Good evening. It's now 6:30 and I call to order the regular meeting of the Victoria City Council. Please join us in the pledge of allegiance. I 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. >> The first item on our agenda this evening is announcements. The regular council meeting, originally scheduled for Monday, December 22nd, has been cancelled and this evening marks our final council meeting of the year. We look forward to seeing you at our first meeting in 2026 on Monday, January 12th at 6:30, followed by our annual meeting of the Economic Development Authority. All meetings of the city council are open to the public and held in council chambers at city hall unless otherwise noted. If you're interested in speaking at a council meeting, we encourage you to contact our city clerk for more information. In other announcements, in celebration of the holiday season, city offices will be closed Wednesday, December 24th and Thursday, December 25th. Regular business hours will resume on Friday, December 28th or 26th at 8 a.m. Additionally, city offices will be closed on Thursday, January 1st, 2026 in observance of the New Year's Day. will [clears throat] reopen on Friday, January 22nd, 2026 at 8:00 a.m. On behalf of the city council and the city staff, we want to wish everyone a safe, joyful holiday season, a merry Christmas, and a very happy new year. Our next order of business is to adopt the final agenda. Council, can I get a motion to adopt the final agenda? >> Motion to adopt the final agenda. >> We have a motion. Can I get a second? >> Second. Let's give that second to council member Refe. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Moving on to our next item, which is open forum. This is the opportunity for anyone to address the council on an item that's not on the agenda and not an application form that will be coming to the council at a future date. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the council on an item that's not on the agenda? Seeing no one, we're moving on to our 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. Miss Hardy, does staff wish to pull any consent items for separate discussion and vote this evening? >> None from staff. Madame Mayor, >> any members of council or any members of the audience wishing to pull an item for separate discussion and vote? >> Seeing none, I would take a motion for the um consent agenda. >> I'll make a motion to adopt the December 8, 2025 consent agenda. >> Very good. We have a motion. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. Moving on to our regular agenda. The first item on our regular agenda 6.1, which is our truth and taxation public hearing for 2026 budget and levy. Presenting this evening is assistant city manager and finance director Trisha Pollock. Miss Pollock, welcome. The floor is yours. Thank you, mayor, members of the council. This um truth and taxation um is for a moment for the public to address council and staff um with any questions about the 2026 um budget. So, if you would, mayor, um ask if there's anyone in the audience that would like to speak. >> Okay. This is our truth and taxation hearing for the 2026 proposed budget and levy. I will now open the hearing for public comment. If there's anyone who wishes to speak to this item, please step forward. Anyone wishing to speak to the item, please step forward. And last call. Seeing no one, I will now close the truth and taxation hearing and open the floor for council to discuss. Council, uh do you have any uh further presentation? I do. Um mayor, I just wanted to make sure that you address the audience if there was anyone that wanted to speak first. But um seeing none, I'll just move on. I just have a few short slides and then we will ask you to pass um some resolutions for the for the budget and levy. >> Very good. Thank you. >> Okay. So, as you as you know um this evening was a truth and taxation hearing and are adopting the 2026 budget levy and the 5-year CIP. So, in September, the council approved the preliminary levy of 9.87 87 million, which was a 9.96% increase from the 2025 levy. Staff were able to find additional reductions and are proposing a final levy that is lower than what was discussed in September. The proposed final levy can be reduced to 9.789 $558, which is an 8.96% increase over the 25 levy. This decrease was achieved without impacting service levels as a result of employee benefit elections being less than projected. Additionally, we have removed the fire pension payment um due to the plan being sufficiently funded um after we received our annual reports. So with the proposed final levy, the city's tax rate would decrease from 30.4% to 30.01% 01%. The amount the medium valued homeowner pays for city property taxes will be an increase of $61 for the year. In 2025, the median value home of 555,700 paid city taxes of 1,689. For 2026, the medium value home of 583,100 would pay 1,750. If your home value didn't increase in 26, the medium home value would have seen it would see a reduction in their taxes of approximately $21. Looking at um the long-term projections, this chart um looks back five years and forecast 10 years. Long-term projections are based off of a projected increase in the median home value of 1% year-over-year and the 2026 30.01% tax rate. as you can see in the 2026 line there um is lower than the 32.28% tax rate in 2021. But we are expecting to see um a slight rise in the 27 to 29 um tax rates before it begins to drop back down again. But overall, the tax rate is expected to remain fairly steady um between the 30 and 32% as long as we don't see home values um spiking in um either direction um in the in the upcoming years. So, if council um doesn't have any additional questions, um staff is asking for the approval of these four resolutions. Very good. Thank you. Um we are on to item 6.2 if you're following along at home. Council questions, comments. I want to start this off by saying uh kudos to the staff and their good hard work and continuing to look for ways to reduce this budget. You were very successful in doing that. We appreciate that as taxpayers council questions, comments. All right, seeing none, this is not new news to us. We've been working on this for six months already. So, we're happy to bring this to conclusion. So, with that, um, we have four resolutions we're going to need to pass. So, I will entertain the first one. >> Motion for a resolution approving a final tax levy for the city of Victoria for collection in 2026 in the amount of 9,789,558. >> We have a motion. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> We have [clears throat] a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. Any opposed? >> Motion carries. On to the second resolution. >> I'll make a resolution adopting the final 2026 general fund in Victoria Recreation Center fund budgets. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. And a third motion, please. like to make a resolution adopting the final 2026 water fund, sewer fund, and storm water fund budgets. >> 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. And our final resolution. >> Our resolution adopting the 2026 through 2030 capital improvement 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. