City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening. It's now 630 and I call this regular meeting of the Victoria City Council to order. Please join us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Friday marked the 25th anniversary of September 11th, 2001. It is our tradition to begin our meetings with the Pledge of Allegiance, and as in honor of all those who lost their lives on September 11th, please join me in a moment of silence. Thank you. Now on to the announcements. We invite everyone to attend our annual Fire Department Community Open House at our new Victoria Fire Station next Monday, September 21st from 5.30 to 8 p.m. You'll have the opportunity to see our new fire station, learn how it was designed, to meet our department's needs today and well into the future. You'll also have the opportunity to meet and interact with our firefighters, see various fire and EMS equipment, and enjoy a variety of interactive fire safety, and prevention activities. There is no cost to attend or participate. The next item on our agenda this evening is to adopt the final agenda. Council, can I get a motion to adopt the final agenda?

Motion to adopt the final agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Next item on our agenda is the open forum. This is an opportunity for our members to address the public on, to address the council on items that are not on tonight's agenda or not part of an active application that will come before the council at a future date. No one has registered to speak in advance this evening, so is there anyone in the audience who would like to address the council at this time? Seeing no one, we'll move on to the next item on our agenda, which is the consent agenda. Items on the consent agenda are routine, administrative, and do not require deliberation, or are housekeeping items 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?

Mayor and members of the council, staff would like to pull item 5.3 for transparency purposes. Perfect.

Council, any other items from the consent agenda for separate discussion and vote? Or anyone in the audience wishing to pull an item for separate discussion and vote? Clerk, please let the record reflect that item 5.3 has been pulled for further discussion. May I have a motion to approve the remaining balance of the consent agenda?

I'll make a motion to approve the balance of the consent agenda for September 14, 2026.

Thank you. Is there a second?

I'd like to second that motion.

We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Moving on to item 5.3, which has been pulled by Ms. Hardy for separate discussion and vote. I will now give the floor to staff. Ms. Brewington, I think you're going to be addressing this item for us.

Mayor, members of the council, just while she's pulling that up, we do have a new AB system, so we're, we've got a little bit of a learning curve.

Looks like it's working beautifully.

All right, mayors, members of the council, thank you so much for your patience with this. Tonight we're just going to give you a quick overview of TIF 1-10. So just a quick project overview. The site is located north of County Road 10, west of County Road 11, Victoria Drive, and south of the Marsh Hollow development. The proposal includes 165 rental apartment units with 132 apartment unit Sorry 132 market rates with a 33 affordable units The affordable units will be restricted households earning up to the 50% AMI This project has been before the council previously on April 28th 2025 the city held a required public hearing and established the tax increment financing housing district number 110 to provide TIF assistance for the project I'll touch a little bit on the next slide, the projects did experience some delays, so this is why we are here tonight for this. SO THIS SLIDE IS REALLY JUST A QUICK REFRESHER ON HOW WE GOT BACK HERE TONIGHT. SO THE CITY ESTABLISHED THE TIF DISTRICT, LIKE I MENTIONED, AND THE PROJECT WAS DELAYED BUT DID NOT MOVE FORWARD ON THE TIMELY ORIGINAL TIMELINE ANTICIPATED, BUT THE TIF DISTRICT DID REMAIN IN PLACE. THE DEVELOPER IS NOW READY TO MOVE FORWARD, WHICH IS WHY THE ITEM IS BACK BEFORE THE COUNCIL TONIGHT. BECAUSE OF THE DELAY, THE TIF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS HAVE BEEN UPDATED TO REFLECT THE CURRENT PROJECT FINANCING TERMS AND ANTICIPATED SCHEDULE. THE OVERALL STRUCTURE AND INTENT OF THE PROJECT REMAINS LARGELY THE SAME, AND TONIGHT'S ACTION UPDATES THE NECESSARY AGREEMENTS SO THE PROJECT CAN MOVE FORWARD. THIS SLIDE PROVIDES A QUICK OVERVIEW OF HOW THE TIF FINANCING WORKS FOR THIS PROJECT. THE TIF NOTE HAS A PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF APPROXIMATELY 3.58 MILLION, BUT THERE IS NO UPFRONT PAYMENT FROM THE CITY. THE DEVELOPER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FINANCING THE PROJECT AND ELIGIBLE IMPROVEMENTS UPFRONT AND MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. Once the project is completed, it generates additional property tax increment. That increment becomes the source to reimburse the developer over time. The developer's reimbursement is limited to the tax increment that is actually generated by the project. And with that, I have a sample motion on the screen, and we do have a representative from the project in the audience.

Very good. Thanks, Ms. Brewington. Council, any questions, comments on this item? Seeing none, then I will entertain a motion for item 5.3.

Motion to adopt the resolution approving contract for private development with Victoria South Apartments LLC.

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.

Opposed? Motion carries. Moving on to our regular agenda. The first item on our regular agenda this evening, 6.1, is to consider our 2027 preliminary tax levy and general fund budget. Presenting on that this evening is Assistant City Manager and Finance Director, Tricia Pollack. Ms. Pollack. Welcome.

Good evening, Mayor, members of the council. As we switch our slides back one moment. Thank you. Okay, I think we have it. So this evening we will review the 2027 preliminary levy and proposed general fund budget. Staff is requesting council's consideration of two resolutions to approve the preliminary levy for the collection in 2027 and then also the approval of the 2027 general fund budget. So the proposed 2027 general fund budget includes 7.73 million in operating expenditures and 2.07 million in transfers to capital funds for total expenditures and transfers of approximately 9.8 million. To achieve a balanced budget while maintaining the city's fund balance policy of at least 30% of the following year's operating expenditures at year end, an increase to fund balance of approximately 33,000 is required. To support these expenditures, the budget includes $1.68 million in non-levy revenues and a proposed general fund operating levy of $8.15 million. Together, these revenue sources provide sufficient funding for operations, planned capital transfers, and the targeted fund balance increase. The chart on the left shows revenue sources of 9.8 million, which supports the proposed general fund budget. 83% of revenues come from property taxes and the franchise fees. And the next largest revenue source is licenses and permits, which reflect ongoing development and permitting activity. charges for services account for seven percent of revenues and the remaining two percent is divided between intergovernmental revenues and other revenues primarily from interest earnings turning to expenditures the second chart shows how general fund resources are allocated across city operations of the nine point eight million thirty five percent is spent on general government which includes administration, services, planning, finance, elections, and other support functions. Public safety, which is for some reason not showing up on this slide now, but it is 24% of the total. which supports our police, fire, and building inspection services. The budget also includes transfers to capital funds, allowing the city to invest in future infrastructure, facilities, equipment replacement, other long-term capital needs. Parks and recreation expenditures total 10% of the budget and support the park maintenance and recreation programming. And finally, public works expenditures are budgeted with 10% funding, which include maintenance of streets, snow removal, composting, fleet operation, and other public services. The preliminary levy totals approximately 10.3 million. This represents a 4.85% increase over the 2026 levy. While the levy is increasing, the city's tax capacity rate is projected to decrease to 29.19%, reflecting growth in the city's tax base. As a result, The impact on individual properties will vary depending on changes in property values. The chart also illustrates how the levy is allocated between the city's two primary levy components to the general fund operating levy and the debt service with debt being 2.1 million and general fund at 8.2 million. Net tax capacity is projected at $33.5 million, which is an increase of 7.9% from 2026. This indicates continued growth in the city's overall taxable property base. And the tax capacity rate, again, projected to be 29.19%, which is a decrease of 0.89%. The median home value is going up 2.9% to $600,500 from 2026, which indicates that residential property values continue to appreciate at a moderate pace. And also the city's tax on the medium home is projected to be $1,753, which is no change from 2026 is medium home value. So despite the higher home values, the lower tax rate results in a flat city tax bill for a medium home value. Year-end population growth remains strong in alliance with housing and valuation growth at a 2.9% increase projected. And the tax per capita projected to be $753, up 1.8%. What does a 4.85% increase in the city's levy mean for your property tax bill? As you can see, the projected tax rate will decrease, resulting in a decrease in taxes if your home value would remain stable year over year. If your home value increased the 3.5%, which reflects the overall market value increase, your taxes should stay close to the same because of the lower tax rate. In order to break it down further, the following tables illustrate how each property tax dollar is distributed among taxing jurisdictions for both a typical single family residential property and a commercial industrial property. So for the single family residential home, the largest share of the property tax dollar is allocated to the school district, reflecting 42 cents of every tax dollar. The county receives 28 cents while the city receives 27 cents and remaining 3% is distributed to other taxing entities. For a commercial industrial property, the tax distribution is much more complex, with the largest portion of each tax dollar, 27 cents, being allocated to fiscal disparities, which is a regional tax-based sharing program. The school district receives 21 cents, followed by the state at 19 cents, the county at 16 cents, city at 15 cents, and remaining two cents to other taxing jurisdictions. As a result, the city receives 15% of each commercial property tax dollar, while 85% supports regional, state, county, school, and other governmental services. This chart is illustrating the city's historical and projected property tax levy increase between 2022 through 2036. The years through 2026 reflect actual while 27 through 36 represent projections based on our long term financial planning assumptions. Looking at the trend, we experienced several years of a significant levy increase between 23 and 26. These increases were driven by capital investments needed and efforts to maintain service levels while addressing long-term financial sustainability. Beginning in 27, the long-term financial plan shows a gradual moderation in levy increases. projected annual increases generally fall within one to five percent range with most years closer to three percent or less this reflects the benefits of proactive financial planning strategic use of our available resources in the city's efforts to smooth levy impacts over time rather than experiencing larger spikes in future years The goal is to maintain high quality services and invest in critical assets while keeping future levy increases as stable and manageable as possible. This is a similar chart, only this is showing the tax rate. That is actual 2022 through 20 and 2026 with our projections for 27 through 36. The levy reflects the total amount of taxes collected. The tax rate measures that levy relative to the community's total taxable market value. One of the key takeaways is that despite the several years of levy increases, the tax rate remains relatively stable over long term, generally ranging between 29 and 30%. This stability is made possible by continued tax-based growth, which helps distribute the cost of services and investments across a larger property value base. So you can see in 2023 when values outpaced the levy, we saw a significant drop in the tax rate with it coming back up the following couple of years and then now stabilizing, demonstrating that the community's growth is helping offset the impact of the future levy increases, which allows the city to maintain service levels, fund infrastructure needs and support long-term investments without significant increases in overall tax rate. Does council have any questions or comments for staff before I present two resolutions for your consideration? Thank you, Ms. Pollack.

