Good evening. It's now 6:30 p.m. I'm going to call this regular meeting of the Victor City Council to order. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> [clears throat] >> The first item on our agenda this evening is the announcements. Uh, we have several announcements this evening. On Monday, June 27th at 5:00 p.m. We will hold a second City Council budget workshop, which will be focused on the 2027 budget. Department directors will be providing overviews of their operations, highlighting cost-saving measures and efficiency initiatives. All meetings of the City Council, including workshops, are open to the public and held in Council Chambers at City Hall unless otherwise noted. We encourage anyone wanting to attend our Council meetings or workshops in person to contact our city clerk in advance. In other announcements, please join us for the annual truck rodeo Thursday, July 16th from 5:30 to 8:30 p.m. at the Victoria Recreation Center. This free community event provides a fun, hands-on opportunity to explore city, county, and other trucks, heavy equipment, and public safety vehicles. We are also accepting registrations for Night to Unite, which will take place on Tuesday, August 4th. If your neighborhood registers with the City of Victoria, they will receive a visit from firefighters, sheriff's deputies, city council members, and city staff. Visits are guaranteed for the first 20 registered parties. You can find more information on our city website at victoriaMN.gov. There are no other announcements this evening, so we're moving on to our agenda. Our next order of business is to adopt the final agenda. Council, can I get a motion? >> [snorts] >> Move to adopt 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. >> Uh any opposed? Motion carries. Next item on our agenda this evening is open forum. First item on the open forum is new staff introductions, and with that, I'm going to kick it over to City Manager Ms. Hardy. >> Thank you, Mayor. Members of the Council, this evening we do have one new staff member this quarter that we would like to have um pop up in to the podium and um introduce himself. And he should be a familiar face to you all, too. >> Welcome. Please introduce yourself. >> Good evening, Mayor and members of the council. My name is Ryan Cleaver. Um you probably know me as one of the firefighters. I was I did this back in January, but I'm the new uh streets streets worker for the for the public works. And um very fortunate and happy to have the job. Um my first month and a half here I've I've learned a ton on city infrastructure and and just the way things work and um just again, very very fortunate. So, thank you for having me. >> Great. Thank you so much. >> Thanks, Ryan. >> Welcome. We're fortunate and happy to have you as well, Ryan. >> Thank you. >> The next item is um our open forum. This is an opportunity for members of the public to address the council on items that are not on tonight's agenda and not part of an active application that will come to the council at a future date. If there's anyone who would like to address the council at this time, please step forward. Okay, seeing no one, we'll move on to the consent agenda. Items on the consent agenda are routine administrative, do not require deliberation, or are housekeeping items that are required by law. They're approved with one vote unless someone requests an item to be considered separately. Ms. Hardy, does staff wish to pull any consent items for separate discussion and vote this evening? >> None from staff, Madam Mayor. >> Is there a member of the council that would like to pull a separate um an item from the consent agenda, or a member in the audience? Seeing none, I will make a motion. Please uh have a motion to uh for the consent agenda. >> Motion to Oh, good. >> Uh go ahead, Chad, please. >> Motion to adopt the consent agenda. >> Second. >> Thank you. Uh we have a motion and a second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. Now, moving on to our regular agenda this evening, it's a meaty one. So the first item on our agenda is the 2026 Senior Advisory Committee Annual Work Plan and Year-End Review. And presenting on that this evening are committee co-chairs Jenny Spalding and vice chair Kyle Neubau Niebauer Niebauer. We talked about this. Chair and vice chair, welcome. >> Thank you. Uh good evening, Mayor and members of Council. The Senior Advisory Committee has established five key focus areas for our current work plan that we're here to discuss with you tonight. Um the first is the development and execution of our Community Connection Series. This was a 4-day event held this past May at the Community Center. It was designed to bring local seniors together. Um while our attendance was not what we had anticipated, we understand that this was our first event and we did um we did have the opportunity to bring uh residents together and foster community and connection. We uh think we gained invaluable insights and lessons that will help us as we move forward and plan our event for next year. >> Our second area of focus is around uh awareness uh to the vital resources within the community. We approach this through a variety of of channels and strategic partnerships. For instance, we collaborate with uh Carver County Public Health and will be participating in in all county meeting this September to learn how our neighbors and other communities are improving the lives of these older residents. We will also be conducting an annual review of the Senior uh Resource Guide to ensure all the information remains relevant, accurate, and accessible. Uh just last week we hosted our Senior Night at the car show uh downtown Victoria, which served as another way to promote uh the valuable resources directly with the residents. >> Our third focus area is on senior focus facilities. Um we uh this initiative has been on our work plan for the past 3 years and since we have made progress in this effort. Most notably, we helped with the furniture plan for the lower lobby space at the Victoria Rec Center to make it more welcoming for seniors and accessible for older adults. Moving forward, our next steps are to review the Victoria Rec Center's current programming and participate in upcoming uh Victoria Rec Center future discussions and engage in the planning conversations around downtown West and um both spaces and how we can make sure that they um represent seniors' needs. >> Our fourth area is around volunteering. And you know, we know this is a vital component of an active lifestyle for for this community and it's not just a one-way street, it's a two-way street. Many seniors are looking for meaningful ways to give back and assist others while others may eventually need a helping hand themselves. Um the committee's goal is to focus on redeveloping the city's overall volunteer program. We want to find innovative and creative ways to better leverage the resources and partnerships we have here in the community including our local schools. And we hope to find ways to connect willing volunteers with older adults who need a little bit of extra support whether that live independently or just need some technology help. >> Our final area of focus is on community risk reduction. In collaboration with the city's community risk reduction specialist, the committee would like to help brainstorm strategies to reduce hazards and prevent common safety risks among our senior population such as slips, trips, and falls. And with that, that concludes our work plan. We will stand for questions. >> Very good. Thank you. Council, questions for these folks. >> I don't have any questions, but I did attend the event that you guys put on and I had nothing but positive feedback from everybody who was there. I thought it was done extremely well. Kyle, I saw you there a couple days too as well. So, um thanks for doing that. I think it's a springboard for what we're going to be able to do down the road. So, good work. >> Thank you. >> Welcome. >> All right. >> I think we'd be remiss before we end just to let everybody know and for the record that we do have an appointment opening. So, if anybody knows anybody or is looking for to for volunteer opportunities, we'd love to have uh some more people join the committee. >> Good plug. Thank you. >> Absolutely. Good job. >> All right. And thank you so much for your work. This is a very important demographic to us here in the City of Victoria and they are an active and involved group and we appreciate them and appreciate you. So, thank you so much. >> Thank you, Mayor. >> That with that, um Council, I will take a motion to approve the annual work plan and year-end review. >> Motion to approve the annual work plan for the senior advisory committee for 2026. >> Thank you. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. Up next is the 2026 Parks and Rec Committee annual work plan and year-end review and presenting on that is our vice chair, Amanda Cahill. Ms. Cahill, please. Welcome. >> Hi. Thank you for having me. Um I get to present tonight on behalf of um a very large committee, um Park and Rec Committee, and um in the absence of Chair Larry. So, good evening. Um uh as part of our work plan, we've established three focus areas um to guide um everything we do this next year. Our first focus area is continuing public engagement for all park projects. Last year the committee drafted and the council approved a formal engagement policy for our park projects and this policy has already been put into place providing helpful clear framework for both the committee's work and staff on how to connect with residents regarding ongoing and future park developments. We again recently held a successful community engagement event at Brookmore Park and currently have an open survey to gather feedback on preferred amenities specifically at that community park location. We had a great turnout at the event and the committee will formally review the combined survey and event results at our meeting in August. Additionally, we look forward to reviewing the park and open space data from the broader community wide survey to ensure our efforts align with city priorities. So there's the specific neighborhood we learned from um in the past there's a specific neighborhood survey that's only to residents within a certain radius and then there's also an open survey that's available to all residents and that is open until the end of the month. >> And that can be found on our website. Is that correct? Yes, thank you. >> Focus area number two centers on the city's strategic growth areas. As part of the 2050 comprehensive plan, the committee will be very deeply involved in the park master planning process and that will be kicked off later this month with a introductory of the comp plan from city staff. Uh we know from past community feedback that access to water and access to water features is a top priority for our residents, which will be kind of focused focus our lens as we explore these growth opportunities. Another major component of focus area number two is continuing recommending park systems within new developments. At our last meeting, we provided initial feedback on the Astoria project and we'll continue to review sketch plats for additional upcoming developments to ensure trails, open space, and park connectivity are all prioritized early on. We are excited about the possible future trail connections that the Astoria project will provide access to given we get a lot of trail questions. Um and then like I said before, we've already reviewed how developments how this works is with the Huntersville and Marshall Park projects and making very specific recommendations to you as a council for those park projects that are in the planning process today. And then our final focus area is dedicated to non-traditional park spaces. So these are opportunities that exist outside of what you typically consider a park or a park boundary such as spaces along our trail systems, outlots, or repurposed open spaces. So, this is a really new um focus area for us and early in the stages for this. Um so, we have yet to make recommendations on specific projects, but um we've part of that is reevaluating the city's trail system and thoroughly reviewing the trail gaps. Um and in May um we've asked and we know the staff are working on updating um the webpage on trail gaps um to reflect this work um of the committee that has taken place. And then we look forward to keeping you updated as all um three of these focus areas progress. >> Very good. Thank you, Ms. Kay L. >> [clears throat] >> Uh any questions, comments from council? >> I have a few. >> Yep. >> How is it going with the expanded numbers within the park and rec committee? >> Um I actually thought about that today. What where I sat most was at one of our most um lengthiest meetings to date. Um but what it provided and that was the review of the Hunters Brook and the Marsh Hollow recommendations. Um what it provided is that with um the numbers we have on the committee we are seeing different perspectives brought forward and um things that are shared and brought up that um maybe wouldn't have been brought up without that um additional perspective. Um present. >> too many people at this point. >> No, not at this point. I think it's been positive. And then um at meetings too as well, you know, we have had um differing viewpoints and to work through those been really in my view like provided um additional strength to our work. >> Okay, great. I mean, I watched the video on the park of the trail gaps and the park recommendations and I think one of the things that came out was you guys had to operate under a budget and that budget in my opinion is an arbitrary number that was thrown together two, three years ago. And then you went through and you skimmed off some of the various features that were in some of those parks. Well, it came to us we actually have a fund which has more dollars in it than was actually budgeted. So, we were trying to come up with a way to get some of those things back in that you guys had to shave off. Um and I just wanted to say you guys have done a great job and been super busy on all those things and we do listen to you guys and we do take what you say seriously and try to do it do everything we can for everybody. So, >> Great. >> Yeah, and >> [clears throat] >> I think I think um our committee um is really focused on um bringing about every time we're there resident feedback. So, really in in refocusing our discussions around these surveys so that the residents have faith in us that we're listening to them when they participate in these um events and surveys and that they they feel heard and um you know, we'll continue to then engage. >> Great. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions? >> I I just had a question come up. >> So, Amanda, you you've had a pretty long tenure with Parks and Rec at this point, correct? >> Yes. So, um I just this is my beginning of my like second term, if you will. So, yeah. >> Okay. And so, I think that if memory serves me correct, when you were in your first term, we had kind of a view of Park and Rec as almost like a little committee that sat in a box somewhere, and they kind of like, you know, stayed away Your meetings were always public, but I think when we wanted to transition to have you and your team be more of ambassadors, so to speak, and reach out to the community. And that was our vision. Um can you give us a little feedback about did we make the right move move to shift towards that model? And do you feel it's paying us benefits by doing that? I I think I I I heard that in your last statement, but I I just want to get some feedback, cuz I I think we made the right choice, but I'd like to hear it from you. >> Yeah. Um so, where we feel like uh I think that is part of where the committee feels most um useful and engaged. Um and because at those events, um they're able to interact and have conversations with residents. Now, we do all get resident feedback and bring it when when people have concerns. Um but allowing us to be out there brought in additional um engagement. Right? And then we we felt too the change um with uh really getting that resident feedback was making then the best decisions for the neighborhood communities. So, in the past, a park may have been brought to us and we didn't feel as strongly that maybe we had all the information to make those recommendations to you guys. >> Okay. Great. Thank you. Well, I appreciate your your service. I think the council shares that. Uh one of the things I don't think we brought out when uh we had the senior committee is that the these are great opportunities for springboard for people who volunteer to just keep adding to their public service. Uh I'm going to call out one of Christian and I's neighbors, Mr. Kleinfelter, who is in our neighborhood. He was on the senior committee and he's just said, "This is such a great opportunity." and now he's on Park and Rec. So, thank you for, you know, that great work. It just keeps weaving the net that we have in Victoria tighter and tighter, you know, to make our community a better place to live. So, thanks for that. >> Thank you. Well said, Council Member Evansky. With that, I will entertain a motion. >> Motion to approve the 2026 Parks and Recreation Committee Work Plan. >> We have a motion. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. Next on the agenda, item 6.3, our 2026 Planning Commission Annual Work Plan and Year-End Review. And presenting on that is our Planning Commission Chair, Ben Sakora. Mr. Sakora, welcome. >> Thank you. Mayor, members of the council, staff, thanks for the opportunity tonight to give you a little bit about what we've done in the last year and uh the plan for next year. So, as you well know, we've had um quite a few [clears throat] meetings, 19 in fact, over the last year. 17 of those had public hearings. We've had 37 land use applications and reviewed over 20 ordinances or 20 ordinances including rezoning and zoning code review sections. We've reviewed Central Business District standards including of course Downtown West. And we've continued to review proposals and provide support for priority development areas such as Downtown West and the South Growth Commercial Area. And an overall review of our um zoning code overhaul which has been a little bit at a time over a long time, but I think we're we're getting pretty close to having that wrapped up. So um just a comment on so far through 26 and back to 25 and and earlier, I would just point out that we have uh courageous and um hard-working staff that prepare prepares for our meetings with us and materials that we can uh look at and make a decisions on and digest information. It's a lot of information a lot of codes to to sort through and a lot of um you know different um people to please I would say in those materials. So they do a great job providing that for us as they do I think for for you as well. So just a shout out to the staff there. Um as we look forward to our work plan for 26 and 7 um as you can kind of see here same bullets I've got um that we're looking to cover these seven critical areas in the plan which isn't really different than the past except for the addition of the 2050 um comprehensive plan cycle um rewrite. So that's coming up. But continuing and finishing off the zoning code overhaul. Um again we're recommending in review body so providing the recommendations to council on uh on all um you know land use application zoning code, um ordinance additions and amendments to the central business district. Uh also attending some training opportunities when they present itself and um continue to support the priority projects of the city um as directed by council. So, um I think it's pretty pretty familiar. Happy to stand for questions and I think if the list is acceptable, um our commission recommends to the council as our recommending body that the city council adopt the work plan as prepared by our city staff and presented tonight. >> Very good. Thank you, Mr. Sikora. Council, questions, comments? This evening. >> I would just have one. What can we do better? What can the staff or the council provide you to make your job easier or clearer or And if I don't want to put you on the spot, but if you come up with something, you can obviously tell me at a different date, but what else can we >> I think our planning commission is um hungry and capable and if the there's things that city council feels they're um have overwhelmed with, uh put us in, coach, you know, so. >> Very good. You guys You guys do just about as many meetings as the city council does every year. >> Close. >> Yeah. >> We get to cancel a few more. >> Yeah. Got it. All right. Any other questions, comments? Again, on behalf of the council, thank you for your good work. Thank you to the members of the planning commission who um we always say do that heavy lifting for us, dig into those codes and those details and provide great recommendation to the council. So, thank you. >> Yeah, thank you. >> All right. With that, I will entertain a motion. >> I'll make a motion to approve the 2026 Planning Commission Annual Work Plan and Year-End Review. >> We have a motion. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. The The item on our agenda, item 6.4 is a public hearing related to an interim use permit request for Vic's Bar and Grill for outdoor dining. Presenting on that item this evening is our community and economic development director, Jen Brewington. Ms. Brewington, welcome. >> Thank you, Mayor members of the council. Before we review tonight's application, I just want to provide some context on our outdoor dining program and the purpose behind it. So, the outdoor dining program evolved from success of East Street initiative that began during the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on the positive response from the business and the community, the city developed a formal program to continue supporting outdoor dining. The reason this program is before you tonight is that the city wanted to formalize the approval process. In the past, these requests were reviewed administratively by staff. Um, and this just moves us to an interim use permit process to provide greater transparency, allowing the city to establish conditions of the approval. So, tonight Vic's Bar and Grill is requesting approval to use four public parking spaces for seasonal outdoor patio dining. Staff has reviewed the proposed layout including the required barriers and safety measures to ensure it meets public safety and ADA accessibility standards. Interim use permit allows the property to be used for a temporary purpose that isn't intended to be permanent. The use must comply with city zoning regulations and the city can establish conditions to ensure operates and minimizes impacts on surrounding properties. Because it's temporary, the permit expires each year and must be renewed, giving the city an opportunity to review the use and address any concerns before allowing continuous. The public hearing provides neighboring residents, property owners an opportunity to review the proposal and share any comments or concerns. And with that, I can stand for any questions and I have a sample motion on the screen. >> Very good. Thank you, Ms. Brewington. This is a public hearing for the proposed interim use permit request for Vic's Bar and Grill for outdoor dining. I will now open the public hearing for this item only. If there is anyone who wishes to speak to this item, please approach the podium now. I will ask a second time if there is anyone who would like to speak to the permit request for Vic's Bar and Grill for outdoor dining. And one last time. Seeing no one, I will now close the public hearing and open the floor for council discussion. Council questions, comments on this item. >> I have one, but I'm not sure how to approach it. And I think it comes down to the fact that I went through and read the entire packet. Um and I just want to make sure we're not approving something that we shouldn't necessarily approve. But the applicant for this, to my knowledge, owns the building next door to Vic's. And then there's other owner information that's included within the application. Um are we agreeing to something more than just these four spots? Are we opening up other Eat Street type of options by approving this with that applicant? >> Okay, thank you, Councilmember Pederson. Ms. Hardy, would you address that, please? >> Thank you, Mayor. Councilmember Pederson, members of the council. Um there's no concern here from a staff perspective on approving something that you shouldn't. It's pretty straightforward, although I I do understand the where the concern is coming from in that application. So, um because of the change in ownership, um with Vic's recently, uh the owner is out of state. And so, they are um leveraging assistance from a local business owner next door to them to provide some assistance. So, um to staff's knowledge, it's nothing further than that, just providing the assistance and being that local contact. It is for those four spots and the city staff are not aware of any additional requests at this time. >> Okay. So, nothing has changed from the past. >> That is correct. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Ms. Hardy. >> Thank you. >> Council member, any other questions? >> No, I good question by Council member Patterson. So, the only thing that changed is in the applicant form itself, right? With the name. >> Mayor, members of the council, yes, that is correct. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other questions, comments? >> I I just have one. Excuse [clears throat] me, sorry. I just I wonder if we you know, what on a grander scale, I guess, for lack of a better word, is you know, the always the hard part with this is I love that they are have the ability to have the outdoor seating and stuff, but obviously it takes away four parking spots in our downtown. Um, you know, what is the appetite for looking at what we can do, whether it's on the street in front, um, you know, like during certain hours or whatever, do you close you know, right in front there, so that's more of a pedestrian area, you know, obviously that affects traffic. I I don't know, but I'm just you know, parking is a hot button topic, so and again, I love that they're able to have outdoor seating there, but it's it's four spots, obviously, in a a hot but area, so. >> Um, that does not go unnoticed, but I I always feel like this is a time of the year when it's nice outside, people are more willing to walk a little bit further, and Minnesotans love to eat outside in the summertime, and um, anything that we can do to help facilitate that, I think, is is a reasonable request, and to the point that it's lovely out. Take a walk down beautiful downtown Victoria. >> I would like to say I I share your views on this, Mayor. There's certainly we've um, anybody who's who's dined at Vic's in the summertime has dined downtown. This is there the I personally have walked from my house, which is over a mile away, to patronize our establishments and see that you know, certainly with as you point out frequently, it is cabin season. So, at at times we don't have the parking demands in summer downtown. This is a great way to just enhance community. I don't really see that there's an observable parking problem from this activity. We've done it for now is going on in 6 years. And it it just gets gets Victorians out in like I said, the beautiful town. I'm 100% aligned with passing this resolution. >> Yeah. >> And I just want to be clear. I wasn't saying that we shouldn't do it. I was just saying for future thinking about other opportunities of more businesses having. So, I just want to make it sure I'm clear that I wasn't saying that it's not a good thing to have outdoor seating. Got it. >> All right. Any other questions or comments? If not, I will entertain a motion. >> I'll make a motion to adopt the resolution approving the interim use permit for Vic's Bar and Grill for outdoor dining subject to the conditions outlined by the City Council. >> Thank you, Council Member Ivanski. Can we get a second? >> Second. >> Let's give that second to Council Member Roberts. All in favor signify by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. Next item on the agenda this evening is item 6.5. It's also a public hearing for a temporary noise permit for Floyd's Bar and Grill at 1758 Arboretum Boulevard. Presenting on this item again this evening is again uh, Community and Economic Development Director Jen Brewington. Ms. Brewington, take it away. >> Thank you, Mayor, and members of the Council. So, tonight we are here for a temporary noise permit. Um, at the June 8th, 2026 City Council meeting, the City Council approved an amendment to Chapter 12, Article 2, establishing a temporary noise permit process. The amendments provide a clear process for those requesting outdoor music that's amplified beyond the 10:00 p.m., while balancing economic activity and the quality [snorts] of life nearby residents. The temporary noise permit process establishes 10:00 p.m. as the standard ending time for outdoor amplified music within the Central Business District. Businesses or organizations seeking to extend amplified music beyond that time must apply for a temporary noise permit. Each request is reviewed individually through a public hearing and requires City Council approval, providing flexibility for special events while ensuring the transparency and consideration for potential impacts on nearby residents. Floyd's Bar has submitted for a temporary noise permit application requesting approval to extend outdoor amplified music until 11:00 p.m. on the six dates listed on the screen during July and August. And with that, I have a sample motion. You can stand for any questions. >> Very good, thank you. This is a public hearing for the proposed motion, um, for the This is a public hearing related to the motion for a temporary noise permit for Floyd's Bar. Um, I will now open the public hearing. If there's anyone who wishes to speak to this item, please approach the podium. Mr. Robling. >> Hey, actually there's two things I want >> Can you come to the podium? State your name and address for the record, please. >> James Robling, 826 Victoria Drive. Actually, there's two things I want to It's 10:00. They played until quarter after 11:00 last Saturday. So, I don't know who's going to watch that or listen to that, but um, the noise is or music ain't too bad until last Saturday. Then it just cranked up till quarter after 10:00 after. So, the music is much better than what it was for noise noise-wise, but Is there another issue with about the motorcycles that leave there, that bar, on Sundays and after the bar closes or whatever? Sundays, I cannot be outside at my residence. It is super loud the cycles. And I don't know It's nothing that Floyd's can do about, but somebody has to do something with the noise and tone. I mean, you guys are welcome to come in my driveway on Sunday to sit in there and listen to them bikes. It's terrible. So, I mean, that's all I have, so >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Robling. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak to this item, please? Will you state your name and address for the record, please? >> evening. I'm Wayne Kesti, and my address is 7980 Rose Street, uh number 306 in the Rose development. Excuse [clears throat] me. Uh we've been in the community for about a year, and uh love everything that Victoria has done. We had experience with Victoria about 10 years ago and lived in the Excelsior area, and I've been very happy with the the experience that we've had. When it comes to Floyd's, we understand the challenge when you're trying to expand your community and offerings, and provide balance, especially for businesses that have been, you know, long staples in the community. I'd say the challenge with Floyd's is really the proximity as it pertains to, you know, the the downtown district. And as was previously mentioned, you know, the the new We were excited to see the June 4th change because it sounds like that's been a challenge for a while having clearer definition around, you know, hours of operation, and then again recognizing the change that's been happening within the community. Um unfortunately, we've not seen any change being [clears throat] across the street from the development from Floyd's. We've had done for sure reports several times to the to the Carver County Sheriff's Department. I'm instructed so by city staff to make sure that there is an awareness that there was a violation that's been occurring since the the new policy went into effect, I believe on the June 4th date. So, I would just say from our perspective not seeing any change from a business practice perspective with the new adopted rules. I would say anything the city does city council does just recognize what's happening from a business practice perspective and I think that should have an impact and bearing in terms of what additional flexibility is provided to Floyd's. >> Very good. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this item this evening? Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this item this evening? Seeing none, I will now close the public hearing and open this for council discussion. Council? Questions? Comments? >> Well, I'll just start with um you know, we we've heard residents speak tonight. We've also throughout time have had email commentary delivered to us council members about um the the noise levels at Floyd's, the time, the the Sheriff's been out for enforcement. I think it points to what we've heard tonight that you know, the the noise was actually beyond what our current statute allows. It It was so essentially um past 10:00 this past weekend would put them in a period position of non-compliance. Um it's disheartening to hear that on the opinion of residents that the noise was even louder. Um I certainly will take that at face value. That's certainly not something that would be part of an administrative record. However, the or the reality is that uh we want Floyd's to be a good neighbor and this is one of the reasons why we had to engage in an ordinance in the first place and uh you sort of make this a show of good faith by following the rules before um we start to extend the the hours at which uh noise is permitted to. So, we're essentially being asked to grant a permit to go an hour long than what's been existing. What has been uh the the rules in place have have not been satisfactorily uh adhered to. Um I I don't have a an opposition to uh the uh the permit in general. What I would like to make a recommendation for us council members is to uh modify the times requested on to 10:30 from 11:00. And with the res- with uh an examination of every one of the requested dates, if there's compliance to this uh earlier time period on noise and we don't have a violation, th- then I think it it begs the question of like, all right, if you've demonstrated that you could adhere with that, then we might look to expand to later hours, but at the onset, I think we would be remiss if we don't address um what's taken place in the past and use that as potentially prologue for the future. So, my recommendation would be that if we grant the noise permit, that we reduce the hours from amplified music to be allowed until 10:30 p.m. on the dates that are in the request. >> Okay. Council member Edvansky, you're kind of going down the a similar path to what I was thinking, but we know that um they have willfully and purposefully went past the time with the knowledge that they were that they were doing it. And so I'm wondering, and I'm going to look to Council here to see if if it's possible that um if we if we approve these temporary noise permits and they exceed the 11:00 p.m. curfew time, can we pull back the remaining noise permits? >> Yeah, um Mayor and Council, the the short the very short answer is yes. Of course, I can't stop there, but um the short answer is yes, you you could do that. You could grant the permits for multiple different events, multiple different nights. You have the nights here in front of you, and then in the event the permit was violated, um revoke or modify the permit in response to the violation of the permit. The the backstory on all that is, of course, cities don't have to allow outdoor amplified music at all, and so you are doing a you we've talked in the past about how you're trying to balance the interests of one or maybe a couple of uh of eating drinking establishments that have had music historically with folks more and more living in your downtown, and so it's that's a hard issue to resolve, and you're doing your best to make reasonable compromises between those positions, and you know, ultimately the city doesn't have to allow this at all, and you're you're trying to make a compromise, and so yes, you could grant the permits, and in the event there was a violation, pull back on those permits. >> Council member [clears throat] Roberts. >> So, I mean I'm a little torn because I mean I and I think we're all in agreement, right? Like we our businesses to succeed. We want resi- our residents and people from all of this the city to come, enjoy our downtown. And obviously, music at Floyd's helps with that, right? Like, people come to see the music. Um but as you said, right? They've willfully and knowingly violated noise ordinances multiple times. Um and I mean, from the sounds of it, it was even past 11:00 the other night. Um and so, I don't think they have a leg to stand on from a trustworthy standpoint of will they even stop at 11:00? Um I am leaning towards uh Councilman Bereavansky's idea or whether it's a I could see whether it's saying 10:30 at first and if you can abide by that, then maybe we make it go to 11:00 next time or you know, there was a time you know, I don't know how many years ago now it was, but you know, it music used to be like what? Once a week once a month, right? At Floyd's and now it's every night on the weekend. And that's I think part of the issue, right? Maybe if it was once a month, it would be fine, but it's every night on the weekend. If it's nice out, you can't have your windows open because peo- I mean, I can hear it all the way at the Woodlands at times. Um I just we've on- all we've asked is to be good neighbors. And they really haven't chose to do that. Where they've told deputies, "Well, we're just going to play till 11:00." when they've been cited. Like, I I don't know how they can come to us with a straight face and ask for something more than what they're I mean, I was just up north at a cabin and across the street was a restaurant bar and they had music outdoor music from 6:00 to 10:00 and we were sitting out listening to it in cuz we could hear it from our cabin. And one of the people we were with were like, "Oh, they're they're done at 10:00." And I said, "I bet you they have a noise ordinance." And guess what? They ended at 10:00. So, instead of going to 11:00, start at 6:00, right? I've heard from numerous residents that have said half the time they don't start till 8:00 or 9:00. Well, yeah, if you don't start till 8:00 or 9:00, you're going to want