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. Moving on to Thank you very much, Miss Pollock, for your good hard work on that budget this year. >> And then um I officially can wear my budget season survivor hat. [laughter] >> Oh, that's awesome. Yay. >> You only have a six-month break. [laughter] >> We'll see you back here in June so we can do this all over again. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Very good. All right, moving on. Our next item, item 6.3, is a public hearing for our proposed 2026 B schedule. Presenting on that item this evening is our assistant city manager, Alyssa Nelson. Miss Nelson, the floor is yours. >> Thank you, mayor. Hello, mayor and members of city council. Give me one moment while I pull this up. [clears throat] And here we are. So yes, today we are considering the adoption of the 26B [clears throat] schedule. Um this is an annual process that requires an ordinance amendment. Um and therefore a public hearing which we'll be also hosting this evening. Um so this is not the first time you are seeing the fees schedule. Um this was brought before you at the August budget workshop um where my colleague, the budget survivor, um provided a presentation on all the proposed fee changes for 2026. And then um after the August workshop based on council direction uh staff then compiled those fees um and then put them together which is now being proposed for you all this evening. There is a small technical change um that staff is asking uh council to consider which is not in the packet. Uh we noticed this after the fact and it was related to the Victoria Recreation Center membership fees. Um, if you notice on there, the youth membership is up to 18 and then our adult membership is 19 um and older. So, there's a gap for anyone that happens to be 18. So, we're just correcting that. It's a small change. Um, but of course, every other fee in there um we did put in the agenda report to be transparent. We've redlined uh the uh fee schedule which was included in the packet. And then in the agenda report itself, we provided a description of each of the fee changes and why. Now, um this is probably repeat information from the August workshop. However, just as a recap, we did want to share the criteria that staff uses for fee review and development. The first is market city comparisons, which is set by um our identified market cities. The second is maximum set by external sources. So, fees set by legislation or things like the international building code. Uh cost recovery, those are charges for services and programs that are set to be self-supported when possible. And then utilities, which is fees set by specific rate studies, our utilities, for example. And then with that, mayor, I will pass it back to you to open the public hearing. Um, and I can also answer any questions after the public hearing as well. >> Very good. Thank you, Miss Nelson. This is a public hearing for our proposed 2026b schedule. Um, I will now open the public hearing. If there's anyone who wishes to speak to this item, please step forward. Anyone wishing to speak to the 2026 fee schedule can please step forward. And last call. Seeing no one, I will now close the public hearing and open the floor for council discussion. Council questions, comments. Seeing none, we will take two separate motions on this item ordinance and the second to authorize summary publication. So, um, Council Member Refe, can I have a motion, please? >> Motion to adopt ordinance 470MC adopting a revised fee schedule. >> Thank you. We have a motion. Can I get a second? >> I'd second that. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Council member Patterson, can I get the second motion? >> You may. Um, I'd like to make a motion approving resolution authorizing ordinance publication by title and summary. >> We have a motion. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. Very good. We're moving on to the next item, which is 6.4. and we will be considering the final plat for downtown west second edition and the certification of tax increment financing district 1-8 with a boundary adjustment. Presenting on that item this evening is community development director Jen Brewington and city planner Brian McCann. Miss Brewington. Mr. McCann, who's going to be first? >> I'll jump in here. >> Mr. McCann, please. >> Thank you, mayor and council members. Uh tonight we are looking at a final plat for Downtown West second edition. You may recall during our discussion for Downtown West third edition at the last meeting that this would be coming forward. This is a simple lot boundary adjustment to adjust the line between outlots A and B from downtown west first edition. Um this does not result in any new buildings or lots. Like I said, this is just a simple lot line adjustment. So here is what it is currently aligned as on the left and then the image on the right here is the proposed realignment of that line between outlots A and B. [clears throat] And then just as project is um related to TIF, the tax increment financing district boundaries were also adjusted due to updated title work. And then the revised boundaries are required in order to certify that TIF district. And this now just allows the city to move forward with that official certification for that district. >> Very good. Um [clears throat] and that's all you guys have for us. Okay. Very good. Correct. Seeing um no more information from them. Council questions, comments. Seeing none on that item, we were looking for two motions on this item. Council member Roberts, can I get the first motion, please? Motion to adopt the resolution approving the final plat for downtown west, second edition. >> 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, Council Member Ivansky, can I get the next motion, please? >> Sure, Mayor. I'll make a motion to adopt a resolution directing city staff to request certification of the original tax capacity for tax increment financing district number one8 consistent with statutory requirements and updated parcel information following the repat of the project area. >> We have a motion. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. Moving on to the next item, item 6.5, which is to consider preliminary plat shoreline var shoreland variance, zoning text amendment, conditional use permit, and site plan and building materials review for Victoria condos mixeduse development. Back presenting on that this evening is our city planner, Brian McCann. Mr. McCann, back to you. >> Thank you, mayor and council members. Tonight we have a proposal from Monarch Development and Gier Homes for Victoria Condos mixeduse development. As you just highlighted, they are coming forward with five requests here this evening shown on the screen. Uh as you know, uh this has gone through a couple different revisions over the past few years. First off being a sketch plat review for a 63 unit apartment building proposal back in 2022. They've since come forward this year with the 10-unit condo proposal that's in front of you this evening with the plane commission conducting a preliminary plat review uh last Tuesday. As you're aware, the major subdivision platting process is done in three parts. We are in the middle right now with the preliminary plat where we take a detailed review of the plans and major major entitlements are granted such as conditional use permits or variances such as the applicant is requesting tonight. Looking at the location and area, the project area in total is about 63 acres in size. The main site being here at 7942 Quamlit with the existing private garage building and two out lots that uh serve the city parking lot at 7928 Quamlit. This is located right in the heart of our downtown. So it's west of Quamlit Street and the Victoria Flats building. It's north of Tower Boulevard and the Burrow which is offscreen here. It is east of Ry's Way and Winchester Ry and south of Stiger Lake Lane and Vixen, the old Vic House site. As I mentioned, they're proposing 10 condominium condominium units with those two groundf flooror commercial units and a ground floor showroom unit. The existing conditions of the site consist of that private garage building with a single access onto Quamlit as well as the city parking lot with four different access points. Utilities are also available from Quamlit and Tower Boulevard for this project. I mentioned the previous review that was done in 2022. There are some images on the left here with that previous concept which included a parking ramp for uh the development as well as available public parking that didn't receive um good feedback from the city and the residents. So the applicant has revised their concept for consideration which is in front of you and the image on the left was their 2022 concept and then the image on the right is what they are proposing this evening. Starting from the garage, they are proposing 21 parking stalls down below. 20 of those would serve the 10 condo users. And then the final 21st stall would be dedicated for that showroom use. Moving up in the building, you can see the two commercial units here as well as the showroom unit and a lobby servicing the condominium users. Then levels two and three would consist of eight of the 10 condominium units. Here you can see they are all two-bedroom units ranging in size from 1,300 ft² to 2200 square ft. And then the top floor would consist of those final two condominium units with an amenity space and a rooftop deck. This is the preliminary plat that was submitted for consideration. They are proposing a single outlot, outlot A, which would consist of that existing city parking lot, then a single lot and block for the project site. And it's worth noting that they have a proposed easement with this plat. Uh part of that easement would incorporate some of the proposed parking. So council will need to consider this evening if they're comfortable with a easement over parking or if they would prefer all of the parking to be within the property boundaries of the outlot. Looking at our comprehensive plan, it's guided for downtown mixed use which guides between 24 and 75 units per acre. They're coming in right in that target range of 31 and a4er units per acre. So we do not anticipate a comprehensive plan amendment being required for this project. It is also within our central business district zoning. The proposed uses meet the allowance of that district including a mixeduse building uh with commercial uses such as showrooms which would require conditional use permits. We don't have any bulk standards in our central business district except for a maximum height of 50 ft. The applicant is proposing 49, so they're within range for that as well. And if you're curious about how this building compares in reference to other downtown buildings, it is about the same height as the Victoria Flats building adjacent to it. Looking at conditional uses, I mentioned mixed uses uh buildings and showroom uses in the central business district require conditional use permits. So do any commercial uh uses within shoreland. So, we looked at our general conditions that we have in our zoning code for conditional use permits. They meet all of these requirements as see on the screen here and included in the staff report. There weren't any specific uses that are being considered to apply any specific conditional use permit standards. Uh so, we do not have to worry about that section of our zoning code. But if they are proposing any additional residential amenities or different commercial uses that might require conditional use permits, you may see those come back in the future. For the streets and pedestrian connections, they are proposing closing off one of those access points from Quamlit to allow some additional parking on street on Quamlit. They would still retain one access into the city parking lot and then they would retain both access points from Ry's way. They would include angled parking in this proposal. So traffic would have to come in from the southern entrance, go through the site and exit through the north entrance. With that, they're also proposing it the entrance to the underground garage from Ry's Way and sidewalks around the building and extending north uh through the project area. For parking, as you know, there are 43 existing parking stalls within the city parking lot. The total project is proposing 82 parking stalls with 20 of those being underground stalls for the condo users. So that leaves 62 publicly available stalls. 17 of those are dedicated for the retail uses and one for one on the street for the showroom as well as a single hatched space here for the showroom and the one in the garage that I showed earlier. So remaining public parking truly available to the public results in 44 stalls, which is a net increase of one stall um compared [clears throat] to our current parking situation. Then for the zoning text amendment, they are proposing to amend our current standards in our zoning code. Uh that's to allow for that angled parking I showed in the last slide. the our current standards for uh 45 or 75 degree stalls would not work to make this project happen. Uh the drive aisle width requirement of 23 ft we'd be looking at in this instance in the last slide here they need 18 ft. Uh the table here which they are proposing actually aligns with what staff had been working on with the planning commission for the future zoning code update. So, uh, staff are agreeable to this proposed, uh, parking table, and this would also include a new section for compact stalls as well, which would be utilized for these six spaces just north of the building. Then looking at the Shoreland Overlay district, as I mentioned, it's entirely within the Shoreland Overlay because it's within 1,000 ft of Stiger Lake. that requires the 150 ft ordinary high water line setback. That's met in this case and the maximum impervious of 80%. They are proposing a shoreland variance to exceed that standard to go up to 96%. During the planning commission meeting uh last week, the planning commission supported a maximum of 90%. So staff are actually supportive of 96% in this case just because of all the other requirements that need to be met for infrastructure. They're widening a portion of Ry's way per our fire department's request. They're keeping an access on Quamlit while providing additional on street parking on Quamoclit and Tower