Council, questions, comments?

I think you've done a great job based on what I've seen from other communities where people are up in arms about the increase in their property taxes. I don't think they understand the level of detail that goes into this, but... I'm not gonna name any other communities at this point, but many friends in other places where their increase has been something for the city portion has been 20% or more. So I think you've done a great job in figuring this out for us. So thank you. I have one small question. If you go back a couple slides, you went from 2031 to 2032 on your crystal ball, and it looked like it tripled in what you thought the increase would be. Is there something coming down the pipe in 2032 that We could better prepare for, or is, are we prepared as. Well, here, 2032 to 2033, you go from 1% to 3%. That's 3 times the amount. Is there any reason for that? Do we know?

So that's great question comes from our Patterson. So there is some. There's some timing of some debt that will drop off that does decrease it, but we are also looking at adding some projects that we might, since it's out of ways, it'll probably make sense to kind of fill in that little gap there to kind of help level that out. We're still looking at our long-term plan all the time. So this is actually changing again before we even go to December with some more significant CIP planning that we're in the process of doing right now. So that's one of the gaps that I'm actually actively looking at trying to kind of fill in what makes the most sense. Great, thank you.

Okay, council, other questions? All right, I just want to second Council Member Pedersen's thank you to Ms. Hardy and Ms. Pollack and the whole city staff. I know they got some pretty good pressure to keep this thing low and they responded in kind and we appreciate that very much. So with that, I will look for a motion from council.

I'll make a motion for a resolution approving a preliminary tax levy for the City of Victoria for collection of 2027 in the amount of $10,263,915. Thank you, Councilmember Evanski.

Can I get a second?

I would like to second that.

We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. I will consider a second motion, please.

I would like to make the motion for a resolution approving a preliminary 2027 budget for the general fund.

We have a motion. Can I get a second?

I would like to second that.

We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Next on the agenda, item 6.2 is a public hearing for a temporary noise permit for Floyd's Bar. located at 1758 Arboretum Boulevard. Presenting on this item is Community and Economic Development Director Jen Brewington. Jen, welcome back.

All right, sorry about that delay. Thank you, Mayor, members of the Council. As the Mayor just noted, we have a public hearing tonight for a temporary noise permit application. So on 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 amplified music beyond 10 p.m. while balancing economic activity with the quality of life for nearby residents. The temporary noise permit process establishes 10 p.m. as a standard ending time for any 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 transparency and consideration for potential impacts on nearby residents and businesses. Floyd's Bar has submitted a temporary noise permit application requesting approval to extend outdoor amplified music until 11 p.m. on the six dates listed on your screen. And with that, I have a sample motion for you to look at.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Brewington. This is a public hearing for a temporary noise permit for Floyd's Bar at 1758 Arboretum Boulevard. I will now open the public hearing. If there's anyone who wishes to speak to this item, please step forward now. I would invite anyone interested in speaking to this item to step forward. And last call. Seeing no comments, I will now close the public hearing and open the floor to council discussion. Council, any questions, comments on this item?

Just kind of a comment, maybe it's a question too. How have we been doing as of late, last couple weeks, let's say? Have we heard any comment or things like that? Ms. Harding, would you like to address that, please?

I can start and then I'll look over at Jen and see if she's heard anything as well. But thank you, Mayor, members of the council. I did speak with our sheriff's office last week, and as of last week, we have had zero complaints. Thank you.

Jen, if you've heard similar things?

Not heard anything different than that.

Great. Thank you. You're welcome. Any other questions, comments?

I would just, I know we haven't had any complaints, but I also probably understand that you know, people who have made their complaints probably feel that they weren't necessarily heard, so they may have given up. So I just would say, right, I think temporary can be taken multiple ways. Every weekend during the summer, I don't know if that's temporary, even though we're looking at these in groupings. We're also getting to a time when it's very nice out and people are gonna have their windows open more, and so, I can see it being a bigger nuisance for some of our residents in this next batch of dates. So I still have concerns about these batches. So that's my two cents.

Thank you, Council Member Roberts. Any other comments, questions?

I just had a question for staff on the council member Robert's concerns. Do we feel this has been effective? Do we feel that this has sent the right message that that the city cares about residents and cares about businesses at the same time. And are we getting effective use of staff resources, time, having the applicant come and apply for permits? Do we feel like we're getting the desired effect from this?

Ms. Bruin, too.

Yeah, I'm going to kick this one over to City Manager Dana Hardy, please.

Ms. Hardy. Jen, thank you. Council Member Ivansky, Mayor, members of the council, I think the way I'd like to answer that is my understanding of why council wanted to make this change to the ordinance to require a temporary permit is based on conversations that you've had and input that you've had with residents in the area about kind of the frequency and how long outdoor music was being played in the area. And I think my understanding is that the residents had some level of tolerance with the music until about 10 p.m. And then after that, it really became problematic because it was interfering with people's abilities to get to sleep at a reasonable hour, especially if they had commitments, whether it be work or personal the next day. And so my understanding of about why you wanted to implement the change in the ordinance to require a temporary permit for, um, for noise after outdoor music after 10 PM was to provide an opportunity for both the applicant and for residents to have more transparency about what was being requested, when to expect that there would be events happening that would have music playing after 10 p.m. and the opportunity to weigh in on that. So using that lens, I think that this has been effective because we send out a note, we mail the notice to 350, within 350 feet of the property, we're publishing it in the paper, we're publishing the public hearing in posting notice as required, and so I know our staff has also made sure that they're connecting with like rural residents, the property managers, to make sure that they know that there is a public hearing coming up so people have an opportunity to weigh in. So from that lens, from that transparency lens, I feel like that this has been way more effective than just trying to figure out, okay, are they gonna play music again tonight?

Thank you. Correct me if I'm wrong, did it also include ways to better enforce any sort of violation? We had, I believe, complaints of music playing past 11.30 and up until midnight. I mean, Mystic Lake can't even play past 11 p.m., so I think this is a fair number from just a timing standpoint, and it... lets the business owner know, hey, you can't play past this or you will get cited, and if you are cited, you won't get your next ones approved. So I think it puts a nice standard in place and something that's reasonable for everyone. I guess my only suggestion would be what I think you have done, which would be to reach out to some of those folks that have voiced concerns in the past and see how they feel about it. That would be the only thing I would recommend if we can do that, if we have a record of that someplace.

