaller homes and then just building right to the edges of every lot and it just looked ridiculous within a a neighborhood. So, um I feel like this addresses that concern of mine. But if you think about going down, um County Road 11 and across from the church there are are those considered town homes or twin homes? Talk a little bit about what that housing is and how it might fit in because that is is are those town homes. >> Mayor and council members. Uh >> rescue here. >> Yeah, absolutely. Uh so while Travis pulls up the map here, I know which parcels you're talking about. Those are actually zoned R3. Um once he pulls up the image here, I believe those are three unit buildings. So those would fall under that multifamily category that Travis mentioned earlier. >> Those are the ones right there, I believe. And those would not be allowed on >> correct >> under this >> correct >> in any of those parts. Okay. >> I think the for me the going from R1 to potentially R1A the big benefit um and the lens we're looking through is character and a lot of the public comment we've heard is about character. Let's keep let's be unique and character. Um I think this accomplishes that we see in other communities where they are building and overdeveloping properties. It's happening. It's happening all over. I think we can point a half a dozen areas like that. So this if you want to use the term guards against it, protects it. I think ultimately that'll help the value here the residents. >> All right. >> I guess Roberts >> um I I mean I think I I'm leaning towards what Council Member Ivansky and Person have talked about, right? Like I think there's a lot of good things here, right? Like I mean we're putting in more restrictions, right? We're trying to keep things, you know, we've had people come before us about complaining about, you know, a 30, you know, a huge, you know, garage going up. Um and we that's what we don't want in this area. I also have the same concerns um with the duplexes and and the twin homes. Um, you know, there there are, you know, one of the things we talk about in in here is, right, keeping the character of the neighborhood. And yes, there's going to be regulations, but just in general, does a duplex or a um twin home, is that going to keep the character? Um, but again, like I I I agree like I I want these standards in here to keep, right? Like I mean and I think I've thought about things like you know what can we do to promote other things to promote right like if someone's redeveloping or someone to like instead of you know like it uh renovating house right like you know can we think about you know reducing fees on things if you keep it a certain way right instead of so I I'm very much in favor of the keeping like these regulations and these rules to keep things the way they are. But I I I do have some concerns about the twin homes and the duplexes as well. >> Can you talk a little bit more about your concerns? Are you worried about the size? Are you worried about two families? Are you worried and you know I'm I'm curious, Council Member Patterson, as well, >> you want to go? >> Go ahead. >> One value and perceived value for the current homeowners who live there. Um, you can go to you can get whatever answer you want on the internet. You can say Travis says no, it's not going to affect your property value. You can find out that's a concern for me. That's a concern for the residents in that area. Um, I don't believe a twin home or a duplex really fits within the character of the neighborhood. And I think that's my biggest problem. Um, I know we've got an apartment building that sits there right now. Um and then just off the edge we have um the uh town houses essentially. Um but I don't feel that a twin home or a duplex fits within the character. So we do 95% good to keep the character of the neighborhood as we and everybody wants it with a few new restriction or they're not restrictions but abilities um 5 feet on the yard and a little bit less for impermeable but now we're going to give you two other options to build that really aren't in the area. So that would be again that's my problem. I think 90% of it's good. It's that 10% that I struggle with and I'm I've been struggling with it for three days and I don't know where to go with it. I feel like there's something that we can do um to eliminate it. I understand the comp plan. I understand that we're going through a new comp plan. Um, I'm just wondering how we can make everybody h uh not make everybody happy, but to tweak it so that it makes more people happy. >> I I I don't mind the town home and the twin home thing because I think it introduces a a housing product that we don't currently have in this part of town. And I feel like there are there is enough about design standards that would make it feel like they belong like it they belong there. They're not out of place. They're not they don't look like they moved in. Um so I you know I >> that's a good point. >> Madame Mayor. >> Yeah. >> Uh could I >> Mr. Riley, please? >> Could I clarify uh your last comment? You said town homes. Did you mean duplexes and twin homes? >> Yes. >> Yes, I did. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for that clarification. >> Can you remind us on which is the property right that kind of started right like that they we denied their request for the overall arching zoning and what can you point that out? >> Absolutely council member. So on the screen right in the center is where the mouse is. Um the parcel that's highlighted in red and blue was the parcel that kind of started us going down this this path to look for alternative options. Um with that being said, one of the proposals that the property owner would like to do, want to take down the home, which they've done, preserve what healthy trees they can, which they've done, and subdivide the property into two parcels to build two single family homes. Unfortunately, the parcel square footage is not large enough to be able to do the the two um single family homes on the subdivision. So, that get denied. Um speaking with the property owner as well as a representative of the property, looking at alternative options, we did look at variances. A variance couldn't be granted for this property because there's no plight of the land owner. There's no practical difficulties because the property is asis and it was a single family and they could still build a single family home on it. Um we looked at different options uh going to okay is there conditional use permit process or PUD process. Fortunately none of those processes would work uh for this property mainly because conditional use permits only allow for reasonable conditions which don't allow you to change property dimensionals or performance standards. And then with the PUD for a single parcel, um though it's underneath the 10 acre minimum, the the PUD process would