to go to 11:00. People are going to come at 6:00 to listen to music. Go to 6:00 to 10:00. You got 4 hours of music. That's not a problem. So, I I'm not in favor of batch doing a month worth of or whatever it is, 2 weeks, whatever. This is what, 17th of the 1st, so almost a month. I'm not for just giving them a month worth of 11:00 when they haven't shown that they're doing this in good faith. So, uh whether it's reducing it to 10:30 or saying you get one weekend out of a month. >> Yeah, I think >> the rest is 10:00. >> I would agree with a lot what's been said. I think it doesn't seem to be a two-way street on the partnership perspective. We're trying to flex and I don't think they're listening to that those flexible options and we'll continue to do this. So, we all love Floyd's, we love bringing people to Victoria, but I think we have to modify this at some point. I'm open to each modification. I just think it would not be in our best interest to grant all these things just in a batch format. >> Okay. >> I would have one question for you, Bob. Is it possible for us to a- make an addendum to the um I Is it the temporary noise permit to 10:30 as opposed to 11:00 or is all the paperwork already filled out that it's going to be 11:00? So, we could do 10:30. >> Yeah, no, Mayor Council, I mean, I'm sitting here just trying to to to um triangulate my way to the answer that it sounds like you're all headed toward. Uh it would be fine to say we're granting the permit for Friday, July 17th to 10:30. And we're granting the Saturday, July 18th conditioned upon compliance with the Friday requirements. The Saturday will be until 11:00 and then we're granting the next Saturday, the 25th conditioned upon compliance with the prior or the Friday the 24th, you know, you could make these sequential and and conditioned upon compliance with the prior. And if you wanted to have sort of a test case at 10:30 and then let the next one be 11:00 if they comply with the 10:30 or whatever. I mean, I'm again, I'm trying to triangulate, but that that's all perfectly fine. >> Okay. >> You know, could it be viewed by the applicant as a partial denial? Yeah, it could be, but that's okay. You have the right to do that. You've have You had a hearing here. You have had had evidence that there's been a non-compliance and prior non-compliances before that. And so, that's a basis to impose some limitations beyond what the applicant has asked for. So, you're on solid ground on doing that. >> Thank you. I mean, that was my biggest concern with this was it is new. They've planned They have bands that are all coming out there and there was no way for them to get temporary noise permits for the past ever couple weeks or whatever it was. So, you know, I'm I'm always about, well, let's slide into this, but it seems that they it was pretty um blunt and just not adhering to the ordinances. So, um I'm open to a modification. >> Okay. Um after discussion I I will entertain a motion. >> Can I [clears throat] ask like two questions? >> Um so one one won't have any bearing on this, but um you know, there was a comment made about the noise of motorcycles, and I don't I mean, I don't know from an right like you a lot of times in cities see, right? Like we enforce, you know, I guess what can our deputies, if anything, do, you know, if they're happened to be near Floyd's and, you know, they're I guess revving like I mean, I don't know if there's anything that can really be done or not to that. I mean, can you answer that? >> I assume you're directing that to me. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Or or Attorney Bullis, like whoever's best suited to >> Miss Hardy, you want to take a crack at that one? take a crack. Council Council member Roberts, mayor members of the council, um I I think um what I would want to do is take this back to the sheriff's office um administration and then our sergeant and just brainstorm some ideas. I mean, if there's a specific sounds like Sundays is there a specific time? Is it in the morning? >> Noonish. >> Noonish. And it seems to be pretty regular. >> Noon until 6:00 p.m. >> So, I we can certainly see if there's some additional things that we can do just to get eyes on and and then we could probably brainstorm some potential solutions from there if if they exist. >> Yeah, thank you. And then my only other, I guess, comment as we're trying to think of how we want to modify this is you know, is the 10:30 modification enough? But then that's still basically allowing them to do every weekend, you know, whether it's 10:30 until like I don't right like I this is where I go back to, you know, one night in a month or two nights, right? Let's say one weekend, right? So, Friday and Saturday in a month at 11:00 is probably fine, but as you get if we start approving a whole month's worth, right? Like at 11:00 even if they are compliant and stopping at 11:00 or they stop at 10:30 initially and then we say, "Okay, now you can have 11:00 and they stop at 11:00." That's still getting late um for that loud noise uh for our residents. So, I guess that you know, that kind of is where this comes back is that it's right? The problem was is they were loud after 10:00. We had to change our ordinance so that they have to give us well, if we're just going to keep giving it to them, then it's no different than what it was before. So, I guess I'm >> I hear what you're saying and I think Ms. Brunton, can you I think at one point as we were developing this ordinance, we talked about was there a uh top number of times that they could request this? It did It doesn't say in the ordinance or did we decide no, we as we had the discretion that we could grant it or not grant it. That we we there there wasn't a limit on the the number of times. Okay, that's >> Mayor members of the council just to jump in there. So, they did their application does request through September. But based on your discussion, you wanted it packaged in like month increments. So, that's what staff's brought to you. Um so, they have paid for those first $50 fee times whatever the number is. Um so, that's what's brought forward. We will collect the fee for whatever is after August. So, we do expect them to move forward with probably one, maybe two more applications. So, we'll have one or two more public hearings um potentially. >> Okay. So, from my perspective, the 11:00 on these weeknight or these weekend days don't doesn't give me as much heartburn as the Wilful extension past the 11:00 um deadline. So, I'm going to um I'm going to look to Bob for some help here, but I'm going to make a motion that we approve a temporary noise permit for Floyd's Bar to allow outdoor music until 11:00 p.m. subject to the conditions of approval on Friday, July 17th. Should they violate or get a citation on the July 17th, the balance of those dates would be canceled. Their their noise permit would be canceled. Is is that clear at what I'm saying here? >> Yeah, Mayor, my only comment about that that all makes sense to me. I think I think what we're trying to accomplish here is if we didn't say anything about you need to comply on the first date or else you don't get the other dates, what we're trying to say there is that the issue of revoking the permit doesn't have to come back to the city council for another city council hearing and a vote to revoke. We want that to be easier to uh administer than having to come back to the council. And so, I guess the only thing I would say about that is I don't know if you want the threshold to be a literally a citation by the sheriff's department as opposed to just the observance by a city official that they didn't comply. I mean, it seems to me that expecting the public to come back to you and report that there was still music going at 11:15, that's not a very elegant way to do it. I mean, it seems to me that a city official can just be charged with you know, whether it's a sheriff's deputy that says, "Yeah, I heard him still playing." or a city staff person or you as council members, if you know, if we just if we know that they've played past the time, then I think that should be enough for the staff and I'd suggest your manager would be the one that you empower to make the decision that, "Yep, the rest of them are canceled because you didn't comply." So, that's my only caveat on what you said, and I think I'm just I'm just sort of putting a bow on what you already said. So, yeah. >> And I appreciate that. >> Yeah. >> You know, you paid a lot of money for that degree. >> Yeah, that's right. Yeah. >> That's right. So. Um so, so that is my that is my motion. And And does council all understand that motion? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, 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. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Nay. >> Motion carries. Council member Roberts >> There was an audible nay. >> Yes. >> Mayor, before you move on, just clarification um based on what Attorney Bowes uh mentioned, with that revocation, is that something that your did that motion include giving me the authority to do the revocation? >> the balance of those permits. >> Well, I'm sad everybody laughed, but I mean, I think part of the problem is we've asked for mitigation that hasn't worked. So, we're trying to go with awareness, and so far our transition into the awareness hasn't worked. So, this is kind of like the final straw. You will at you will adhere to that 11:00 cutoff time, or else you're going to lose all these others. I think it's a fair fair shake for them, more than fair. >> Hey. Anyway. >> All right. Very good. >> And just as a comment to close this out, um I I think that I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I'm going to suspect that my other council members have been in an establishment that has had music, that has served alcoholic beverages, and it always seems that the band makes a commentary to the patrons, please tip your waitresses and bartenders. Uh when we bring this back to uh Floyd's about how we've modified it. It would be neighborly for them to also have their band say, you know, on your way out, please respect our neighbors. Do not run your motorcycles at full blast as you're leaving the establishment. Think about if this was your house. How would you feel? I think that that's a reasonable request ask of our neighbors to Floyd's to ask their patrons to do that. >> Well stated. All right. Anything else on this item? >> Do we have vehicle noise ordinances in the city? And are they enforceable? >> We do. Don't we? >> Yeah, Mayor Mayor and Council, I of course I haven't I didn't think to look at that. My recollection, vague though it may be, is that the answer is yes. I think you do. Uh and I think there would be other law that would apply anyway. I I would just say that I mean we had a little discussion about that earlier. It is a little bit more difficult issue to address than on-campus on-site noise making uh that you clearly have the ability to limit. It's a little bit more difficult in the sense that these are patrons not the establishment making the noise and often the noises are being made on the public right-of-way, not on the the bar's premises. And so it's a little it's a little it's a little tougher I I think to get to enforcement. But yeah, I think the short answer again is yes. I think you do have um some some uh limits on vehicle noise. >> Okay. It sounds like you're talking to the sergeant. I'd recommend it. >> Yep. Yep. >> Anyway, thank you. >> All right. Last call for any other on this item? All right. Moving on. Next on the agenda, item 6.6, which is a public hearing related to the proposed modification to TIF District Number 1-9, and co-presenting on this item are Community and Economic Development Director Jen Brewington and Managing Director for Northland Security Tammy Amdahl. And I'm assuming Ms. Brewington, you're going to kick us off here. >> Yes, Mayor and Council. Thank you very much. All right. So, before discussing the proposed amendment, I wanted to provide a little background on TIF District 1-9 and why it was originally established. So, TIF District 1-9 was created to support redevelopment and reinvestment in downtown Victoria. The project transformed the former Leitner Wealth property into a mixed-use development with residential and commercial space. TIF allows the city to use the increment in future property tax revenues from new development to help fund eligible redevelopment costs. And the proposed amendment updates the TIF plan to align with future redevelopment opportunities and future downtown investment. This map shows the existing and proposed TIF District, which includes 15 parcels and nine buildings. The city hired LHB to evaluate the district to determine whether it meets statutory requirements for designation as a redevelopment district. As required by Minnesota law, they inspected the properties and confirmed the district qualifies because it meets statutory requirements for both building coverage and the number of structurally substandard buildings within the district. This amendment is needed to