Thank you, Council Member Patterson.

Yeah, I think there is some advantages to doing a bulk of six and seeing what happens. The one thing I personally don't want to see happen is you move to 11 while people are playing until 11.30, 11.45. that's doing us so you better keep at the ten and then know that they're gonna quit playing our before the eleven thirty eleven forty five or whatever so To Chad's point, I think, and Council Member Patterson's as well, I think going back to them, and I don't know, I mean, I think it was a handful at least of people to see where things are at. But it's, I don't know what else we can do that we haven't already tried to do in this area. I don't know.

Sorry any comments on that or okay? All right any other final questions comments Feel like we've struck a pretty good balance here with this. I think we have the Establishment now following the rules better we have Kind of a hammer that we can you can drop if they don't so with that I will now entertain a motion, please

Make a motion to approve a temporary noise permit for Floyd's Bar at 1758 Arboretum Boulevard, allowing amplified outdoor music until 11 p.m., subject to the conditions of approval on the dates requested, 9-18, 9-19, 9-25, 9-26, 10-2, 10-3, all of 2026.

Thank you very much. Can I get a second?

Second.

We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Aye.

Motion carries, and is the dissension noted?

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you. Moving on, next item on our agenda, item 6.3, is also a public hearing related to the proposed tax increment financing plan for tax increment financing district number 1-11, which is the former Dairy Queen site. And co-presenting on this item this evening is Community and Economic Development Director Jen Brewington, and Managing Director for North End Securities, Tammy Omdahl. Jen, are you starting us off tonight? Please. I am, thank you, Mayor. Ms. Brewington, please.

All right, I will just get us kicked off here. So the city received an application from VDDQ LLC requesting public assistance for the redevelopment of the former Dairy Queen site located at 2120 Arboretum Boulevard. This project encompasses approximately 1.15 acres and is a continuation of the Downtown West development. I want to briefly recognize the 2016 Downtown Master Plan and the role it played in shaping the vision for this area. The plan identified the site as a mixed-use neighborhood incorporating commercial, office, and residential uses and really establishing the foundation for what would eventually become Downtown West and its integration to the existing downtown. Importantly, the plan also recognized that higher density residential development would be a key component in supporting and sustaining a vibrant commercial development. This project includes the redevelopment of the former Dairy Queen site, which is currently vacant. The proposal includes approximately 10,275 square feet of new commercial space, including a coffee shop with a drive-through, a fast casual restaurant, and a multi-tenant retail building. Staff believes the proposed redevelopment is consistent with the downtown master plan and supports the City Council's strategic goals for the site and the downtown area. And I'll pass it over to Tammy Omdahl for additional financial information regarding this request. Ms. Omdahl, welcome.

Good evening, Mayor, City Council. Tammy Omdahl with Northland Securities. I have just a few slides here to highlight what is in the tax increment financing plan. And to note, the resolution tonight that will be before you is to approve the tax increment financing plan and establishment of the district. you are not entering into the agreement with the developer this evening that will be a separate action item at a later date so tax increment financing on the developer is requesting tiff assistance that is why this is before you this evening in the establishment of the district tiff as the council is aware having approved a few other tiff districts in recent years the financing method to capture the increase in value from the new development uh... tiff is generated by that increase in property taxes resulting from that increase in taxable market value so the taxes that uh... are currently exist on the base value for the property as it exists those taxes will continue to flow to the respective taxing jurisdictions it is just increase in taxes that would be captured as tiff and available to assist the development after the capture of the taxes the property taxes ends when the TIF district is decertified, then not only will the city enjoy the benefit of increased tax base and the help with your budget, having sat through your budget presentation a few minutes ago, but the other taxing jurisdictions will benefit from that increase in tax base as well. Jen, if you can go to the next slide. here's a snapshot and i i've shown this a few times in other districts so again tonight you are proving the framework the tiff plan what is in the um... how say the orange color there and those are actual taxes from the property within the boundaries of the proposed tiff district for pay twenty six so in total approximately just under thirteen thousand for just over half a million dollars of taxable market value After construction of the proposed development and the first tax payable year estimated to be 2029 for the TIF district you can see in that first column would be the taxes payable to the respective taxing jurisdictions If the TIF district is established and the project is constructed There's increased and I want to point out specifically the school district in the state of Minnesota the school referendum taxes are cannot be captured within a TIF district. Taxes that are payable based upon taxable market value, not tax capacity. So the school district enjoys some benefit of increased taxes from the development. The other major one is the state property tax and commercial. So as described, this is a commercial development. So the property would owe state property taxes. and it would be significantly higher because there would be higher valuation there for those state property taxes. The middle column is the capture tax capacity, or not tax capacity, taxes, capture taxes for TIF. So roughly I will round $115,000 a year is what is estimated. And then that final column is the total taxes that would be paid by the property. With TIF, there is no pass for property owners. They still pay their taxes in full The total taxes due are the same as if it was in or without a TIF district. It's simply how are those taxes distributed. When it's in a TIF district, those taxes come back to the city in order for the city to support development that in the opinion of the city council would not occur but for the tax increment financing assistance. Jen, if you can go to the next slide. So there are certain findings to do a redevelopment TIF district. As proposed, this would be a redevelopment tax increment financing district there's different types of tip districts allowed under state law and different criteria that must be met what i want to point out here and in the long and extensive tip plan that is in the council's packet for this evening for this public hearing the city did contract with a firm that performed inspection of property and presented the city with a report and all those findings are met so the city has the ability to consider the establishment of this redevelopment TIF district and to approve that consideration for the maximum duration of 26 years. You are not entering into a contract with a developer. You are approving the TIF plan, which provides the framework, as I noted earlier. If you can go to the next slide. So under the TIF assistance, the original tax capacity and tax capacity and valuation times respective class rate was just under 15,000, and that was based upon estimated taxable market value of 713, and that's what it is for preliminary pay 27. The estimated total tax capacity value after completion, just under 125,000, based upon that estimated taxable market value of approximately 6.15 million that is an estimate of and informed by the assessor reviewing preliminary plans of what the taxable market value of the development would be after completion the city nor your tiff plan determines that valuation the county will determine that valuation after the project is constructed built and valued we estimate that first tax year to be 2029 I'm assuming that the project commences and is completed in 2027. TIF plans are full of estimates because you don't know exactly the timing, what gets constructed, and how the county will value, but I believe this is a reasonable estimate estimate informed by the assessor's review of the project. If you can go to the next slide. So it brings us to the end. So before you this evening, following the public hearing would be a resolution that would approve the establishment of the TIF district and adoption of the tax increment financing plan, which then at a later date, the city would then consider entering into an agreement with the developer And that agreement would spell out the terms for assistance. You are not approving any terms for assistance this evening. With that, Mayor, City Council, I would be happy to answer any questions before you open the public hearing.

Thank you, Ms. Omdahl. Anybody have questions for Ms. Omdahl on this? All right.

Thank you, Mayor, Council. Thank you.

Any questions for Ms. Brewington before we open the public hearing? Okay, seeing none, this is a public hearing related to the proposed tax increment financing district plan for tax increment financing district number 1-11. If there's anyone in the audience who wishes to speak to this item, please step forward at this time. Anyone wishing to speak to this item is invited to step forward. And last call. Seeing none, I will now close the public hearing and open the floor for council discussion. Any questions, comments, additional discussion from council? Seeing none, I will now entertain a motion. We're looking at two sample motions this evening, and I will entertain the first motion.

Motion to adopt the tax increment financing plan for tax increment financing district number 1-11, former DQ site, and authorization of an interfund loan for the advance of certain costs associated with tax increment financing redevelopment district number 1-11.

Okay, we're going to hold that second. We're going to do these one at a time. So we have a motion on the first. approving the tax increment financing plan. Can I get a second, please?

Second.

We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Council Member Roberts, would you do the second motion, please?

Motion for authorization of an inter-fund loan for the advance of certain costs associated with tax increment financing redevelopment district number 1-11. 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. Any opposed? Motion carries. Next item on our agenda, item 6.4, is a sketch plat from the Pulte Group for the Kuchenmeister residential development. Presenting on that this evening is our city planner, Brian McCann. Mr. McCann, we'll let you get your presentation ready to roll. And you can proceed when you are ready.