Boulevard. And our public works needs additional area to have uh functional snow maintenance operations out here. So staff are supportive of the 96%. I do have a couple different options in the motions towards the end so that you can see a 90% versus a 96% for consideration. Then when we look at variances we have to consider the three practical difficulties. The first one being is the request reasonable? Staff believe that or the applicant believes that redevelopment compliant with the central business district zoning and the comprehensive plan is reasonable. Uh the uniqueness factor the site is constrained to a limited area that is difficult to comply with that 80% impervious with the required infrastructure uh necessary during staff's review to develop the site. And then lastly, the character of the locality. mixeduse buildings currently exist in our downtown with similar heights and uses. And then for a residential shoreland planned unit development, that comes into play when we have any residential building within shoreland that is four units or more. We did build in an exemption a few years ago if the development is not providing riparian access. If it's consistent with the density range and the comp plan and the other requirements of the shoreland district, they pass uh for an exemption. In this case, if that variance is approved for the impervious, they would meet all of these requirements for exemption. Then looking at signage, lighting, and architecture, the signage and lighting appear compliant. We will evaluate those closer with building permits for the signage. And the renderings also appear to meet our elevated central business design standards, including building variations, altered roof designs, enhanced entries, and high quality exterior materials. Then looking at landscaping, they're required every 35 ft and placed 20 ft from intersection for clearance. Foundation plantings are encouraged to be incorporated where practical and the central business district is exempt from open space and minimum planting requirements since this is a urban downtown design standard. Um so tree preservation for the site they are proposing over that 20% removal threshold. Uh there isn't enough space on the site leading into that variance again. Uh so staff are supportive of alternative trees instead of boulevard trees being placed in other locations for our downtown or alternatively uh we do have a fee in our fee schedule that would allow them to contribute to a tree fund for those lost inches with this project. Then for parkland dedication they would need to provide about a fifth of an acre or in parkland or $21,000. uh there aren't any parks or trails proposed with this. So we're expecting that full cash fee in lie of land dedication. Then regarding storm water management, they have to meet the MCWD rules including wetland impact mitigate mitigation. There aren't any wetlands with this project um and they met with the wershed and BMPPS for the project um were recommended for projects less than an acre in size. The current storm water for the building and the city parking lot is not currently captured, treated or rate controlled. So the DNR has requested with their review of the impervious that any additional storm water for the site is appropriately managed which the applicant is proposing. So they're actually improving the storm water conditions of the site while exceeding the impervious. And then the site utilities, water will come from Quamoclit, sewer from Tower Boulevard. There were some minor comments in the staff memos from the engineering team that will need to be addressed prior to final plat, but nothing too difficult. Then looking at the plan commission that was held last meeting or last week and the public hearing, we properly noticed that public hearing. We did not receive any comments prior to the meeting. Uh we did have our former chair attend the meeting and provide a comment stating general support for this 10-unit concept compared to the 63 unit concept back from 2022. They did have some questions though regarding uh future parking if that showroom space did convert into a different use in the future. Our planning commission discussed the public parking, the showroom use and that future parking as well as the impervious and the proposed variance and they recommended approval unanimously with a maximum 90% impervious. As I mentioned, the applicant is proposing 96. Staff are supportive of that. Uh so in our suggested conditions of approval, I've included that this item will need to be addressed if the city council is uh agreeable to 90% or 96% with the impervious variance if they choose to recommend or um approve the proposal. And then two conditions here listed in the bottom which aren't standard at this stage. We ask for a staging plan. We know this area is sensitive. It's right in the heart of our downtown. So, we want to make sure when construction occurs for this project that it is being staged appropriately where everyone all of our public is still able to navigate downtown appropriately and that if any changes for that showroom space or either of the other commercial spaces change in the future, they have to comply with our minimum parking requirements. So, with that, I have three motions for you this evening. staff can stand for any questions and we have some representatives of the application audience as well. >> Very good. Thank you so much, Mr. McCann. Council, questions, comments. >> Just I'll start out with a comment. Um, and I think it's been said, great progress and pivot from 2022 to 2025. Um, the the facility looks a lot better, the space fits Victoria a lot better. So, I'll call it a pivot. Great pivot from there from 2022. >> Good. Other comments? >> I have a couple. >> Member Ramitz, please. >> Um, so I know we talked about at sketch plat about the entrance the entrances to uh the parking the city owned parking lot uh behind Vicks and the old Victoria House. Um, you know, I know, um, the fire chief, you know, [snorts] wants to have the one on Quam Quamlit, but, um, I know we kind of discussed a little bit about, you know, would it make sense to close that up to get additional parking spots? I mean it how many like what is that space and like how many more spots could we get there if we cuz I mean again like if if the fire department needs to come down there they're going to park where they need to park. Um and I still think you have good right if you come in on Ry's way you know there's good circulation there. I mean you see those types of lots all the time. I guess I just we know how parking is a hot button topic. So, if we can get a couple more spots there, I guess I'm just curious uh what how many more spots we could get if we close that entrance up. >> Sure. Mayor and Council Member Roberts, we talked with the applicant and their design team on this. Uh our fire chief requested it not only for fire access, but also rel related to the location of a fire hydrant uh to serve the area. So, there's an existing hydrant in this area with the sidewalk that they're proposing that if it went the full connection all the way down, they wouldn't be able to have a fire truck parked in the street. They'd have to