City Council - Regular Meeting

All right. Good evening. It's now 6:30 and I call to order the regular meeting of the Victoria City Council. Dan, can you turn me down a little bit? Is that better? That's much better. Thank you. All right. It is our tradition to begin with the pledge of allegiance. So, please join us.

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. All meetings of the city council are open to the public and held in council chambers at city hall unless otherwise noted. We encourage anyone wanting to attend or interested in speaking at a council meeting or workshop to contact our city clerk in advance for additional information. Please note that the council chambers chambers will undergo an AV upgrade from Tuesday, April 14th through Monday, April 27th. As a result of that upgrade, the park and recck committee meeting will be held on Monday, April 20th, will not be broadcast live or available on demand. Additionally, the planning commission meeting scheduled for Tuesday, April 21st, has been cancelled due to the AV upgrade. The city council will host an open house and listening session where the council will be taking public comment regarding downtown parking on Monday, April 27th. The open house will take place from 5 to 6 at city hall and the listening session will begin at 6:00 p.m. in the council chambers. In other announcements, we invite everyone to swing into downtown Victoria on May 16th to celebrate spring with our local businesses at our second annual Victoria in Bloom event. Many of our businesses will have specials and activities throughout the day. Please check our city website for additional information or contact our communication to learn more. That concludes our announcements this evening. Our next order of business is to adopt the final agenda. Council, can I get a motion to adopt the final agenda?

I'll make a motion to adopt the final agenda. We have a motion. Can I get a second? Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. The next item on our agenda is open forum. This is the opportunity for anyone to address the council on an item that is not on the agenda and not an application form that will be coming to the council at a future date. The Victoria Library has registered to speak in advance. So, first I'd like to welcome Jod Edstrom, director of Carver County Library System, and Patrick Jones, our Victoria Library branch manager, to the podium to uh provide their update. Please. Uh Jody, were you starting with us? That's what it looks like.

Yes. Good evening, mayor, council members, city staff. Great to be here and thank you for this opportunity. Uh and Patrick will follow shortly as part of our presentation. I'll give you a h a highle fast review of what's happening at the system level and then I'll turn it over to Patrick. Um and we also have our friends of the library president joining us this evening as well. So, I also um am leaving an annual report with you uh for 2025. We're really excited about our new format and much of what I'll share is highlighted in that annual report as well if you want to dig more into the details. So, to start us off, our vision for the library is to inspire intellectual curiosity, the joy of discovery, and facilitate lifelong learning. And I think everything that we showcase tonight really ties into that vi that broader vision. So, three highlights uh that I want to just share briefly for this past year. Extended access of course, which uh we launched here at Victoria, and Patrick's going to delve more into that later. Um a really exciting accomplishment for us. Um our adult programs, we often talk so much about the youth pieces, but our adult programs had huge attendance this last year. Some phenomenal authors and programs that we're really proud of. Um and again, youth literacy remains a cornerstone of what we do. We offered over 550 story times this past year across the system. So great for our young families in our growing communities. So again, I'll let Patrick touch more on the extended piece uh extended access piece. Um but what I want to note is it's going well in here in Victoria. So we're decided or we've decided to uh expand that throughout the county and we are next planning to launch at Norwood Young America later uh in this spring in June. And then we're also in conversation with city of Wakonia to launch next. And administrator uh Shane wanted Dana to know he was glad that she took the leap first with the city of Victoria here. So he's grateful for that. Um what we

delivered uh so much. So I'm not going to read all of these statistics off, but obviously even just noting that we had 48,000 people attend our programs um in person in our branches is huge. Um everything that we provide is free to our communities. What a great value for our communities. Our staff do so much. Um and we uh brought along over 6,500 new card users this past year. We love connecting with our communities just as we do here in Victoria and across the county. Um we made over 15,000 outreach connections in events that we attended. We have some amazing volunteers from our communities that we work with that logged 1100 hours and our social media continues to bring that engagement in as well. And I know Patrick, this is one of his favorite topics is collection. So he's going to touch on this too, but I get to say the big number. We reached over 1.5 million checkouts this past year for both digital and physical. So really showing the demand that our patrons are seeking from our library. Really exciting. uh the estimated library value. Well, we found um through the American Library Association a value calculator and we piled all of this data of our usage in and it tells us that we are valued at 32 million for our library system which is pretty staggering if you think about it. So, looking ahead, lots to do. Um obviously expanding that extended access. Um Chaza Library uh is going to have a new building project finally uh on the horizon. So that's uh looking like 28 2028 construction and opening in 2029. So more on that to come very soon. Um and with that, I'm going to turn it over to Patrick.