Thank you. I appreciate that, Mayor and council members. Great, all right. Yes, tonight we are considering a sketch plat for the Kuchenmeister property from Pulte Group. They have submitted the application to receive feedback from the Planning Commission and City Council. There aren't any approvals or actions to be taken tonight. It's just simply to provide guidance to the applicant with any future subsequent preliminary plat applications. So the location and existing conditions, it's located at 5980 County Road 10 East. It consists of one parcel, about 82 1⁄2 acres in size. It's located north of County Road 10, Engler Boulevard, west of the West Creek Village development, south of Marsh Lake Hunt Club, and there is a portion of Chaska Creek on the north side of the site you can see in the image on the left. There are also some Xcel energy transmission lines on the south end of the site. Creekside Lane, which is a residential collector road, is just to the east. And then there is also no direct access to County Road 10 with this property. So this is the proposed sketch flat that was submitted to the city council for consideration. It consists of 113 single family homes split between two different unit types. There's 70 foot wide lots highlighted in blue in the image on the left and then 80 foot wide lots which are highlighted in red. as well as 80 twin homes, which are located towards the east and south ends of the site. With this, they are proposing to extend Creekside Lane and also include a portion of the future Red Fox Drive alignment, as well as some local stub streets as shown in the plan to the west and south properties. And then with this, they also do have a 0.37 acre private proposed park towards the east end of the site across from the north end of those twin homes. with this the developer did provide a ghost plat city staff requested this just to understand how the property to the south could potentially develop knowing the site constraints with the overhead power easement as well as a potential realignment of angler boulevard it doesn't leave a whole lot of area left for potential development so City staff asked for this to understand how it could develop in the future, but the developer does not have any active plans to develop this at the time. It's strictly just for planning purposes to understand future impacts for this site.

Mr. McCann, is that vacant land at this point?

There is one home on it currently. The image on the left here is an aerial image from 2024, I believe, so it's just the one home here. The line work that you're seeing in the image on the left is potential realignment of Engler Boulevard, which is a future county road project, if they were to straighten it out with a high-speed corridor. If they did that, this would... generally be the only available land between that realignment and the overhead power easement so that was the reason for the request of the ghost plot here but currently there's nothing in that that's vacant land where that red circle is right now correct thank you moving on to annexation and rezoning the property is currently within lake town township so it's subject to annexation approvals by The Lake Town Board, City Council, and the Office of Administrative Hearings with the state. If it is annexed, it's automatically rezoned to agricultural per our city code. With that, the applicant is requesting a planned unit development with underlying R1 and R2. With that, I always just like to highlight this slide because PUDs are meant for innovative, creative, and flexible development. Here's where we give the initial input to them. Details are approved during preliminary plat and then the final plat is when we would approve the actual ordinance for the development allowing these deviations. So based on city staff review and coordination with the applicant, these are the proposed deviations that staff noted. The top table here are the deviations proposed for the single family homes. The top line are our standards per our code. As I mentioned, they have two different product types proposed with this. for the single family homes with those blue and red areas with the 80 foot and 70 foot wide lots as you can see here and their proposed deviations relative to each of those two concepts i won't go through all of them one by one they were part of your staff report they're on the screen for you and i can answer any specific questions you have on these ones If we get into the discussion piece on that, but relative to the twin homes, they only have three proposed deviations for this regarding the minimum lot area lot width and maximum impervious for the proposed twin homes. Moving on to the comprehensive plan, the property is currently guided as shown in the image on the left, consisting of a blend of low and medium density, as well as some areas of open space in the green. The total project density between the single family and the twin homes comes out to be 3.4 units per acre, which falls within our low density. If we were just evaluating the twin homes themselves, they don't quite meet the threshold of six to 12 units per acre for our medium density guidance, which is the orange area here. So with that, we do anticipate a future comprehensive plan amendment request to change the entire land use guidance for the orange and yellow areas to low density. So just low what that means. is that it would be lowering our citywide density. So right now in recent communications I've had with the Metropolitan Council, we're at about 3.4 units per acre right now as a city in terms of overall density. As we start moving towards our 2050 comprehensive plan, we need to have three and a half. citywide or planned three and a half citywide so what that means is that point one that we're below right now we might have to start making up with future planned density as part of our 2050 plan then continuing on they would be requesting a few different comprehensive plan amendments for this project the second amendment that they would need would be to bring it into the 2021 to 2030 development decade right now it's not planned for development until 2031 at the earliest so with that we would have to bring it into the current development decade my understanding from discussions with the city engineer is that there is utility capacity available for this project to be brought within the decade and then additionally a red fox drive study is being conducted to determine the best location for the layout of that future collector road Then lastly, in my discussions with the Metropolitan Council, they noted that this amendment would also be a significant change in the number of populations and households for our plan, so they requested that we update our population and household projections with this project as well. In the table below, I highlighted our previous estimates in our 2040 comprehensive plan from when it was developed in 2018. Those are the red numbers. The black numbers for the 2030 and 2040 estimates are what they would like us to update those numbers to. So back in 2018, our 2030 estimate was to have a population of 12,600. It's now up to 14,900. And then for 2040, in 2018, we had estimated for 15,400, it's now up to 17,800.

Mr. McCann, can we talk about this for a second as long as we're on this page? Yes. Are these recommendations from the Metropolitan Council or are these numbers that you came to based on what we know?

mayor and council members uh these numbers came from the metropolitan council based on our 2025 actual numbers so as of last year here is where the city sits today in terms of population and households that is higher than what our original 2030 estimates were so back in 2018 we anticipated 12 600 people for a population in 2030 As we sit today in 2025, we're already over that estimate, so these numbers were provided by the Metropolitan Council on just how they're seeing Victoria grow currently.

So this probably assumes that we continue to grow at the rate that we have in the last several years, and based on what's in the pipeline currently, maybe this is a little bit of an aggressive estimate?

Potentially.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah.

Mr. McKendon, what's the purpose of this?

And the council has come and said it, but this just feels like gymnastics.

Sure. Part of it, I think, is planning for 2050 as we go towards our comprehensive plan as well. Like the mayor mentioned, we are growing aggressively. We have been in the last few years. If we continue at that rate, our 2030-2040 estimates will grow, and that number plays into our 2050 estimates, which we do need to include in our comprehensive plan cycle as well.

And these are the numbers that we will be considering as we think about density for 2050 and how, yeah, think about density, I guess. Okay. Mr. Councilmember Evanski, anything else on that?

I mean nothing other than that it just it feels like We're being pushed around by Met Council for things that really don't translate into effective value for the city and for This development in particular but Very good.

All right, mr. McCann, please

okay moving on to the shoreland overlay district we do have 11 lots within this proposed development that are within 300 feet of chaska creek so they're subject to our shoreland overlay district requirements with the pud that's being requested we also anticipate a residential shoreland pud being requested due to the minimum requirements of the Shoreland District. They need to have a 20,000 square foot lot size. The smallest lot out of these 11 that are within the Shoreland District is 15,852 square feet, so it's smaller. then the required 20,000. All of these lots are meeting the minimum lot width requirement. We don't have specifics yet on the proposed impervious for these. It's anticipated that they'll request 25%, which is the maximum requirement per the shore land overlay district. And then all of these structures are over 100 feet from the actual creek ordinary high water line itself. And then lastly, we do require with any RSPUD that they submit a tier analysis for evaluation to determine the maximum density within that shoreland overlay district area. I don't anticipate there being any issues with that. We're talking about 11 homes in a 300 foot span, but it is a required analysis that we'll need to review with any preliminary plat submittal.

Can I ask a quick question on this because it wasn't clear. I've watched the Planning Commission meeting, but all of these lots are over 20,000 square feet except for number 12, right? That was the one thing I couldn't, I didn't get answered.