navigate around um vehicles parked on Quamoclit. So, it's a it's a challenge for our fire department without this access, not just related to the access of the parking lot, but also to the service of adjacent buildings. >> Okay, that makes sense. we didn't talk about have that information. I think that's about the fire hydrant. Um and then um I know there was discussion and I'm sorry if you mentioned this in here and I just missed it. I think there was some discussion about some additional parking going towards the burrow a little bit as part of this. Is that not an option? Like I know there's been some discussion kind of in that area. Um, mayor and council member, I'm I'm not sure um of any conversations about any of this parking being for the burrow, >> mayor, members of the council. So, staff have been outside of this project, staff have just been exploring other opportunities to expand parking. And so, that might be something that you're you're referencing, Council Member Roberts. So, um, at this time we don't have anything new to report to the council. Um, but it is something that we will continue to explore. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Uh, just a couple other questions. Um, so if so, I know there was some concern you said uh by the um planning commission about the showroom and you know if it when it eventually or if it eventually converts to commercial space. Can you talk about if what are what our numbers look like? I guess just for uh the uh public's reference. If we said right now that that um uh showroom space was a the a commercial space like the other two, what the what requirements that would be to park and what are the numbers would then look like? >> Sure. >> Yeah. Mr. I can >> mayor and council member Roberts. So if that space were converted to retail for instance, let's say um with that size of a space and our current zoning code requirements, they would need to have six parking spaces gener uh designated for that space. Uh as I mentioned, they have a net increase right now of one. So we could dedicate that to it. Basically, they would have to find five stalls uh somewhere else or contribute to parking funds. It it all depends on how our zoning code works. I mean, this is a potential use that would convert in maybe 20, 30 years. Our code could be entirely different then. And it might also not be a retail use. Uh there's always potential that this could maybe become another condo unit which would require less parking or it could be a different type of commercial use which doesn't generate as much traffic. So um we're trying to account for that in the resolution this evening by saying if that changes in the future, we'll take a closer look at it and we'll discuss alternatives with the applicant. But on that topic, we don't require anybody else to project into the future what their parking needs might be. So we can only really >> require we have in front of us >> what we have in front of us right now. So um you know to say that this might be something different in the future. >> We would have to address that at that point in time. >> Sure. Can I >> ask a question about the showroom right now just since we're on it? Um, could that be converted into underground parking or I mean there are cars being parked in there right now. Correct. >> Correct. >> I don't know. Could you have five or six cars in there for parking? Maybe. Anyway. >> Okay. >> Thank you. You guys are going to be a little bit of victim of my social schedule over the last couple weeks here, too. >> Light up Victoria. Um I would just say too like when we're thinking about these roads in the future too. Um I've you know definitely heard from people um between tower and kit um you know no stop signs there. So I would anticipate more traffic being down here. So maybe the city like making sure we have uh adequate stop signs down here. And then my final question uh just would be uh well first of all I guess right like I I liked the original project a lot um I think you guys know that um I think this is even better um with the all the development we're doing down here I think it just fits more right instead of having 62 or whatever it was now down to 10. Um, I guess I just, you know, we've got, uh, you know, the, uh, flats over here. We've got Row now. We've got, you know, the developments that we're working on the West End. I guess what is your guys's obviously you're not in the business to lose money so you want to make sure that these sell like how are you guys looking at you know the you [snorts] know do are you seeing a big you know want for these down here you know based off of like what all the other things we're doing down here too because obviously no no one wants these to sit empty. >> Mr. Runk, welcome. These are these are going to be condos, owner occupied condos. Yeah. >> It's really a there's a lack of new condo supply uh in the entire metropolitan area. Um I'm doing a project mound that's uh up now the first phase which is only 12 units. Um there's a four unit building going up in Weisetta. There is zero units going up in Excelsier. We see that there's demand for this product type right now, especially for empty nesters. And our partner on the project, Gandhi Homes, um has a lot of clients or customers who are building homes or current residents looking for this type of solution to where it's maintenancefree and enough size though where it's not as small as these apartments, but larger than apartments in this case. >> So, it's our it's our read of the market and where the demand is. West Metro, Southwest Metro. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. >> All right. I I just have a count >> in the in the the great [clears throat] memo that staff put for us. Here's the question. The six parking spaces that are going to be um put in along essentially west of uh I think that we as council should remain the owner of that parcel so that we don't foreclose future options uh in instead of granting an easement for parking spaces there. So, um I think we've done a lot with getting to yes on this project a lot to um bring things home and I think that we always work towards getting to yes. So any building code complications that might come by in the future we'll we'll be able to get around them. And then that just I think to council member Patterson's comment about you know could that lower space be reused as garage space. I think you'd get better access to the building that way. So um I'm I would be um I would be less comfortable with holding an easement and I'd want us to hold that property and let the building just go up to the lot line. >> Okay. Yeah. Mr. McCarthy, welcome. >> Thank you. Uh, council mayor. Um, the uh the issue with that is um there there's a fire code issue uh with the design on that site. It would it would restrict us from having windows um if it's right up on the lot line. So um there could be another situation where you give us an easement um so that we like perpetually that that would be parking um or we are giving you so we would technically own that space and then we give the city an easement to park it. So, we just can't have something prop like possibly built right next to it that would eliminate the the ability to have windows on that. Um, the other thing too is like like you mentioned, if there was a need to do a parking structure where we would go underground, you'd still have the ability to build that with an easement if we owned it. uh we would just you know work with you on that that whole situation with us having the land and and an >> yeah I'm I'm still just um I'm still not convinced that giving up that parcel and um you know I I feel that the city will have longer term optionality with it as opposed to giving an easement just for parking or the easement if if would be would be whatever the city's discretion would be. So, um I think we'd be fine with some kind of wording that says um as long as it doesn't obstruct our ability to construct the building with the windows on that side of the building. That's all we're concerned with. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I mean, I I think we've got a good history of getting to yes on things like building codes and things like that and variances and things like that. I I just I see for instance that you know if something were to develop say from there towards Stiger Lake that a space similar to what we have over by Ruby's Roost and over by the Noble Lion where that is a public space that could be used um people enjoy that and they like that it's convenient to be able to have that sitting over there and not foreclosed upon I think is something that we should retain that option. another idea with a circumstance like that is having easement rights over a certain elevation in this case over the first floor because that's down at P1 where that parking is it's down low and we're really talking or Marty's talking about our windows for the condos which are levels two three and four on that side of the building. So you can always have an easement if you were you know to go this path that would be parking at one height and at a certain elevation it's It's for it's unbuildable because of views. In that case, we need to have windows up up on levels two, three, four in that case. So there could be two different easements essentially at one height one side of the building if that makes sense. >> Yeah, I I I understand where you're going. I I'm just still insistent that we would want to retain the ownership of the land. And just one more comment for what it's worth. Mr. Ganon's wanted me to remind everyone that he uh worked with the city on this land right here, the flag parcel, uh to create more parking at one time. And so he appreciates um being recognized for that, that he has been willing to spend giving up this land or selling to the city for $1, I believe, or some nominal amount at one time for this. Just wanted to mention that. >> Yeah, we we we understand that that history very well, Carl. Yes. >> Can I just inquire of whoever is appropriate to ask the question? So the issue with the the windows is that the plat will ultimately have to not show a lot line immediately adjacent to the building. The lot will have to extend out further from the building to allow the windows. Is am I gathering that correctly? >> Um that that's my um recollection recollection from conversations with our um architectural firm. Yep. So, >> yeah. >> Yeah. Mayor, mayor and council, I'm just to your point, council member, about getting to Yes. I suspect there's a way to cause the lot line to be where it needs to be to allow windows. Whether the city retains ownership and grants an easement to you or you own it and grant this easement to the city. Either way, the parties working together can cause the lot line to be in a place where it would allow you to have the windows. >> I think there's a way that we can get to yes on this. Um because there's definitely like um uh work easements where the property line could be right up against the the building but there's a work easement and that allows certain things like so yes I think there's definitely a way to get to yes this was the simplest answer for us to get you know to start with I think >> fair enough I appreciate the simplicity um I'm still kind of in the you know the there's a number of things that we're adjusting standards working with um what will be we'll talk about impervious surfaces um I think this is one of those things where this is the city's property we should retain it and then have discretion over it use >> I would agree with you Greg um again I forewarned you I'm little bit of a victim of my social schedule and all of the events that have been going on in Victoria and my chance to work with the residents and talk with them about this. Um, I'm supportive of it. I'm very aware of our potential overexpansion and growing too much too fast with all of our projects. Rather than sticking 60 um, apartments in here, we go to 10 condominiums owner occupied. I think that's a great solution. Um, Greg alluded to impervious surface. To me, it feels like in order to park this situation and the retail aspects, we have to essentially get rid of all of the green space that's there right now. We have to go from 80% um impervious surface to 96% covered. We're throwing in compact car spots. We're putting in zoning text amendments in order to kind of wedge this in for a net one gain. Um I feel like this is key real estate in downtown Victoria and um I'm always looking for a way to possibly move us beyond that net one gain of parking spot. Um how do we do that? That's not planned. It's not on the list of things to discuss tonight, but I think it's something that we need to look at and to consider in order to make sure that this is properly parked and parked for the future. Um, I guess that would be my main comments. >> Other comments, questions? >> Can we touch on the impervious side of it a little bit? Um, I guess I understand why it's gone up to 96. Um, but I also heard, you know, um, some discussion about it'd be tough to get to 90, but there may be some ability to get in between 90 to 96, right, with the rooftop and maybe there's some other things. So, can you touch on that? Can somebody touch on that? Hi, welcome. Please introduce yourself. >> Yes, good evening mayor and councel. I'm Mark Anderson, civil engineer with Samitech and we've been working with Monarch development team on the site plans along with the impervious area. And so, um, as noted, the current site is about 82% impervious and to acquire additional parking stalls, the desired sidewalk widths, um, sidewalk uh, to the north to access to the parking lot. Um, we've looked at a number of ways to introduce green space, including tree grates, a little bit of boulevard area on the west. Um, but at the end of the day to get the street widening of Ry's way as well got us all the way up to 96% impervious. And so as noted, it requires a variance. Um, but the impact of that 96% impervious isn't dramatic from the standpoint of what the downstream storm water storm sewer capacity is. um because the little bit of green area that's on the site today of course runs off in a heavy rainfall as well. So the difference between today and the proposed project is literally 0.2 CFS from 82% to 96. So it's it's really nominal. It's like two or 3% of the pipe capacity. And if we shaved it down, it would