update the existing TIF plan so it can support current redevelopment opportunities in downtown Victoria. It expands the district [clears throat] to include additional qualifying properties, allowing the city to assist with eligible redevelopment costs where private investment alone may not be sufficient. The amendment also provides a funding source for municipal parking improvements that support redevelopment projects and helps continue implementation of the city's long-term vision for downtown growth. I do want to note that there is no active projects and this is only to expand the district. The proposed amendment makes several updates to the existing TIF plan, including the expansion of boundaries of TIF District 19, modification of the anticipated redevelopment activities within the district, updates to the project uses of tax increment revenues, and revisions to the financial projections associated with the district. I do want to just take a quick moment here to highlight the public benefits of the TIF amendment. One of the primary benefits of TIF is that it encouraged private investment in redevelopment projects that may not otherwise be financially feasible. As redevelopment occurs, property values increase, which expands the city's tax base over time. I am now going to pass it over to Tammy Amdahl for her slides. >> Ms. Amdahl, welcome. >> Good evening, Mayor Council. Tammy Amdahl with Northland Securities, I'm serving as advisor to the city. I just have a few slides on the financial considerations related to the modification. Um the first one, the approval of the modification will provide the opportunity for the city to consider the use of the additional tax increment that is projected to be generated, and I will have a slide in a moment on those amounts, but I want to emphasize opportunity. You could approve the modification tonight. You get to, and if you don't act, and I'm going to have some dates, year 15 after the Roers TIF District um pay go notice satisfied, the council could determine to decertify the district at that point. So, the approval of this modification, I must say that again, provides the opportunity, but not the requirement that you use that tool. This The last point, and Jen noted this in her comment, the city does not anticipate at this time entering into any additional agreements with private developers where you would be using tax increment to support redevelopment. The focus is on the public infrastructure, specifically parking facilities in that area. If you go to the next slide, and these amounts are small, but let me highlight for you. And I'd also note those subtotals are for each. So, years 1 through 15, and I'll read those num- these numbers. So, the future value just from the Roers development, so if you did nothing with the expansion based upon the original adopted TIF plan, is about $5 million of increment generated between year 1 and 15. This district has started the clock on it because increment has been generated. In today's dollars, that 5 million is worth about 3.75 million dollars. That's just Roers. With the expansion, and I want to emphasize these are estimates. We are modeling out projected future development within the boundaries that Jen had up on the expanded boundaries of TIF-1-9 to estimate the future tax increment that would be generated based upon certain assumptions for phasing of that development, when it may occur, we estimate that the tax increment from projected future development within the expansion area between years 1 and 15 at approximately 9.4 million future value collected over those years 1 through 15 of the in- TIF district in today's dollars at a 4% rate, and we use the city's borrowing cost, that's worth about 6.5 million dollars. So, in the first 15 years, the total projected increment to be generated is approximately 14.5 million dollars. In today's dollars, that's about 10.25, I'm rounding, million dollars. The expansion going out the full 26 years, a redevelopment district and your adopted TIF plan, the original one and the modified, provides for 26 years of increment collection. The Roers development, which is in the original plan, is projected to generate in years 16 through 26 approximately $6 million. The additional expanded area and the projected redevelopment within that area, another 12.7 million. So, a total of 18.7 million dollars in years 16 through 26. In today's dollars, that's worth about 8.3 million as far as what costs it could fund. And then if you add those together over the full 26 years of that district, the total tax increment to be generated, 33.2 million over 26 years. And that says total tax increment years 1 through 15. That is a typo. It's year 26 years, 1 through 26. In today's dollars, that's about 18.5 million. So, I'm going to emphasize this modification is intended to capture that additional taxing increment to be generated from the Roers development in years 16 through 26. And to capture new development in the expanded area for the full 26 years. You have to do the modification in order to capture this cuz you may ask people, "Tammy, we already approved this district for 26 years. Why are we having to go through this?" The area was just the Roers development that was approved. You approve both a geographic area and you approve a budget. This modification expands the geographic area and increases the budget. So, the financial considerations, if you can go to the next slide, Jen. You have, and there's a date specific under statute, you have until April 16th, 2029 to obligate that increment that is not already obligated to Roers and the tax increment financing note that has been issued. So, tonight, you are not making a decision to use these dollars. You are making a decision to approve a plan that provides the framework for you to consider that at a future date. Waiting until closer to that date as far as use of those funds for, let's just say, parking facilities allows that projected development in the expanded area to actually get built and to begin to generate increment to validate the assumptions. These are estimates only and I would note in one of the questions or the sub bullet points here as far as risk, if the city were to issue bonds and pledge future tax increment from this district, the expanded area, the city does assume some risk there. You assume the risk that future tax increment would be sufficient to repay those bonds. That's why waiting until development actually happens and it's generating its value taxes helps to reduce that risk for you. Issuing bonds closer to that April 16th, if you decide to do that or or the council at that point decides to do that, is an option, but there's still risk. Even if there are buildings up and it's generating increment, state law could change as far as increment, values could drop. So, a council will have to make that determination of pledging that future tax increment. So, issuance of the bonds does not create the risk because should tax increment or does create the risk because if it's not sufficient, those are general obligation bonds and the city is on the hook for making those payments is my point. With respect to tonight, in order for you to modify the um boundaries and the tip plan, it does require a public hearing. I would note another requirement is that the county commissioner and the school in the county auditor's office were notified and the county and school are provided a copy of the plan. I did receive an email from the county not with a recommendation clarification on the parcels. So much for the public record I want to note that they did comment to just clarify on the parcels to be included in the expanded area. No comments beyond that and it was from staff. With that there is a sample motion and Jen I might turn it over to you and it's in your packet and that motion is to adopt that resolution approving the modified and restated tax increment financing plan for TIF District 1-9. Mayor, before I take my seat I would be happy to answer any questions if you want to take questions at this time. >> Yes, please. I do have a question for you Tammy. So we know that the the assumptions and the values are based on today's assumptions and values. If we don't obligate these funds until closer to that 2029 date at that point in time do you do you undertake a new valuation of those properties once they've been identified or is the valuation that you used kind of the one we go with? >> Great question. So the valuation that was used for the modified TIF plan that is before you that becomes a not to exceed amount. So that becomes effectively the budget. You could determine to use less of that increment but let's just say it's the reverse Mayor. Let's just say these values we used were low that there's more development that incurs including on parcels that were not anticipated and it generates more increment. You are not able to capture that increment because you are limited by the budget that is in the adopted TIF plan. For that reason we believe in working with staff that we have provided a budget that provides some room for that should those values turn out to be higher but I want to note that becomes a um a ceiling. It becomes the budget for it, and you would not be able to modify that after that date that I referenced in 2029. >> Okay, but up till that time, if we found that valuations were higher than we expected, if we before that date, can we change that budget, if you will? >> You could. You would have to go through the full process again to do a full modification, public hearing. And in that case, you would not be amending amending the boundaries, you would be amending the budget, the projected tax increment in use of those dollars. >> Okay, got it. And then, um if we feel that the money that your valuations are high, we still have that's the top. So, we can we could probably ask you to go through that exercise and say, "These aren't as high as we had projected they would be." And create a new budget, but that one is a not-to-exceed budget. >> I would say that slightly different. The answer to your question is yes, but before actually planning to obligate or issue bonds to be supported by those TIF, the city would undertake an estimate of what do we really now that the buildings are up, what do we project would be available for tax increment to support those bonds? >> Okay, got it. Council, other questions for Ms. Amdahl. >> I do. So, what principally talking about is expanding the size of the district. And then, the valuations of that district are determined as of the point of this adoption, correct? >> That is correct. So, the value estimated values, and more importantly, the taxes generated off of that value and available to be captured within the district. >> Okay. And then, just I'll divert to the converse, I think, of the valuation, um cuz I believe you you heard that I heard that, you know, this is sort of like Max tax, so to speak. If property values decline, are we still have that district sized to the what was now an overvalued uh sizing, or does that does the statute then ratchet those values down in the event that there's >> It does not ratchet them down. So, a TIF plan, in order to prepare it, you have to make all TIF plans some assumptions and how much in taxes will be generated. So, that's what's happening here. But, let's just say a recession hits for a long period of time and it generates less increment. The difference here is if the city issues an obligation and you're relying on that tax increment, then the city would have to identify other revenue sources to pay your obligation. To date, there is an obligation, but it's to Roers and it's paygo only. Meaning, in your example, let's just say the Roers property that the valuation would decline during the 15 years that their note, they may not get repaid the full amount of that TIF paygo note. That's all pursuant to the agreement with them. They assume that risk that that future increment would be sufficient. If you were to obligate for city purposes, the city would assume that risk. >> And then on So, shifting topics to the the question of risk mitigation. I think that you've explained well that there are risks. I think we've had enough experience in some of the other TIF that we have done to have a nexus of what that might be. Um but, we could also mitigate that risk by only in the expanded area using 15 years instead of the full 26. Is that correct? >> You could, and that'll depend on the project that you're trying to finance. So, and time is a ticking. Meaning, the district that when I say 1 through 26, the first year of increment was in 2025, I believe. So, now that clock has started. >> Excuse me. >> So, even if let's just say a few weeks from now or months permits are pulled for development in the expanded area, that's 2 years before that would hit the taxes and you'd get increment. You see where I'm going? >> Mhm. >> So, it's not a full 15. It starts then. >> [cough] >> Right. >> But, the answer to your question is could you do that? Yes, you could. >> Okay. So, but the termination date still sits there as we spend