Council member, that's a great question. So that 15,852 is just the smallest. Some of these are 20,000 square feet or larger. Maybe the text is pretty small, so you might not be able to see it on the screen. I can't read that. This lot 11 here is 27,603 square feet. This lot five is 21,449 square feet. But all these other ones are either between 18 or 19,000 square feet. So 15,852 is just the smallest. 27,603 is the largest. And then you've got a spread in between there for the remaining lots. Got it. Thank you. Yep. Then lastly on this slide, we did provide the sketch plat to the DNR area hydrologist. They did not provide any comments, so no direction from them unfortunately on this application. We will send it to them for preliminary plat comments as well when we receive a preliminary plat application. Then for building materials, parking, lighting, and signage, all the renderings and the images on the left highlight the proposed 70 foot lots and the 80 foot lots as well as the twin home concepts. Generally those comply with our exterior building materials requirements. We would like to see with future submittals any proposed street lighting that they have as well if they have any plans to install any development monument signage. With that all of these are showing at least two style garages so they meet our minimum parking requirements for parking on the driveways and within the actual units themselves. Moving on to landscaping and tree preservation, they do need to provide minimum 50% development open space. That will be evaluated with preliminary platz middles. They also need to have at least three trees per dwelling and include boulevard trees every 45 feet or every 35 feet for the corner lots, like lots 30 and 29 in the top image on the left. then with this we do require per our landscaping ordinance that they have buffers for a double or triple fronted lot so if you have your front and rear lot lines adjacent to roads they need to provide firming with landscaping on the back side of those lots And I'll talk a little bit more on the next slide about what that truly means. But generally, it's a 48 foot wide area that needs to have an eight foot tall berm in the middle with a certain number of plantings on it. And then looking at tree preservation, they are allowed to remove 20% of the existing trees on the site without having to do any additional mitigation. If they go over that 20%, they got to plant more trees within the development. So with that, we will review those during any future preliminary plot submittals. And then I wanted to take this time to talk about buffers and berms a little bit more in detail and what is required for buffers and berms per our code. At Sketchplat, this gets lost in translation. Sometimes developers are unclear about what this truly means and how much space these take up. for their projects so we frequently get asked for deviations at preliminary or final plat on these developments so i want to make it clear right from the get go about what this truly means so our code designates four different levels of buffers what that means is that each of these levels they all require an eight foot tall berm with that three to one slope meaning Every foot you're going up, you're going three feet out in each direction. So you're going one foot up, you're going six feet out, so on. That's how you get that 48 foot wide berm with that eight foot height. And then the different levels come in with the certain number of plantings you need for every 50 feet of that berm. So our lowest level, you need four trees every 50 feet. Our highest level, you need 11 trees every 50 feet. And the reason for these... buffers is to try to reduce noise along higher traveled roads reduce nuisance complaints that we get as well as maintenance concerns or any financial impacts from future property acquisition if a transportation project goes through or something like that. So high level, that's the intent, how these berms are measured, implemented, and their purpose. So just to provide some background information for the discussion tonight. Then looking at streets, as I mentioned, they are proposing an extension of Creekside Drive or Creekside Lane, as well as a portion of Red Fox Drive. This site is constrained, though, without any direct access to County Road 10. So what this means is that This results in an additional 193 homes on Creekside Lane without an additional full access point for these residents to get to County Road 10. I'm going to go to the next slide just briefly to highlight visually. where they will have to go to without an additional public access road to county road 10 all the traffic is going to be diverted down creekside lane to get to game farm road to get to county road 11 for the higher traveled road so council you received some complaints about the west creek village development construction over the summer we anticipate if this project moves forward excuse me without an additional public access road access point that we will get additional similar traffic and construction complaints over the next few years between this project and the west creek village project so we just wanted to get ahead of those complaints and let you know that that is the scenario that we are looking at for this project as it stands today with that they are planning to utilize the emergency access from west creek village our fire chief did review that and stated that they did not have any concerns with utilizing this access for west creek village and for the kuchenmeister property in the event of an emergency um and then highlighting the two stub streets as shown we talked about the ghost plat to the south here for this property owner who does not intend to develop anytime soon based on discussions i've had with them this property owner to the west is in a similar scenario we need to plan an additional street there when development occurs on that property but But this property owner does not have any interest in developing anytime soon either in past conversations that the city engineer and myself have had with them. And the reason that the developer is not showing additional access to County Road 10 at this time is because neither of these property owners are interested in developing. We can't force a road through their property. We'd like to be good partners with them and develop when they are ready. So with that, next we have the pedestrian connections. They are proposing trails on both sides of the street for the collector roads. So on both sides of Creekside Lane and on both sides of Red Fox Drive. They're also showing sidewalks on both sides of the street for the twin homes and for a portion of the single family homes. As you can see, in the bottom right corner of the image on the right, and then for a single side of the street for a portion of the single family homes as well. Then moving on to park dedication, if they were to develop the site today under our 2026 parkland dedication requirements for the 113 single family homes, that comes out to be just over five and a half acres of requirement or about 600,000. And then for the twin homes, for those 80 units, they would need just over two acres or 224,000. In total, their park dedication requirement would be just under eight acres or $817,000. They are showing that 0.37 acre private park per our code. Private parks are not eligible for parkland dedication reductions, but the trails that they are extending along Creekside Lane and Red Fox Drive would be eligible for reductions for them. Moving on to wetlands, stormwater management, and site utilities, it is subject to the CCWMO's rules and regulations which impacts to wetlands are possible given the creek on the north side of the site. Any wetlands and buffers must be plowed within outlots that are dedicated to the city. They do have multiple stormwater ponds proposed. Our public works department needs access to get to those ponds to maintain them. And then regarding the site utilities, those would be coming from the extension of Creekside Lane from the West Creek Village development. There was some discussion previously the last time that Pulte had proposed a concept plan for the Kuchenmeister property. about the potential for a second water treatment plant on this site. It's unlikely given the site conditions and just the limited area here, but we should still keep in mind a future area for the second water treatment plant as the city starts to expand westward more. So with that, I have some general questions to help guide the discussion if needed. Staff can stand for any questions, and we do have a representative of the application in the audience as well.

Very good. Thank you, Mr. McCann. All right, first and foremost, I have a question about orderly annexation. Are we leapfrogging to get to this property?

Mayor and council members, that's a great question. And the answer is no, we are not. The West Creek Village development just to the east was annexed fully, so this is just the next one in line.

Okay, thank you. All right, I have big concerns about the access points on Highway 10. And I know we've had conversations with Carver County about accessing or providing some access to County Road 10. Have we addressed that with them on this development?

Mayor and council members, we actually had a monthly meeting that we have with representatives from Carver County this morning on the future Highway 10 project. We did bring this issue up to them about a potential access as shown through the sketch plat here, the ghost plat for the property to the south. There may be some future impacts there where that location itself might not be feasible, but it is possible that an extension could occur here further to the west for like a right in right out instead. So instead of this connection as being shown, maybe it's further down here with a right in right out.

And what's the timing of that compared to actually having this developed?

Mayor and council members, they are planning for construction of that in 2029 tentatively right now. So this development would likely occur before that. So we're tight on time here to try to figure out if and where a potential write-in, write-out access could go onto 10.

but we still wouldn't have that because the property owners aren't willing to sell their property in either case. Am I right or am I wrong?

Mayor and council members, technically you're correct. And I say technically just because of that future realignment that I was talking about earlier. If that realignment occurs, I'll try to zoom in here. Got it. This distance becomes a lot smaller and this house might not exist anymore if the high-speed corridor ends up going through, so that could potentially evolve into some sort of access through this development.

Knock out a couple homes there, go underneath the power lines. I see that as not happening, but.

Yeah, potential.

Yeah, potential. I'm concerned about the fire access point. Obviously, I don't want to, the transportation aspect, I'm jumping in as we're still talking about that.

Council Member Patterson, please continue.

I mean, we're adding 200 homes here. How many are we adding in West Creek Village that aren't built yet? Is that another 80 or 90? I can't remember.

About another 200 between the three phases.

You got 400 cars, or 400 homes, potentially 800 cars before the kids start driving. You'll probably have an extra couple of school buses, maybe a couple extra deliveries. I mean, that's a lot of traffic for one, two sort of roads to handle. But I know Kara said that it's built to handle that, but major concerns with that. And then just the access for the fire, emergency fire road, I could not figure out how that works. Is that off of 10 or how does that pop in?

Yes, yeah, I cut it off in the image on the left, unfortunately, so I'll just highlight it generally on this slide. With the West Creek Village development, when they got their approval, they had a planned 20 foot wide emergency access connection to County Road 10 here. The fire chief is comfortable with that being used for West Creek Village and Kuchenmeister because that will likely be the fastest route for EMS to get out there in the event of an emergency.

A lot of cars.

Just for orienting purposes, are you able to zoom out and show where the quick trip that's going, right? Just like for. Yeah.

Yeah. This site right here is where the quick trip will be in the future. So this is the railroad, County Road 11 here, Game Farm Road. This is the Victoria Ridge development. We talked about second edition with the apartment tonight, just for some context.