just be a hair different. But what we do gain with the project is storm water treatment. Both of the city parking lot as well as the project's roof water are are treated for sediment control um before they hit Stiger Lake. Um and and and so that is a benefit of the project both for the parking lot and for the building itself in those two devices. Um so that's a little bit of background on imperous area. So, so we do I mean we go up to 96, but we also gain the treatment, the storm water treatment. We get our streets and sidewalks the way we'd like them there. Um, right now they're a little squishy and we know that >> and so that gets us a better better infrastructure. I think >> I think the impervious surface limits and numbers are put in place to help mitigate storm water issues and we're mitigating that through engineering and other tools. Um I'm using impervious surface and beating that number up so that we can hopefully try to find some different parking because we're allowing this to go up. But let's come up with a another solution to park more cars. I mean, overall, I I personally looked at the engineering. I'm comfortable with the impervious surface climbing to the 96%. I mean, anything that we're going to do downtown with a structure is going to put us in the same situation. Um, and I think that it, you know, that's one of the offsets to what I was just talking about and saying, still retaining ownership of that par of parking spaces. I I I still will say I am not in love with the idea of having to excavate down and go into a parking ramp and do a right turn, but um I mean that's some of the give and take that we have to do to get this, you know, get to guess. But nothing is, you know, 100% perfect, but this is pretty good. This checks a lot of boxes and like we talked about there's there's a huge need for owner occupied housing even though it may not be single family lots. Um, so I I think we have um you know what we typically have seen the the PUB tool used for is to be able to balance off some things that really make a desirable have to then you know take maybe a compromise on something else. This does not seem like it's something at least to me that's a a tremendous strain to get there. If we answered all the impervious questions, I would just like to suggest with the conditions of approval that the the property line location be reviewed and approved at the final plat. um because I think we'll need input from the building official to decide ultimately where that property line is because as noted the architect has indicated um we need space to the property line to get those windows and then they can even go to a fire rated window but it still requires three feet of separation from the building wall to the property line. So, in order for it to be that close, we'll have to get input from the building official. So, um I would just reserve that that ultimate property line to be part of the final plat approval. >> That seems fair to me. >> Okay. >> Thank you. All right. Any other comments? All right. Council, any further comments, questions? >> I guess I just have one other question. I mean, I think we've talked about this a bunch, but whe with with the property line issue, the you know, talking about uh having windows on that side to uh second story and up. Um this is all set up though if we ever wanted to build that because we're on a hill right there, the uh parking structure on the city-owned lot. That's still doable with this design. Correct. >> Perfect. Okay. >> Yeah. Getting head nods. >> Yeah. Good. All right. Last call. Final questions, comments from council. All right. Seeing Oh, yeah. Mr. McCarthy, please. >> Just one quick question. Um, for staff is, uh, you had mentioned, Ryan, um, that it would be five extra stalls that would be needed. I I I think we had conversations that it was just two extra stalls. If that showroom was converted into retail, >> yeah, mayor and council members, I'd like to clarify my comments on that. I said uh that showroom space, if converted, would need five stalls. I wasn't taking into account here the three that are already accommodated for. So, for a retail space, they would need two additional stalls. >> Yes. >> Just to clarify. >> Yes. And then to council member Person's comments as well. Um so it's a net one increase of parking stalls after the uses for the retail and the showroom are accommodated. So really they are providing uh 21 total stalls with the project just for additional um clarification. >> Thank you. because a lot of those things may be, you know, only open during the day, right? And so at night they're being used for the restaurants and such in our So I mean that's, you know, because if these are most of our shops down here are only open during the day. And if that's what we're anticipating this to be, it's going to be a lot more parking for our restaurants at night. >> Well, those previous discussions too, those retail spaces aren't built to be restaurants. they aren't vented properly and they don't have the so they aren't going to be places where people are going to come in park and sit there for an hour and a half and have >> cocktails and dinner. Um they're going to be in and out. So um I think there is addition. I just think there's a lot of sacrifice that's being made for that addition as well. All right, any further comments? All right, seeing no further discussion, we're looking for three motions on this item. >> Do we [clears throat] have Do we have to adjust this though? Like based off of Greg's comments and his >> Yeah, would they make that condition number 12 then? Any other conditions? Is that right? >> City council is that the city's >> So the motion is good parking spaces. >> Mayor and council members. Yes. Um, so we'll want to see in your motion uh condition number two here if you would prefer 90% or 96% for the impervious if you're leaning towards a motion for approval. And then that condition 12 uh looks at the shared lot line in relation to the building for final plat approval. >> Are we all in agreement on that? >> Um, mayor council. So my my in inquiry about sort of the lot line and the window issue that I appreciate the Samitech architect to help clarify and others. Um my only concern is um you as part of your final plat approval require a title review. That's we give a plat opinion about who owns what and making sure that the parties that are actually platting own what they say they're platting or what they're going to plat. Um I if you proceed with the city retaining ownership uh but create a lot that has the lot line removed from the building I think the net result will be that there will be a new platted lot in which the city will be a partial owner the city will own and developer will own and I don't know how that impacts their financing. So, uh, I think direction on whether you want the city to regain ownership is important, but I think there are some implications for developer on that that we'll have to work through. So, I don't have an answer on how you want to proceed on that, but that that would be the issue is there will be a single platted lot in which the city has a meets and bounds described portion of that platted lot and developer owns the remainder of that platted lot. So we'll be jointly owning a single platted lot which has implications. >> Yeah. >> Mr. R please. >> I think our our preference would be for it to be our own legal description for the plan of course for financing. So if there is a way to come up with a concept where there's an easement or some other way where we're not jointly owning piece of property I think that'd be preferred. So bringing it up. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And mayor and council member, to your point, I understand what you want is you want the city to retain the same level of control over that property that you would have today as owner of that parcel. And I think there's ways to get to that. I just don't as I sit here right now right now know how to tell you exactly the way forward on that. So may maybe direction on that, the city retaining complete control over development rights of that parcel, whether it's ownership or an easement that grants you effectively all of the rights of ownership. If that's if that's your point, I mean, I don't want to think for you. I don't know if that's your point, but if that's your point, maybe that direction could be given and then we'll have to work through I think with developer a little bit exactly how we do that. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I mean, I think that that's the direction we want to go is that we we want to own own that parcel so that the city has control going forward of everything that could take place on what we exist, what we currently own. So, >> and mayor and council, and I apologize to stop stop you there, but I I I think the obvious way forward would would be that the city retains ownership and then that's created as a separate outlot or it wouldn't be a developable lot because it's inadequate size. And if it were created as an outlot, I think that creates a lot line which creates the problem with the windows. So, I that that that's the issue we're trying to work around is we need a single platted lot and we can't have a city-owned outlot between the parking lot, the existing parking lot and the development property. >> In my experience, the building official look for an easement that's a no build easement essentially. Yeah. >> That that goes up to the heights level 2, three, four to allow us to put the windows in. So, yeah, if that could be worked out, yeah, we look at that. >> I think we're all saying we can get to Yes. It's just let's leave a little bit of flexibility there to figure out the best way forward on that. Okay, >> we'll let Greg do the motion. [laughter] >> I don't know all the words I said there. I wish I could give you the motion now, but I can't. So, [laughter] >> all right, which which brings us to the motion. So, do we need to massage those conditions at all? So, let's let's go back to our conditions if you please. So, um first of all, I'm looking for consensus from council that we are okay moving to that 96% implous. >> I am okay with it. I I'm I'm good with the 96. >> I'm seeing four head nods and a maybe >> but I want it for different reasons. Okay. >> So forehead nods would be consensus or majority. So moving towards 96 and taking into effect into account all of council member Patterson's concerns. All right. So we we're are moving to 96 and then that that um number 12 condition. Mayor and council, I will despite not knowing what I said, still take a swing at it. Uh maybe for 12, what you're saying, council member, is uh u 12th condition being the city will retain comma whether by fee ownership or easement, comma, development rights over the property it currently owns within the development property. >> I think that's a fair representation, counselor. >> Very good. >> Did you capture that? Somebody >> okay >> so staff is >> comma >> comma [clears throat] >> comma >> has >> is there two commas [laughter] >> inserted all the commas >> thank you needed right so >> all right we are going to entertain a motion council member >> all right so I'll make a motion to adopt the resolution approving a preliminary p plant shoreland variance conditional use permit site plant building material Victoria condos subject to the conditions that we spoke of this evening mo notably the 96% impervious surface. And then the 12th condition that we will um by legal device have the city maintain development rights, control, ownership or in some substantially similar fashion for future developments and meeting building codes for the Victoria condos. >> Phew. We got a motion. Can I get a second? >> I'll get a second. >> We got a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. Um, motion number two, Council Member Roberts, please. >> Motion to adopt ordinance 486 ZC amending zoning code section 20-3. >> 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. Council member Rice, please. Motion to adopt the resolution approving summary of publication of 486 ZC. >> 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. >> Thank you so much. We are moving on to our final item on the regular agenda which is 6.6 which is a close session to discuss land sale terms for downtown west phase 2. Closed sessions are allowed pursuant in to Minnesota statutes 13D.05 subdivision 31, which states the city council may hold a closed session to protect the city's negotiating position regarding the sale of real property pursuant to Minnesota statute 13D.05 subdivision 3. I'm making a motion to close the meeting to determine the asking price for real or personal property to be sold by the governmental entity. Can I get a second, please? Second. >> We have a second. All in favor signify by saying I. I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. We are now going into close session. Once we're done, we'll return to reconvene the regular meeting of the city council. I'm making a motion to reconvene this regular meeting of the city council. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. We'll now move on to reports andmer and emerging issues. Attorney Bose, anything from you this evening? >> Mayor, council, I don't have anything to say. Thank you. >> Hardy, how about anything from staff? >> Uh, mayor, members of the council, I'm just going to put our city clerk on the spot. I think she has an update for you. >> Yes, Miss Edis. >> I do. Um, madame mayor and city councils, as part of our continuing partnership with Debeller Studio, I present our newest art exhibit which includes acrylics, watercolors, and mixed media. The exhib exhibit is open to the public during noral business hours Monday through Friday 8 to 4:30 except on holidays. >> Very good. Thank you so much. Members of the council, anything from the council this evening? All right. Seeing none, on behalf of the council and the city staff, I'd like to wish everybody a very happy holiday season. We are uh we will not be in session again until after the first of the year. I believe January 12th is our next meeting. So, thank you so much. So, with that, uh there are no more items to come before the body this evening. So, I will take a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> I get a second. Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. We stand adjourned.