allow if it provides a benefit to the community and unfortunately this doesn't provide a significant benefit to the community to put two homes there instead of one. So the only option that they had at the time was a zoning text amendment, which we'd gone through the public hearing and brought it to the city council where we subsequently denied. Um and then at the direction of the city council, uh we had gone forward and looked at an alternative solution, which is the what's being proposed here tonight. If the property owner chose to under the current conditions, if if the R1A didn't pass, they would be uh flexible to build um a large or a home basically up to 35% impervious cover and they'd be able to build it up to 35 ft in height. um and they could build a significant size home in there that would be similar to what we see in the LAR and the Robert Thomas and the MI developments could go on that parcel. Um the whole idea behind the R1A is to allow some flexibility with the lot sizes to prevent that type of thing from happening in the future and keeping that that character that the neighborhoods had for 40, 60, 80, 100 years. Um and just kind of keeping that tradition alive. >> Yeah. So doing nothing in my mind is opens us up for a bigger risk of having something land downtown area that or in that older Victoria area that we don't want. And then again, you've got people who will go in and buy up the older homes and build big homes that are out of character. So that's the that's the that's the concern that I have if we don't adopt a different kind of a zoning for for the for this area. >> Mayor, I I think we're aligned with that. As Travis points out, the what the the economics would probably in that parcel drive a large single home there. uh in in in fitting with the character of this neighborhood, that would be exactly what we're trying to prevent from happening this evening. And then I I I think that it's fair to say that um having two homes and two families in in a smaller package would be consistent with the character of the neighborhood as it is. They just need a little bit of maneuvering room as as what I pointed out earlier. Will allow to get something that could get done. Um, and it allows for development opportunity to increase the value of those homes around it because there's newer homes in stock. So, um, I guess to our question about what could we do? We could reject this, ask staff to come back and address the duplex issue for us. Maybe perhaps an approach would be that we limit the percentage in this district to a smaller amount. um or we have to then you know face the issue of u you know the comp plan difficulties that we're going to have by not adding this in that space. So >> I think this property opened up our or opened our eyes to a gap within our zoning for this district. So, um, while part of it is dealing with this area, it said, "Hey, the door, the back door is wide open. You can build anything you want on these properties, and there's not a darn thing you can do about it. Our response is to come up with this R1A. I just don't love two things on it." All right, we're a little bit stuck here. Um, can we go back to to our chart that um >> that's right >> back to the chart that shows the There we go. This one. Thank you. Let me ask this question of staff. In your research, as you were researching this, did you find something comparable to what you've proposed that didn't have duplex, twin homes? Uh, mayor, the the reason that the duplexes and the twin homes are in there, is because the 2040 comp plan, which is our guiding policy document, uh, basically says that it requires duplexes and twin homes to be with inside our lowdensity residential districts. And the R1 is our low density district and R1A is still a low density district with more specific conditions to it. uh staff did reach out to my council and ask the question as well and we have to have consistency between the comp plan and our zoning ordinances. Um so unfortunately in in staff's opinion uh the it's part of the deal. It's part of the it's got to be a package deal for the R1A. >> Okay. So we have a rock which is R1 and a hard place which is R1A >> and that's where we are. So, um, and you know, I understand that some members of council have some heartburn about the twin homes and the duplexes, but I to me this is a this is a great way to add a housing option that has a lot of restrictions wrapped around it. >> To to council member's point, like can you put rest like could you put additional restrictions like in this area, right? What is going to be R1A? like you can only have two do like are is that is that or is that not feasible either based off of what you said with Met Council? Council member, that could be definitely something that we could we could do additional research on. One of the disadvantages to limiting that type is be when Met Council takes a look at our zoning and they do our density calculations and we move into our 2050 comp plan. Um they're going to look at our our potential paper densities that we have. Um that's going to lower it which would require us to make up those densities elsewhere within the community. Um, so that could mean uh more apartments or more higher density housing elsewhere um with inside our current boundaries as well as when we look at expanding into the Lake Town area through the orderly annexation, it would limit some of the flexibility the city may have with the control of how those developments would look and the the overall character of the city of Victoria. I I understand well I understand some of the concerns that have been brought up about the duplex and the the one thing I'm thinking about is there are neighborhoods that do have greatlooking duplexes within that neighborhood. And I know some of the concern was it doesn't fit in that neighborhood because we don't have it in that neighborhood today. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't fit in there. So I think but one of the things I'm thinking of is if we can look at it take it through a different lens and and look at some of the percentages maybe put some sort of a bracket around what types of uh duplexes and uh twin homes I think I'm using the right terms there can be put in there. Maybe that's maybe that's where we land. >> Can you go back to is there a slide with the conditions again? Right. Like um >> design standards. Yes, the design sorry yes >> unfort uh with this presentation I don't have a copy of the design standards in the presentation >> I'm just curious is it just because like we've talked a lot about height and we've talked about sideyard setbacks and the front yard setback right but like >> um I guess what are our standard right like what are we doing to make sure that like these don't look like >> crap basically in people's neighborhoods right >> council member that's an excellent question Um uh in the packet in the staff report is a copy of the ordinance. Um so I'll just kind of briefly go over those standards that are in here. It's going to be on >> page 61. So when we look underneath there, it says all residential units proposed for construction on existing vacant lots or lots that become vacant by reason of demolition or destruction of existing structures within the R18 district shall be reviewed according to the following process and standards. So this only applies to redevelopment. It doesn't apply to any current structure or any accessory structures on a property. It doesn't affect any of that. It only affects new conditions. One of the things is um relation to adjacent buildings. All new buildings proposed on existing vacant lots um shall relate to the design of the adjacent traditional buildings in scale, size, proportions, and character. Right there is the baseline policy where staff through the through zoning review would be able to take a look at an application and say, you know, this just doesn't fit. and we'd be able to deny it through that process. Now, if an application or if an applicant chose to challenge that staff decision at that point, then what would happen is they would file an administrative appeal and go through a process with the uh planning commission and come back to the city council where the city council would be able to make the determination if staff made the right decision in denying a permit application based on the design or if staff made the wrong decision and could approve it. Um, it also provides a method where if there was some negotiation and design to have a project come in, the city council would have the potential ability to be involved in that process. >> Yeah, I feel like our stop gap is in those design standards. >> Mayor Council, I would like to point out that if a duplex is constructed, um, one of the things with duplexes is that a lot of times when we think of duplex, we think of two entrances. We think of the older parts of St. Paul or Minneapolis where it's very obvious that the property is a duplex that with these design standards, we would be able to set a policy and a parameter state. It still needs to look like a single family home. It may have two entrances, but it still needs to have that. There's a lot of homes um with inside the proposed district that have a detached garage and will have a front door to the property facing the street as well as a door on the side of the property facing the garage. Uh, and if those properties converted to a duplex, you wouldn't necessarily see any exterior change to the property. Um, the only real change you'd see is maybe some traffic patterns with having a second family um, living on the property. But those would be design standards that staff would need to look at when when and if we received applications for a duplex um, in that case. Same thing with a twin home coming in. It does look like a twin home, but we would look at each side of the twin home and say, does that half of the twin home fit the character of the neighborhood? Is it of similar scale, similar proportions, and similar design and character? Does does I mean, I guess would garden path be considered a duplex, I guess, right? Like they have two like I guess I don't I don't think of them as duplexes, but they you know, I mean, they're they're two >> they're together and they have two I mean, and those are very nice. Like I mean, I >> And Deer Run has hasn't built into that. >> Well, now they have like where you have one entrance from the street and then your single family goes to either side. So, you've got one big grand ent grand entrance and then >> access. And mayor council look looking at garden path. Um, what we would see and actually I will pull it up on Google Maps. I think it'll give a a better representation of where it is if we take this little guy and >> Oh, it's a private neighborhood, so I can't go there. But we're going to go to another spot. >> Let's see how far we can get in here. Do it. >> Well, you're pulling. >> We We can't We can't get in there. Basically, when you look at when you look at a twin home, you're looking at by building code, it's considered two single family homes within a with a shared wall. Um, it's something that we also followed up with the building official to make sure that that was the definition how they looked at it uh from a building code perspective. Um, so when you are on the street and you're looking up though, there's a shared wall between these two homes making it the twin home. They each have their own separate entrances. They each have their own driveways, their own garages. Um they're not split entry or anything like that shared between them. At that point, if they were a split entry, um that would be closer to a duplex. And if it and if it was split entry with the third unit, that would be a multifamily structure, which wouldn't be permitted. >> All right. Council, final thoughts? We've got a couple of options here in front of us. So, I would um we've got um two motions to take a look at. So, um I would entertain a motion. >> All right. I will make a motion to adopt the proposed ordinance 484 ZC amending the City of Victoria zoning code section 16, 18, and 24. There's a motion on the floor. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Nay. >> I. Thank you, mayor. The you know, >> you're a yes or an oppos. Okay. >> I think the risks of a duplex or home going in the combination is is low enough. >> Okay. >> I have a clarification. I only have one nay. >> One nay. Council member Patterson. >> And the motion carries and I will make a second motion to adopt the resolution authorizing summary publication. We have a motion on the floor. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Council, there are no more items on our agenda this evening, so we'll move on to reports and emerging issues. Attorney Vos, anything from you this evening? >> I do not. Mayor, thank you. >> Miss Hardy, anything from staff? >> Mayor, thank you. Yes, our city clerk, Miss Edisfold, has an update for you all. >> Oh, Miss Eatisfold, please. >> Yes, mayor and council members. Um as part of our continue collaboration with Death Zeller Studios, I present our new art um in rotation. It is a studio. >> It is studio unite. It's a mix of watercolors and oil paintings. >> Very good. Thank you. We do have a people's choice award. The um ballots are on the the table over there and the um display is open for public viewing during office hours at city hall and we encourage people to come and enjoy this beautiful art. Um council members, any other questions or or reports from council members this evening? Seeing none, there are no more items to come before the body this evening. So I will ask for a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> 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 stand adjourned. This