And then can we, I want to hop back to that PUD slide that kind of says why we consider PUDs. Sensitive to environmental, cultural, and economic considerations. public values so there's a lot of deviations from our standard here and we have talked a number of times about those standards have been put in place for a purpose and we have in the past considered lots of deviations from those and I think this council has expressed great interest in getting back to closer to those standards so I would I would voice those concerns around those deviations that are being requested as well.

I would just add to, you know, we just talked about, right, 200 homes here, another 200. I think the... private park is a bit ridiculous, to be honest, for that many homes. I mean, it's tiny. I know this is a big thing for Council Member Revanski, right? Do you either build parks or get more money for it? I don't know, it just seems, what is it, point, what was it again that they're? Point three seven. Point three seven. I mean, it's for 200 homes. That just seems...

And 400 in very close proximity. Very close proximity.

It just seems very light. I mean, I'm not sure what you do in this area, right? But I'm like, we've developed a lot in this area. I think there's a little bit from the community, a little bit of development weariness, fatigue. And I just... I think we, as the mayor said, getting back to meeting our requirements, right, for side yard setbacks, rear yard setbacks, park sizes, and uniqueness. And I just, like, even just the pictures, to me, I feel like we've seen them many times over again. It just, I don't know. To me, it's just, it's kind of eh. And I think at this point, when we're I don't want to say slowing, right? We've seen this slowing down, right? And I think we need to really, I think we need more things that are special and not just any old development. And between the park, the asks for PUD, and then again back to the road that's gonna have a lot of traffic on it. I think it's just, it's a, It's a hard, it's not something that I love.

echo a lot of what's been said I think it's 200 homes versus like 50 homes so access to me when you're talking 200 and even 200 with 200 additional right there is a concern the deviations I think you brought that up brought that up there's not just one or two deviations there's five deviations in that one area so I'm I'm not jumping up and down on this either.

And it's not a parcel of land, right? Because we've done this before, right? But generally it's parcels of land that are unique, that are hard to develop because there's lots of wetlands or it's a weird shape. Like this is a very big piece of land. And so it feels like more feasible to... to build a bigger part, to build lots to our specifications. Yeah, I don't know.

Mayor, Council Member Roberts, thank you for appealing to my senses. I appreciate that you brought it very back up to the top of this, the definition of a planned unit development. There is nothing about this that meets that test. This is not unique. This is just cramming density into the space for the sake plunking down a number of homes I share everyone's concerns and while I respect their fire chiefs opinion this is by far too many homes to be served by that single entrance into this the yes what I'm gonna call the escape hatch is something that I recall having heartburn about the the Development that's being connected to it. I was even reticent about our approval and use of it of March Lake Road These are not solutions. These are problems that are waiting to happen and I think we would be remiss in our responsibilities here to go forward with things as planned advanced the comprehensive plan advance make all kinds of amendments and I don't see how the city of Victoria and the citizens of Victoria are advanced by this. Unless there can be an affirmative way to connect this parcel some way to County Road 10, I feel that we're doing a disservice to the community up here if we push this forward. So that's not saying no. This is just a not now. if we could connect Red Fox through development to the north so that that could come in here, that would take some pressure off, but we're just, there's little to no innovation here to warrant what we're seeing as planned. So I share Council Member Wright's concern if this, or comments, if this were 50 homes and we were creating something you know unique that tied in with natural topography and terrain or we were trying to create something that was undeveloped well that that's That's the feature of these things but outside of that There's there's more work here. And I think the biggest piece of work is to be able to connect to County Road 10 and if The property owner to the south does not want to sell then it's a not now. It's just it's that straightforward Mr. McCann, can you show me again?

I was very surprised where these houses have to go to exit this neighborhood. I

Yes.

Show me with your cursor again, if you would, please. Yes. Put these down in the lower right corner.

Okay, so this is the development site that we're talking about. This is the worm property that would not allow access through it unless it were developed. If they extended Creekside Lane, it would go on this blue line through West Creek Village, through Marsh Hollow and Huntersbrook Creekside, up to Game Farm Road, and then you would have to exit out either

um left or right onto victoria drive here and these are these are all city streets with a 30 mile an hour speed uh 30 mile an hour 25 25 mile an hour speed limit and that's um

Yeah, and that, how many miles from 11 over to that neighborhood on Creekside, roughly? Is that a couple miles? No, it would be less than one, I would think. Oh, it is?

Yeah, I suppose. It looks like a long distance on an aerial. I can pull it up and measure it to give you an exact number, but I would say it's roughly a mile.

Okay. Okay. But, you know, Council Member Pedersen's, you know, he mentioned buses and... Deliveries that's not great garbage, right?

Well, you can that's a lot of again a lot of additional traffic for You know, well, I don't understand the whole Red Fox piece being on here cuz isn't Red Fox north and would like have to come through the Hunt Club, which is never gonna sell or change. So, I mean I didn't understand how Red Fox came in here Mr. As an option. Sorry can

I just wanted to give some additional context here on three points I've heard tonight one regarding access and adjacent properties two on the PUD deviations and three on the parks perspective so first one to your question councilmember Pedersen, the property to the north here, these three are all part of the Marsh Lake Hunt Club. They do not have any interest in developing anytime soon. Kara, Jen, and I confirmed that in a recent meeting with them. We're not too sure about the Meisler property here. We've heard from the Pearsons here. They have no interest in developing, and same here with the Worms. So What this results in is this being potentially the last developable parcel that we have out here for a while, we end up getting landlocked in this scenario. So potential road extension would be a future issue whenever they are ready to develop or some other alternative happens where we're able to get a road through. That's my perspective on the access piece. Second, on the PUD deviation component, we're working with a code right now that's a decade old that frankly should have been developed or re-evaluated with the last comprehensive plan cycle. So as we start looking towards 2050, when we're going to have to increase our density from three to three and a half units per acre, we're also going to need to update our standards to reflect that type of development, which means smaller lot sizes, smaller lot widths, depths. So right now we're working on market development that does not meet what we expect out of our code that's 10 years old, if that makes sense. So it's a battle that we're going through right now, and that's why you're seeing a lot of PUD deviations coming through. It's because city and developers are working with an outdated code, frankly. And then lastly, on the parks perspective, like I mentioned, this roadway is roughly a mile long. We do have the Marsh Hollow Park and the Huntersbrook Park. I think I had measured from the edge of this development to the edge of the Marsh Hollow Park, it was roughly a half mile. So we do have two larger neighborhood parks being planned about a half mile to a mile away. And park prices, park amenities are getting costly as you know with the recent evaluations of the Marsh Hollow and Huntersbrook park amenities. It's up to the council, but we are getting low on parkland dedication fees if we're planning to develop these two parks where funds from this development might be able to aid in that. Vice versa if we get a mix of land and fees Maybe there's a possibility for all three down the line.

Just some additional perspective Did we say we wanted to try and do The two parks or did we say get the one done and I think we did a scaled-back version of both the second one Scaled-back version of both

All right, any other comments, questions?

Oh, I have six of them. All right. We've attacked and taken care of access control, but this is educational for the developer as much as anything. My concern would be also with impervious surface, which might be pulled out of our hands altogether with the CC Chaska Creek group, water management group. I would want to know what the impervious surface percentages are for the entire property. That would make me feel more comfortable in allowing a change within our PUD allowance if there's 25% of it's not developable due to CCMO regulations. Okay, I can be a little lenient on it to have something done there. I had a thought and I thought somebody brought it up, but we have to zone this as ag, but then we have to zone it as R1. What if we zone it as R2? Is that something you can do or not?

Mayor and council members our R2 district does not allow for single-family homes after like 2011 I think so it would be ideal to put both of them in a single district just from a zoning perspective but unfortunately unless we amend that district it's not possible I'm taking one away emergency access we already hit that

the whole chaska creek impervious aspect has to be under twenty five percent or ccmo is not going to regulate that or allow that to happen And then we were talking about the screening and the berms. There's a reason the berms have to be three to one going up to eight feet. And I think it just has to do with erosion. It has to do with runoff. It has to do with effectiveness. So I'm not as concerned about strictly adhering to the berming between certain sectors. But when you're up against Creekside Lane, which is a collector road, I think it needs to be there. And so that was my other thought for the developer as well. And then to hit some of your numbers, I mean, you're looking at the ones that are up on Chaska Creek. If you take one property out, you can hit 20,000 square feet on all of those properties. You can probably hit all of your impervious surface. numbers as the CCMO is gonna require you to have it and I get you want to pack as many in and sell as many and people want smaller yards I don't know if that's necessarily true or not but those are some of the things that I would think about as I come back with a different sketch for this or a different preliminary plat I guess that's it. Access, impervious, density, Chaska Creek, zone R1 versus R2, emergency access, Creekside Lane, collector, screen, and berm. So plenty of concerns, obviously. Thank you for my moment of... All right.