more and more time from this date forward to figuring out when the projects begin and then when they come on then that remaining time period compresses to say 13 years, 12 years, 11 years, etc. Correct? >> That is correct. Now, you will also note that even if you wait closer to it and you're collecting increment from the expanded area if it gets built and you haven't made any decisions yet, you get to retain that increment until and meaning you may use that for if you had a project, you'd have some cash. So, you'd issue less in bonds because you would have cash available from increment that was collected during that time that you were waiting that was not payable to Roers. Roers only receives increment off of their property. >> Their their piece. Okay, thank you. >> Good questions. Council, other questions, points of clarification? >> I mean, to me we're expanding it right now for the opportunity to use this money however we choose to do it with the issue of bonds. We aren't actually issuing anything or doing anything right now. This just opens up the war chest and gives us the opportunity to do it down the road. >> And flexibility. >> Um we spent the money on getting everything put back together with this expanded district. Um you know, obviously to me it makes sense. >> Well, I I'd caution the sim- what seems like an oversimplification. We don't get to spend the money on whatever we want. We have we have to have an identified purpose for it that fits within the statute of what we can use TIF for. This is This is not a free-for-all. We are expanding the districts so that we have the ability to reach to other parcels that are semi-contiguous through a collection of um rights-of-way and things like that to create an expanded district that we could capture increment from should we choose to do that. We We may say that we don't plan on using this increment at all and let development and property ownership continue on its path. We're just simply saying what we want to do is expand the Roers District to include a larger area that we could potentially capture future increment and then from there we can then make decisions about what period of time we want to capture it. If we want to mitigate risk, we can stay within that first 15-year window. If we want to accept more risk and get a lower return on that increment than expanding it out is possible. >> I would agree with both comments, council members. Good. >> Well, apologies on my capricious statement of anything we want, but >> Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> thank you, Ms. Amdahl. I think that's it for right now. Um let's open the public hearing. This is a public hearing for the proposed modification to TIF District 1-9 and I will now open this public hearing. If there's anyone who wishes to speak to that item, please approach the podium. I'm going to ask another time if there's anyone who wishes to speak to this item. And last call for the proposed modification to TIF District 1-9. Seeing none, I will now close the public hearing. Council, if there are no more comments, I will entertain a motion. >> Motion to adopt the resolution approving the modified and restated tax increment financing plan for tax increment financing redevelopment district number 1 through 9, Roars. >> We have a motion. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. Uh next item on our agenda, item 6.7 is a conditional use permit request for illuminated commercial signs for Victoria Orthodontics located at 7980 Rose Street. Presenting on this item this evening is our associate planner Travis Brierly. Mr. Brierly, welcome and thank you for your patience this evening. >> Good evening, Madam Mayor and City Council. Uh tonight there's a couple different permits. The first one that we're looking at is a CUP for Victoria Orthodontics. Specifically, it's for an illuminated commercial sign. This is the same process that we used for Blue Agave just a few weeks ago. Um the 60-day period that we look at ends August 17th of this year. We did proper notice including a mailing and we did a public hearing at the last Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday where there was unanimous recommendation for approval of the CUP by the City Council. Location of the Victoria Orthodontics is uh at 7980 Rose Street. So it'll be uh directly behind the Blue Agave site um that we previously looked at along Highway 5. The proposed sign is two two-piece signs that would be that would be facing Highway 5. Um simply stated Victoria Orthodontics. There are the signs are within the dimensional standards of the city code. Um Yeah. And then we have proposed conditions. I would like to remind the City Council these proposed conditions are the same as the Blue Agave uh resolution that was was adopted uh to include uh the modifications City Council made during that approval process. Um, the biggest thing in here is that, uh, if the sign stops working, any part of it, 30 days they got to get it corrected, else we can require them to turn the sign off. When the business isn't open, making sure that the sign's not on, uh, unreasonably, things like that. Um, with that, I do have a proposed motion on the screen and stand for any questions. >> Very good. Thank you, Mr. Brierley. Council, questions or comments on this? >> I would say I had a hard time figuring out where this sign's going. It's facing Highway 5. >> So >> Or is it facing Rose? >> So, Blue Agave is on the is the more easterly part facing Highway 5. This is the more westerly part. Is that correct, Travis? >> Madam Mayor, that is correct. Um, on on the screen where the mouse is where Blue Agave is. Where the star is where Victoria Orthodontics would be. The sign's going to be facing on the south side of the building facing Highway 5. >> Okay. And then they're not going to have the sign facing facing west. >> Uh, uh, there is no application for a sign facing west or facing any part of the interior of the parking. This is all parking area. >> Yeah. >> There's no proposals for any signs facing that direction. >> Okay. Thank you. I just after watching the planning commission and then going through it here, I still wasn't totally sure where the sign was. So, thank you. >> All right. Any other questions or comments on this? >> Just really quick, Travis. How how long is the continue the, uh, the CUP? Does it have a expiration date that we'd we'd have to renew or is this perpetual? >> Uh, council member, uh, conditional use permits are land use right. So, it'll be a land use right that's specific to this business. Uh, it's something that came up when we looked at it, making sure that it's written in such a way where if Victoria Orthodontics was to replace their sign with something similar that would meet the code, as long as it met the code and wasn't a completely different type of illumination, they would be allowed to do so. Um, but if a new business was to come in and take over, then at that point, uh, new uh, conditional use permit application would be required. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Any other questions? Seeing none, then I will entertain a motion. >> Motion to Excuse me, motion to adopt a resolution granting a conditional use permit for illuminated commercial signs for Victoria Orthodontics located at 7980 Rose Street. >> Thank you. We have a motion. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? Motion carries and we welcome Victoria Orthodontics. >> Uh, Madam Mayor and Council, this is another conditional use permit that's been applied for, uh, for commercial learning sign. It is for Circle K. Right now, it's the Holiday site, but that's Holiday's been purchased by Circle K. So, it's rebranding. Um, same conditions or same setup as before. We did a proper notice. 60 days is August 17th uh, for when the city needs to take an action. Uh, then the Planning Commission held a public hearing last week and unanimously recommended to the Council to approve the conditional use permit. As I said, the location is the current Holiday site and this is part of a rebranding, so it'll be, uh, kitty-corner to where Floyd's or between Yeah, kitty-corner to Floyd's and kitty-corner to the Rowe building. Uh, there are a lot of signs with this application. Uh, the application does fit within side our city code, even though there's a number of signs. For the most part, what we're looking for, uh, for the illuminated signs would be two illuminated signs being placed on the canopy, um, uh, significant change to the sign that currently exists that says Holiday on the main storefront, uh, backlit signs for the car wash entrance and exit, and then one totem sign, which is the small It's a small sign about that size on the other side of the building. Um one sign that does not that is not part of this condition as permitted is the sign that has the gas prices on it because there's no change in the dimensions of the type of design of that sign. Uh it'll continue to have a legal non-conforming classification to it. Um as far as the proposed conditions go, same conditions that we looked at with Blue Agave and that were just recently approved with the uh Victoria Orthodontics, which includes the maintenance and making sure that we're complying with all the code regulations. Um with that, I have a proposed motion on the screen and stand for any questions. >> Thank you, Mr. Briley. Council, any questions, comments on this? >> Just a quick question for clarity. There are two new signs with this application, correct? >> The uh Councilmember, there signi- There are two three There are six new signs with this application. Uh that would be placed in um one is a replacement of the current sign. Um the other thing that they're looking to do is the car wash currently doesn't have illuminated signage showing the entrance or exit, which is on the building itself. Uh there's a little totem sign that just says Circle K. It's about a foot and a half by 2 and 1/2 ft tall that they want to put on the west side of the building, or assuming the east side of the building, and then you would have a replacement of the current Holiday sign above the main entrance to the convenience store of the building, and then you would be or they're requesting to add two illuminated signs to the canopy. One One way to kind of visualize what this would look like at the end, uh this is very similar to what QuickTrip does with their locations, where they have canopy signs that are backlit, as well as signs on the building that they light up their their areas for their car washes. Uh this is almost the exact same thing. >> Very good. >> Okay. I guess uh other councilmembers My only reservation, and maybe it's not a big one, is that the entrances and the exits to the car washes uh are not there today. Do they um face residential properties and have we uh do we have a view on whether or not that now that those signs are going to be there, somebody's going to be looking out through their front room window and seeing a giant red car wash exit? And if if that's the case, then would we potentially have that um those signs turned off after the business closes for the evening so that those lights aren't illuminating somebody's residential property. >> Yeah. Mr. Briley, please. >> Uh Mayor and Council, uh the business is proposed to be operating 24 hours a day. So, those signs would be on through the night. Um I would like to point out the car washes on the back side of the building where we have one side that does face towards residential properties and the other part faces towards the back of other residential properties. With that being said, one of the conditions that's proposed is that the sign can't be used for illumination of the ground or space. It's to illuminate the sign. Um so, there is the option the city council has to remove this illumination from the condition's permit application or to provide other modifications such as at a certain time the sign has to be turned off or a certain dimming would would go to it. >> Do you know if they're planning any of those things at this point? If they're planning to turn it off at 10:00 at night or considering that this is a 24-hour store, my assumption would be that they would want those on 24/7. >> Madam Mayor, that is my understanding is that they would want them on 24/7. Um I think the biggest concern with with this type of signage for how close it is in proximity to residential would be the the of the light. Um but it but as I said before, it's within the council's discretion um, if they believe there should be a limitation or if there should be language in there um, that this could be brought back for Well, I guess we can't bring it back for review once it's approved um, or modify it. So. >> Okay. >> Very good. >> So, I guess the type of light illumination it is, it mean it it doesn't shoot out, right? It doesn't light up in front. >> Down slope. >> It's more the the sign itself, right? >> Correct. Council member uh, that that's correct. The one thing in here that we have uh, is no light should be plainly visible upon a sidewalk um, or create a safety hazard for vehicles or be used for an exterior lighting method. Uh, that type of language is intentionally put so that if a sign's turned on to where um, it's projecting out and say you could read a book underneath that sign light, that could be considered too much light. Um, if this was to be if [clears throat] the condition of this permit is to be approved, um, something that the council does have is uh, we can always review the conditions of a conditional permit for compliance um, with it. Um, that is a longer process, but it's something that the the city council does hold in its tool bag. >> Yeah. I feel like um, we've got sufficient barriers around here that that that it's not going to be disruptive to the neighbors with the it should not be plainly visible, it can't create a hazard. Those kinds of things. So. >> Um, to my knowledge, the entrance would face up against two garage structures and then the exit would go across their parking lot and I think there's like a 6-ft fence there and then there would be one to two residences that could that sign could possibly be an annoyance, but they're also going to have a backlit sign for on the side of the gas station as well along with the front of it. So, I think the exit and entrance signs are probably the least of their worries at this point. >> Yeah, I >> That would be my thought just thinking it in my mind's eye. >> [laughter] >> Yeah, you're correct, Councilmember [snorts] Patterson. There is a big 6-ft fence on that one side. >> On the exit of the car wash. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah, I have reservations about the entrance sign for the reasons you point out that there's garages and vegetation. Um while there's a 6-ft fence, that sign is well above 6-ft in the air. So, um I would not want us to be in a situation where 3 months from now, we have the neighbor across the street uh with complaints about the exit of the car wash. So, >> Great. >> And you're going to be leaving the car wash. So, perhaps we uh could we make some sort of reservation that if that sign becomes disruptive, that we could turn it off at a certain point at night so that people don't have that blasting red exit car wash in their front window. >> Yeah, Mr. Prior. >> Madam Mayor, Council, uh that would be a condition that would need to be in the permit upon approval. It wouldn't be something we'd be able to come back to in the future because that'd be modification of the conditions. Um which we could request, but the Circle K could say no. So, if we were looking at doing something with that at a specific time, uh coming from a staff recommendation, um I would take a look at probably 10:00 just to consistency with our noise ordinances. And that would still provide an availability during the winter months uh to have the illumination during a reasonable evening hours. But I'd limit the the sign from being on later than a lot of people would go to sleep at. >> Attorney Boles, can we put that in as a condition that should should the neighbors find the lighting disruptive, they have to turn it off at 10:00 p.m. >> Yeah, Mayor and Council, I I believe you can impose that kind of a condition. I guess I'm mindful that you've had a public hearing and the neighbors that would be impacted haven't come and said they're concerned about that. I mean, that's just a fact. They have apparently no one came with concerns at the hearing. That said, you're just anticipating Council members anticipating that they may not have appreciated what's going to happen here and they may have complaints later and I think it's just fine to say you can have this lit, but if people are negatively affected and they go to the trouble of complaining to us about it, then we can restrict the hours that you illuminate that exit sign. I think that's fine. >> Good point on the public hearing. Okay, any other questions, comments? If not, I would entertain a motion. >> So do we do I'm sorry, Mayor, do we feel staff, do we feel like we can properly capture our attention here with uh putting a condition in? >> Correct. >> Uh cuz I think Travis, where you were weighing in is just maybe for simplistic sake that that sign we make the condition that that sign doesn't be illuminated after 10:00 p.m. for instance, correct? >> Yeah, my Mayor and Council, by a my proposal would be to do something simple that's easily enforced saying 10:00. Um if we want to do that or whatever specific time would be available. Uh the other option is a little bit more complicated of saying if we get complaints um because that it's not if if we want to put the if Council would like to put that type of language in as a condition saying that upon receiving complaints the signs turn off at 10:00 that that's something that can be written in. I would just ask that that be part of the motion. >> All right. I will entertain a motion. >> I'll make a motion to adopt a resolution granting a conditional use permit for illuminated commercial signs at Circle K located at 1793 Arboretum Boulevard subject to amending the permit to allow for language to restrict hours of operation of the exit portal lighting in the event that we are the city is notified by residents in the neighborhood that such illumination is a nuisance. >> Yeah, hearing council that works well. >> 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. >> Who was my second motion? I'm sorry. >> I was. >> Council member I guess. Our final item this evening is item 6.9 which is a request to amend ordinance 490 ZC section 18-9 of the Victoria zoning code on fences. Mr. Briarley, this one also belongs to you. Please. >> Thank you Madam Mayor and Council. Tonight we're looking at a single ordinance that involves three zoning text amendments that were brought to separate public hearings with the planning commission last Tuesday. In here what we're looking at is the current zoning code requires that a front yard fence is 4 ft high. The definition of a front yard within our zoning code is the area between the principal structure and a street. So if you have more than one street you're adjacent to your property, you have more than one front yard by definition. The three requests can be summarized as wanting to allow for 6-ft front yard fences with specific conditions. One being allowance of gates while crossing a driveway plus 4 ft for uh the structure to support the gate. Um if it's adjacent to a non if the property's adjacent to a non-residential street, residential street is what most of us have right in front of our house. Most other streets that don't have homes lined up on it are classified either as minor collectors or residential collectors, things like that. Those would fall underneath the non-residential. Uh residential being a specific term in this case. Um also, uh if you're adjacent to a county road with a speed limit at least 40 mph or adjacent to a residential street that doesn't have driveways between intersections. Uh some of these do overlap um as we'll see going through the process. Um this does have uh 60-day uh rule on it uh for the city council to take an action, which is August 17th. Uh and then we also properly published a notice for all three zoning text amendments, and all three zoning text amendments were recommended from the planning commission uh to the city council for approval. When we look at the proposed amendment, just to keep it kind of a little bit more simple of how everything's going, um uh when we're looking at the the 6-ft rule, uh just simply put, when a gate's crossing a driveway could be 6 ft um with the supporting structure. The second part is adjacent to any public street other than residential, not to or and not to include properties adjacent to a county road with a speed limit of less than 40 mph to allow for that 6 ft. The 40 mph within this part is important um as it limits the the scope of where this ordinance would apply to. And then fences which are uh adjacent to any public residential street which does not have a driveway between the fence and the nearest intersections uh in all directions of the street. Um So, one the first part that we look at is the gates crossing. I would like to point out that this image that's on here is for illustration only. It is not part of any application that was submitted to the city. Um with that, this is about a 6-ft gate going across and it's got some posts on the side. Um it's it provides greater privacy. It also creates a sound barrier. Uh the request came from a property along Smithtown Road. And the main thing they're looking for is privacy as well as a barrier for sound. Uh they do have an approved fence permit to go around this property and they use they're using taller vegetation everywhere, but they don't have the ability to cross the driveway except at 4 ft at this time because The next thing that we're looking at is uh adjacent to non-residential streets as well as to streets that don't have driveways between the intersection. Uh the On the top part in the in the yellow, you'll see that that's our current code, which would allow these properties. This is part of the Madeline Creek uh development and the Brookmore development. Uh so, it's very limited because the the property that's or the upper property has three front yards, making so with that only the yellow could be 6 ft. The proposal that came in or the the zoning text amendment would be to allow for a 6-ft fence to be used in what we traditionally call a side yard or a a back yard for our properties. So, the southern part or the southern or the bottom image shows what this request would expand that area to. I would like to point out that uh this is only for the height of the fence. So, in there this would back upon a city trail and there is a setback for fences of 6 and 1/2 ft from those trails. >> [snorts] >> Those would still apply. This is only looking at a height exemption. Uh it was um the county road request. And the reason that we did 40 mph or more is because we want to make sure that we put it where there or we want to limit the scope, scale, and effect of the ordinance or to be specific to what the request was. And when we look at throughout the city where we would see the greatest impacts for county roads, we looked at the part of Victoria Drive between 43 and Highway 5. You have a lot of traditionally residential properties having taller fences in the front yard. The reason that they're restricted in the first place was to stop from tunneling or just the general appearance. It also helps with safety as well, especially when it comes to intersections or or leaving properties in more tightly packed neighborhoods. So, with the 40 mile an hour qualifier being in there, the areas shown in red are all 40. The main areas that we would see impacts would be the two properties on Lyman Boulevard, which this request is coming from. The property on Lyman Boulevard as well as along Rolling Acres between Highway 5 and Highway 7. And then we have some larger parcels to the west of Wasserman Lake. The general part of the rest of the properties either have an out lot between the residential portion and the and the county road itself, where that is classified as a rear yard. So, they would able to do a 6-ft fence under today's ordinance. This would not affect that right to be done. Additionally, you're looking at much larger parcels that would potentially or that would be developed in the future or you're looking at commercial space that's unlikely to have significant change in the future. But the biggest thing with looking at all these ordinances is to limit the number of properties affected. The size, the scale, and the scope is very important that instead of creating an overarching or or exemption that could potentially get in areas that we didn't expect or we didn't see for and create a future problem. We want to mitigate that risk. The other thing, just a reminder, this is just to extend the height. It has nothing to do with design, it has nothing to do with placement, setbacks, or anything like that. The other part to this is when we do a review process, when a zoning application comes in for a fence, what we look at is we are looking at intersection sightline distances. Staff won't approve a won't approve a fence that would go into a spot that would create an issue with safety to other vehicles or pedestrians. Um it's something that uh we've written into the code already with uh changes back in 2024. Um it's something that we would want to continue to do be safety is utmost important. So, if it doesn't make sense to do it and it can't be safely done, staff would deny it. Um the other thing that we want to look at is other hazards and obstructions. If a if a taller fence is being placed in such a way where it's going to create an unforeseen hazard or obstruction, we would want to deny that permit as well. Um we look at fence type. Fence type is also another thing. There's a difference from looking through a chain-link fence or a wrought-iron fence compared to a privacy fence. Uh so, that's very important as part of the application as well when we do the review. Uh the other thing is all fences still