Council, any other questions, comments? All right, seeing none, I would like to invite the developer forward if you have some comments for us. Please, if you would, state your name for the record.

Good evening, Steve Trotsky with Pulte, 1650 West 82nd Street, Bloomington, Minnesota. Thank you, Brian and staff. I'm not going to stand up here and talk about how great the site is. I think we all know how beautiful the community is. I do want to talk through some of the design decisions that brought us to the site that you're looking at this evening. Pulte was before the council in 2024. And at that time, we were told that the development we proposed was too dense. And we told that there was a desire for some move down homes in Victoria. So we really took those comments to heart and shaped this new layout based on your feedback from two years ago. So the red up there are what we have identified as 80 foot wide lots. And we're partnering or potentially partnering with a custom home builder. So we would sell those lots and they would be custom homes. So the council member losing one to hit 20,000, not an issue at all. Our intent is to meet the code up there in the shoreline. We know how important that is. So we're looking at potentially custom homes in that area. And then the area on the southeast in the yellow, that's a new product in the Minnesota market for Pulte. That's really geared towards a move down buyer. so there's a number of comments on the deviations that we've requested and those deviations on the town or excuse me the duplexes are really based on who those are marketed and going to be sold to there's going to be an hoa move down buyer snowbirds widowers retirees that you know don't want that large lot so We're trying to respect the side yard setbacks of 10 feet and 10 feet. We know how important that is in the community. So a lot of the deviations are the front yard and the rear yard setback, and particularly the twin homes. That's just to make the lot size smaller based on who's going to be buying those homes. In regard to the park, we're happy to make a public park. I think the desire of staff was to not have a public park in this space. If you'd like it to be public, then we're not opposed to that whatsoever. But really, I'd like to stand up here, help walk through any questions you have. A lot of great feedback thus far. But as we take the next step, there's a lot of time and money involved in preparing a preliminary plat. So we want to make sure that we're on solid ground here when we decide to move forward, that we have a viable project. Unfortunately, as Brian mentioned, the southern and western property owners are not interested in selling at this time. We'd love if they would sell. We'd love to connect to 10. I think it's important to mention that although we're talking about this at the end of 2026, the first home wouldn't be sold until Q4 of 28. Over half the homes won't be sold until after 2030. So we're talking about all of these things you know, Red Fox Drive, the county road realignment, it's all happening around that 2028 to 2032 timeframe when the majority of our houses will be sold. So I don't think there's as much change in your code that we're requesting based on when the actual homes are gonna start being sold. So I'm happy to stand for any questions. And again, thank you for the feedback you've provided thus far.

Thank you, Mr. Trotsky. Other questions, comments?

Just a question on the breakout of your single family, maybe you, you know, kind of the 113. You said the 80-foot wide lot's more custom?

We're talking with a custom home builder.

Potentially custom? Correct. So is that like half custom? A custom or a third or what, what do you mean? Oh, 43, I'm sorry. So all 43 of those could, sorry, I missed that. All 43 could potentially be custom. Correct. Or bring that uniqueness in. Correct. Is what you're, okay, got it.

Great, other questions, comments? I don't dislike the twin home option down in the southeastern corner. I think it is Victoria Green's like. Um, I guess my question is more for Brian than you. So thank you for bringing that. But like, how close does this come to what we're going to have to have for our 2050 comp plan? Like, let's just remove the PUD aspect. Let's look into your crystal ball. We put our 2050 comp plan together, send it off. Met council says thumbs up, like our deviations for the pod on this. How different will those be from what we're going to have to agree to in the next two years?

Council Member Patterson, that's a great question. On my comprehensive plan slide here, I highlighted that this development as proposed in total is 3.4 units per acre. Our 2050 requirement, now granted it's going to be city wide, is 3.5. So if every development had to come in meeting our 3.5 city-wide requirement, right, on a site-by-site basis, like the Metropolitan Council has been doing on some developments recently, this would not meet the 2050 requirement. It would have to be more dense.

So we're going to adjust our, could you go back to the deviation slide? Yeah, right there. Like how close are some of these deviations to what we are going to have to agree to in order to hit that 3.5 number for 2050? I mean, are we going to have to go to minimum with lots of 70 feet, minimum depths of 110 feet, stuff like that? I mean, again, this is relying on your expertise I mean, are we going to be shrinking these anyway? And maybe that's something that we have to address in four years, but if we're gonna be adjusting at that point in time, how close would these deviations be to crystal balling what we're gonna have to agree to anyway?

Mayor and council members, the deviations that they're proposing in regards to lot depth, front and rear setback, those are generally what the market average is right now in terms of setbacks. Impervious, yeah, roughly 40%. Lot size I would say is actually more so between these two, and that's why you're seeing some on the I guess I should clarify, these lot sizes here, similar to the shoreland lot size discussion that we have, these are just the smallest lots that they're proposing within those areas. It's not reflective that every single lot is going to be 8,750 square feet. You have some that are larger, some that are significantly larger within those areas. If we want to develop at three and a half units per acre, like the Metropolitan Council is going to require us to do, yeah, our code is going to have to have reduced lot sizes, setbacks, lot widths, depths, generally in the ballpark of what they're proposing with this development.

Okay, thank you. I mean, that's just food for thought from the fact that we're dealing with outdated code, yet we still wanna hit our numbers. I mean, I'm a side yard setback along with everybody here, but we're gonna have to do some give and take, or the next council's gonna have to do some give and take with that. I think this plat needs to go back to the drawing board a little bit, but not fully. I don't wanna say it's completely out. I think there's some really good aspects to it.

i've voiced my concerns enough so thank you i mean i have less heartburn about rear yard setbacks and front yard setbacks i think that the side yard setback is where we've seen the biggest problems so to speak it's where people have had to put in retaining walls um yeah there's councilman peterson you and i are well schooled in getting Lawn maintenance equipment back into your backyard.

Engineering drain tiles.

Brian, I have a question on what will be the future southward journey of Marshwood Trail. You have future additions. So that's not done yet, correct? in the development to the east of it?

Correct, yes.

So we have nothing there right now, correct?

As of right now, mayor and council members, I will note that the next item on the agenda this evening is for this addition of that development. So incoming soon if the council chooses to approve that final plan tonight.

So what are the prospects at this point of being able to have This developer worked with the developer to the east to figure out how to reconfigure the south end of that subdivision so that this fire hatch, because that's all it really is, to configure that into a road that gets to County Road 10 and has access.

Mary, sorry. Go ahead.

I mean, this feels like the chess pieces have not fully been settled down. And can we get to the innovation that would be needed? Because this is just, I mean, I have serious concerns that this is a public safety nightmare. It's a traffic nightmare. It is a public works nightmare for getting equipment in there. We need a solution.

Mr. McCann.

Yes. Council Member Avansky, to your point about the possibility of working with the development to the east here on a potential access to 10, due to the county spacing requirements, it's their road. They have jurisdiction on where you can connect. With the railroad here, they won't allow anything within this red line that I've shown in the image here. this one is even highly unlikely just based on discussions that we've had with the county and if they were to allow that right in right out it would have to move westward so if there's on the question of if there's possibility that an access could be here on that emergency drive with the west creek village development it's just not possible unfortunately

Okay. I think we got a little bit. Yes, please.

May I ask a clarifying question? Please. So a lot of feedback about access and the number of homes coming off of this road. I guess it would be important for us or anyone else looking in this area to know, is there any development or any number of lots that the council would accept or find reasonable based on the traffic situation that we can control today? The County Road 10 is outside of our control. The property owners selling is unfortunately outside of our control. We're running out of land in Victoria to build on. I think we all know that. And so this is a critical piece for the future. So just looking for a little guidance before we continue to invest in the site. Is there a threshold or not? Or should I speak with the staff tomorrow and we can follow up?

Yeah, I think that's probably the best answer. I don't have a magic number in my head that says, you know, 100 homes is the perfect number. I think to your point about how this develops and kind of the timeline that we develop along, I think having a better understanding from Carver County maybe on trying to work with them on how do we provide some better access. You know, maybe it is a little further west, maybe there's something we can do to the east, I'm not sure. But I think we really need to be working with engineers and planning as to what does that access look like? What do those roadways look like? But your point about the fact that this isn't gonna happen tomorrow is not lost on us either. And property owners can change their minds. Something could happen. in a year from now or two years from now that changes the way this looks. And Council Member Evanski kind of said, not now. Maybe that's the answer, but maybe not. Maybe we can figure something out. So I would say let's continue to work on it. We also know that there isn't a lot of property available in Victoria any longer. And so this is critical for those who want to move here.

I would also note that it's okay to not develop all of our land too, right? I mean, yes, we want to develop, but we want the right developments. And one of the reasons a lot of us moved out here was for the open space. So we don't have to develop every piece of land that's out there.

True.

And we are sensitive to your concern. Like the, hey, where do I just... maybe say, I need to find my abandonment point. And it may have to be that. And that's OK. I mean, that's business, right? Not everything can be turned into subdivisions. and then maybe that puts pressure on some of the landowners to lean on their neighbors to say, hey, the reality is is that we're not gonna farm this for the rest of our lives, and that maybe it is the time for you to cut a deal with a developer to sell your property, but we need to be sensitive to what kind of community we're gonna create going forward and what kind of safety and services we're gonna be able to provide that. I just don't see that here right now. So maybe there's a middle ground. Maybe there's something where this becomes something where you do less single family homes, you do more higher end twin home product to appeal to down the down-building product, right? We understand that. And there's a lot of wealth in Victoria, so they'll pay for single-level living in terms of connected units. But right now, this just feels like we're trying to do too much and advance the ball too quickly to move this in. It's not, I don't think it's keeping with the vision that we have for the rest of the product in Victoria. Okay, thank you for the feedback.

Yeah, thanks. Thank you. All right, this is a feedback item only, so there's no formal action needed by the council, so we're moving on to our next agenda item, which is 6.5. considering a final plat for West Creek Village second edition and again on that this evening is city planner Brian McCann. Mr. McCann, the floor is yours.

Thank you, mayor and council members. Yes, this is the last edition for the West Creek Village development. So for the subdivision or platting process, we are at the finish line here where we review the final details of the development. Staff have been working on a development agreement if the city council chooses to approve the request tonight, which will come to you at a later date. So regarding location and existing conditions, the last phase of this proposed development consists of the single outlot highlighted in blue in the image on the left. West Creek Village First Edition and Enclave at Hunters Brook were approved within this proposed master residential development. the project itself is located north of county road 10 along creekside lane south of the marsh or west of the marsh hall development south of the marsh lake hunting club and then the twin cities western railroad did bisect a portion of the site this is an outlot that would be deed to the city on the south end of that railroad corridor And then the second edition itself consists of all 18 twin homes that were approved as part of the West Creek Village development and the remaining 24 single family homes. So here's the final plot that was provided for the city council in the packet this evening. Here are the 24 single family homes and the 18 twin homes. as well as that extension of Marshwood Trail, which would end with the cul-de-sac with that connection for the emergency access to County Road 10, and then that extension of Village Drive, which would extend westward towards the Kuchenmeister property that we just discussed. looking at the zoning and comprehensive plan it's currently zoned plan new development with underlying r1 and r3 in accordance with the approvals for west creek village they also did receive approval of a comprehensive plan amendment during their preliminary plat approval to modify the future land use map for that medium density designation for the twin homes and the low density for the remaining areas of the project And then with that regarding density, this phase does meet the density requirements of those areas. So for the single family, they're within that two and a quarter to six units per acre at 4.94 units per acre. And then for the twin homes, they're compliant with the six to 12 units per acre at 7.62. Regarding landscaping and tree preservation, they are meeting the minimum open space requirements at 50% for the single family portions and 25% for the twin homes. They have three trees per dwelling planted, as well as boulevard trees every 45 feet and 35 feet for those corner lots. And they also do have some foundation plantings proposed for the twin homes, as you can see in the image on the left. So all of the landscape requirements were met and their tree preservation plans were approved with the preliminary plot and the first edition of this development as well. Then moving on to park dedication and pedestrian connections, developing under the 2026 fee schedule and our parkland dedication requirements for this phase, they would need to dedicate 1.6 acres or $168,000. It's anticipated that they would be providing mostly cash in lieu of land since they have a private park proposed within this development further to the north. But that trail connection that they are showing to the Marsh Hollow neighborhood to the east can be deducted from their dedication amount. And then they are also showing sidewalks on both sides of the street throughout this second edition as well. And then regarding wetlands, stormwater management, and site utilities, it's subject to the CCWMO's rules and regulations. They also need to plot wetlands, buffers, and stormwater ponds within outlots to be dedicated to the city. And the site utilities are coming from the extension of Marshwood Trail from the north from the first addition. So with that, I have a sample motion for you on the screen for consideration, and staff can stand for any questions.

Thank you, Mr. McCann. Council, questions, comments on this final plat? Seeing none, I will entertain a motion.

I'd like to make a motion to adopt the resolution approving the final plat for West Creek Village Second Edition.

We have a motion. Can I get a second?

Second. Second.

We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries. There are no more items on our regular agenda this evening, so we'll move on to reports and emerging issues. And Attorney Vos, you're up first.

Mayor, Council, I don't have anything I need to report to you.

All right.

Ms. Hardy, anything from staff? Thank you, Mayor. Members of the Council, our City Clerk, Claudia Edisfold, would like to share some information with you.

Yes, Madam Mayor and Council Members, I'd like to present our new art. Again, our collaboration with Deb's Cellar Studios. I want to present our two artists. We have Carol Bersing, which hopefully I haven't thought your name too bad, and a local artist by the name of Steve Kelser. The art is available for viewing Monday through Friday, 8 to 4.30, except holidays.

Very good. Thank you. Council, any reports from council?

I have four of them, but I forgot the third, so it's down to three. So I wanted to give you an update on my little quest with the League of Minnesota Cities for coming up with automatic license plate readers, facial recognition software, and all of that. We went through it, and we came up with something that essentially mirrors what is for police worn body cameras and dash cams and use that so it's gonna require none of our policies to be changed. I'm going to present it to the League of Minnesota Cities. They are going to dissect it, cut it up, but I'm hoping to be able to present it an idea for future recommendations for 2027 I don't think it's gonna get adopted but I thought I would share that with you because it doesn't just come from me it comes from the city of Victoria and I am well aware that it is simply because I raised my hand we don't have a police department we don't have any license plate readers in town so Yeah, I was just trying to help out. My second topic was I did go to the Minnesota Transportation Alliance meeting today. We talked about Highway 212 coming down the pipe. We talked about Highway 7 coming down the pipe. Obviously the one that's most important to us is the Arboretum Area Transportation Project. We're still somewhat on project plan. With that, we are up to, or close to, three months behind. So our project plan and all of our cushion has been eaten up a lot. So we are, I mean, I've always had concerns about it, but I just wanted to make you aware of it. It was a public meeting, I was there, and that was the comment. Last but not least, the next meeting I may not be able to attend due to a medical procedure, but I'll be here in spirit, and if I can stumble in, I'll be here.

Thank you. We wish you well on your medical procedure. Thank you. Council, any other updates from Council?

I just, and maybe I'll put the city manager on the spot again. I like doing that. I feel like we should end with some exciting news, being that we've put a lot of time and energy into Downtown West, and we got an exciting email today from the city manager about an announcement that was made.

Very good. Ms. Hardy, please.

Mayor, members of the council, Council Member Roberts, thank you. Yes, we saw today that the Twin Cities Business Journal published an article that announced our first a tenant for the Downtown West property that, as you know, you're doing for commercial buildings in partnership with Carl Runk and the development group. And they announced a new restaurant that will be becoming part of that. So Rosalia is, and Danielle Prado, who is a restaurateur that's very well known in the state, is behind Rosalia. So that was the big announcement today, so we were very excited to see that, and we expect a few more announcements in the coming weeks. Very good, thank you. Anything else, Council Member Roberts?

All right, anything else from other council members?

Just encourage everybody to get out to the fire station soon, right? That's another, I think, positive thing, and every time I drive by, I just cannot believe how quickly it went up, and it looks great, and just a ton of excitement around it.

A great new service for our community, for sure. All right, seeing no more items before the body this evening, I will take a motion to adjourn.

Make a motion to adjourn. Second.

We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries. We stand adjourned.