need to have a working like quality. Now, during the review process, those are things we look at, but if a fence gets installed or it's deemed later that it does create a hazard or some type of safety issue, then at that point we would go through our code enforcement process to get that corrected. >> Is there any uh I'm sorry, Travis. Is there any um requirement around the neighbors? Do they get to weigh in on a fence or is this an administrative thing only? >> Mayor and Council, this would be uh completely administrative. >> Okay. >> Um it's so for if there were uh underneath the current ordinance, if uh you'd applied for a fence for your property, uh we wouldn't go to your neighbors and ask them if it was okay. Uh if you do want to place the fence on the property line, we have we have a property line authorization form. It's a non-binding form, but its intention is to make sure that neighbors talk to each other about where those property lines are. >> Got it. Thank you. Two things. One, when I'm watching this and we're dictating what can be built along a county road, are we circumventing any sort of county ordinance by allowing 6-ft fences where the county would say, "No, you can't do that." >> Councilmember, that's an excellent question. The fences aren't being built on county property. Therefore, they wouldn't have jurisdiction in what is being built there as far as the fences go. And it's unknown or there's no ordinance that I know with the county that regulates fences in residential properties. >> Just wanted to make sure that was what sticking out. And then this is slightly different, but maybe something that we should consider with the gates. [snorts] I don't know much about driveway gates, but is there some way we can make sure that they swing in as opposed to swinging out? I feel like swinging out would create all sorts of different issues. And maybe they're all designed to swing in. I don't know. But is there something that we can do that make sure that they all swing in? >> Councilmember, that's part of the review process. We look for hazards. If a gate's placed up along the property line and they swing out and say create a sightline issue if they're open or if they're crossing over sidewalk or if they're going out in the street, that's definitely a safety hazard that's been created. We would deny that permit. But if the fence is brought in say 30 ft into the property, then the gate swinging in or out may not have a necessary effect. Um so that's part of the the overall review of the application. >> Fair enough. Those are the only two things and I know that that's not really part of this application, but something that it seems we've had some fence things come up with our ordinance here. So we've got to go through all these text amendments. I'm wondering if there's a way to ease into it or make it a little bit more comprehensive. So, just some ideas. >> And Mayor and Council, I would like to point out uh the zoning text or the the text amendment that's being presented is an exemption under specific circumstances. Um so, it's not a new part of the code. It just says here's the maximum height if you meet or qualify for these pieces of it, then you'd be allowed to go to 6 ft. But, the number one thing um that I think we can all agree on is safety and making sure we don't create a hazard that we have to try to resolve later uh and getting ahead of that. The biggest part of that's going to be the the review process. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Other comments, questions, Council? >> Yeah, I mean, I'm a a comment that I'm uh increasingly finding that uh I don't feel that the use of zoning text amendments to keep dealing with square pegs in round hole situations. Uh everything that I think we're seeing lately could be handled by a variance process and go through that process and we make a determination as to whether in that instance it's merited or it isn't. The um you know, so for example, the gate that you you talked about, we could deal with that with a variance. Um these other uh instances, you know, I see a compromise to both uh safety, appearance, uh and then certainly uh I'm worried about letting the genie out of the bottle on the county roads. Uh it's almost like we're trying to find a problem in search of a solution. So, uh I'm I I would be uh I think that we can't My view is that we would not adopt this motion and deal with these on a case-by-case basis. Um certainly along Obsidian Way, or sorry, Agate. Um We we already have a a tight street. We're going to have sight lines reduced by 6-ft fence all the way around it. And then if fencing is consistent with well, the other fences that are there, um, you know, we're just putting up more and more plastic in the city of Victoria. Um, I I I think that that is uh, not consistent with what uh, exists throughout the rest of the community. And I'm not in favor of uh, adopting these zoning code text. >> Along Along that line, Mr. Brierley, why would none of these situations qualify for a variance, or can you say why we wouldn't use a variance as one of the other tools that we have? >> Madam Mayor, uh, a variance is a vari- has very specific qualifications for the City Council to be able to approve it. Underneath the practical difficulties test, we have to identify a plight of the landowner. That has to be a situation that wasn't created or known by the landowner, who regardless of if it was a previous landowner, current landowner, prior at the time an ordinance was changed. So, when we look at our new developments, and we already have a definition for front yards being between the principal structure and the street, um, set taking the example here, um, a variance wouldn't qualify because at the time of the purchase of the property, those regulations are already in place. Even with the recent change that we did in 2024, or in the fall of '24, on the on the ordinance for fences, those conditions still applied. Um, they're still able to put up a fence that's 4-ft, so doing a variance to make it a 6-ft, what we've what we've done at that point is we've said, "The code's okay, but it's fine if if you if you have a exception to it instead of a variance to it. >> Well, I mean, many of these conditions were known at the time that people were purchasing these parcels and could foresee that. So, I you know, don't I I I feel like we're saying that we're trying to use this now as a way to get around practical difficulties, which I think that practical difficulties exist for exactly um that. We've seen this numerous times where there's features of topography that aren't readily uh able to be maneuvered because there could be retaining walls, there could be blasts, etc. Th- Those are the things that practical difficulties uh were designed for. They weren't designed for giving people you know, everything they want every single time they ask for it. There's There's other purposes for the why we've drafted these ordinances over time. They've stand They've stood the test of time. Um and uh again, I'm I'm saying that I don't feel that in this instance changing our zoning text to accommodate uh something that would say I'm hearing I don't think I'll pass the practical difficulties test, so let's just uh amend the the rule book. I think that that's contrary to what uh what we're supposed to do here. >> Very good. >> I guess I would just say that I mean some of the things we have done, the county has done, have also contri- right? Like so, you think about Lyman, which was previously 82nd Street, was a dirt road that you right? Like now is a 40-mph road, which would fit this exception, right? So, um is that applied to so that they could do a you know, a but I mean, not all these things are known previously, right? We've developed, we've road speeds have increased in certain areas because of now what they've become. So, some of them you know, weren't known when they >> Council member Roberts, I think you nailed it perfectly. The that would be something that the practical difficulties test would clear that hurdle cuz uh the the landowner had something happened at at the uh the view at the decision of the county and certainly the city also had a a a position in creating the roundabout. That that I would is exactly why we have the variance provision. And I think that that particular example would meet the practical difficulties test if that were put in front of us and framed that way. So, again, I'm I'm not in favor of making these zoning text amendments that when we have the tools in place to deal with some of them. >> Can you speak to that cuz it looked like maybe you disagree? >> may- may- Mayor Council, uh a a fence can still be placed in the front yard. Um I I'd have to confirm with the the attorney, but I don't believe that saying that a 4-ft fence to 6-ft or 7-ft or different height in the fence would necessarily qualify for the practical difficulty because you can still place you can still legally place a fence out front. It just may not be what you want. It'd be um saying that if you wanted a larger accessory structure, uh just because you want a larger accessory structure because you have one more boat than every or than your neighbor does or something like that, we wouldn't necessarily see that as a practical difficulty. So, I would still apply that that same logic to a fence saying just cuz you want a taller one doesn't mean it's a difficulty because you can still place a 4-ft fence out. You can still build a small berm that's 2-ft high and put 4-ft fence on and get a similar effect. >> Okay. All right. Other questions, comments, thoughts? So as I'm thinking through each of these examples, these are these are challenges that we've got constituents that have. So they could build a 4-ft fence, or they could build a 2-ft berm and put a 4-ft fence on top of that and get the same thing. >> Madam Mayor, that's correct, and they would still need to meet all making sure they don't create hazards, making sure that they meet the sight line distances, all that type of stuff. >> Okay. And then uh somebody could could do a gate across their driveway. They would just need to do a 4-ft gate rather than a 6-ft gate. >> That's correct, Madam Mayor. >> And um the residential street, they could still do a fence. It would just have to be a 4-ft fence rather than a 6-ft fence. >> That's correct. >> So that So we are okay. And they could apply for a variance. And and could be granted a variance based on practical difficulty. Am I correct? >> If if uh Madam Mayor, if they can demonstrate practical difficulty, it's correct. They could get a variance. >> Okay. >> It sounds like it would be very hard to do. >> In some of these cases. All right. Other questions, comments? If not, I will entertain a motion. Can you put our um motion up for us to >> Mayor, uh I apologize. That slide got cut off from my presentation, but it would >> Um I have one here. I will make a motion that we adopt ordinance 490ZC amending section 18-9 fences of the Victoria zoning code. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Opposed. >> Motion carries. And does the clerk have the dissension noted? >> I do. >> Very good. There are no more items to come before the um body this evening. So, we're moving on to reports and emerging issues. And Attorney Vos, you're up first. >> Yeah, Mayor and Council, uh uh I think some of you may know or you may have gotten an inkling, um a lawsuit has been filed, um the King's Road neighborhood group, the group in uh Chanhassen, uh budding the city has filed a lawsuit in relation to the city's preliminary plat approval of the Bell Maple Farm development. Uh you have insurance for those kinds of lawsuits. Um the League of Cities is your insurer. They have appointed uh defense counsel in that case. Uh very, very good uh lawyer, uh Paul Rivers, um and uh one of his uh colleagues, uh very capable lawyers. Uh I suspect they'll be uh communicating with you at some point about the case. Uh I would I just would say it's unfortunate in the sense that uh or unusual in the sense that you have not granted a final approval yet. We have not had a final plat uh requested yet, uh as I understand it. So, it's a little uh unusual to have a lawsuit filed at the preliminary plat stage, but of course you've you've gotten a lot of feedback from this group, and I think we always anticipated this was possible, and uh so that has occurred. Uh and other than that, I don't have anything to report, Mayor. >> Thank you, Attorney Vos. Uh Ms. Hardy, anything from staff this evening? >> Thank you, Mayor and members of the council. Just to note that our filing period for uh council candidates opens tomorrow, so Tuesday, July 14th, and runs through July 28th, and there will be two seats available. >> Thank you. Any members of the council have anything to add this evening? >> None for me, Mayor. >> All right. Seeing none, there are more No more items to come before the body this evening, so I will entertain a motion to adjourn. >> Motion to adjourn. >> We have a motion. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. We stand adjourned.