Very good. Thank you, Jody. We were delighted to be your pilot project for the extended hours as well. Thank you so much, Patrick. Always nice to see you. Welcome.

Hi, Patrick Jones. Uh from Pillsbury Avenue in Richfield by manager of the Victoria and the Chanhasson Library. So uh we mentioned extended access. This was funded through a private uh grant that we have the Charles Dawki grant and so that funded almost everything within it. I'm just going to hit a few very few numbers. We have 175 people signed up in about less than a year. 135 people have gone through orientation. 100 people have used it and about 50 are pretty frequent users. The main time people use extended access is Tuesday and Thursday mornings and also Sundays. So, it's they're using it exactly when they thought that they would. Um, we did a survey and we asked people who are using it, what did you think? And first of all, we had a great survey return. Those of you who do survey research, you get 77% of people returning your survey. That itself is a pretty good positive thing. And they had positive things to say. I left the numbers off here. Guess what? 97 great, three good. The three were the two people who couldn't get in on Veterans Day when we didn't have it programmed correctly. Other than that, I think they like us. And it it's broken down very uh basic that some people are using it a lot, some people just using it every now and then. How they use it? No one is coming to use the computers. Zero zip. Not a single person said that. I'm a little concerned that 39% of the people are checking or picking up their holds, but only 37% are checking out. So I don't know what happened to that other 2%. That worries me a little bit. Now that so that's extended access. That's what happens when we're not here. When we are here, two things happen. Engagement and enjoyment. Enjoyment and engagement. We do for youth, we do enjoyment through programs such as performers. This is Miss Rosa who's a librarian actually in St. Paul. And we do engagement with small workshops. This is an art workshop we had this summer. With adults, we do enjoyment such as

concerts. We'll be having one on May 16th. This is the one from last year's uh uh May concert we always do. And then small workshops for engagement, enjoyment, cake, engagement. We had speakers come for our 10th anniversary celebration. We also have a great friends of the library group. And Julie, do you want to just say a few words about the friends of the library before I finish up and then we'll take questions. All right. Welcome.

And I am back to um represent my friends of the Victoria Library. I wasn't always a friend. I joined and it's a great volunteer opportunity. It fit feels um quite fitting being here during volunteer recognition month of April. More than 11 years in anticipate um ago in anticipation of the opening of our Victoria Library, a group of neighbors stepped up to volunteer in support of a library. In years since then, the friends of the Victoria Library have contributed to making the library one of the parts of the the beating heart of Victoria. Friends have a commitment to funding library pro programs for all ages. As Patrick has spoken of today and hopefully into the future, I'm here to say that share the word. For those wishing to support the work of the library, you may gently and drop off gently used books for all ages at any time. The Friends of the Library will hold their first sale of one of four sales this year, Saturday, April 25th, from 10 to 12. All of these funds go directly to programming or new book purchases for our Lucky Day shelf. Volunteering to join us as a committee is very welcome. We meet five times a year and any community member can get more information on our website friends of the victoria library.org or ask a librarian. It's fun. It's easy. I'd finally like to thank the Lions Foundation for their many years of loyal support in helping us make this a

community. Thank you for your time and um we hope to see you at the book sale. If not, drop your books by. Thank you, Julie. Thanks, Julie. So, you just want to uh end up with circulation. 75% of what goes out downstairs is for kids, which I think is an amazing figure and much higher than our average. So, that's what we do for enjoy en enjoyment, engagement, and I want to thank you as always for your support. I want to thank the citizens of Victoria for showing up even when we're not there um and making the Victoria Library, as Julie said, a real heart of the city. Thank you. Thank you so much.

All right. Is there anyone else in the audience this evening that would like to address the council on an item that is not on the agenda or not coming to the council at a future meeting? All right, seeing no one, we will be moving on. Uh the next item on our agenda is the consent agenda. Items on the consent agenda are routine administrative, do not require deliberation or are housekeeping items 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 agenda items for separate discussion and vote this evening? None from staff. Madame Mayor,

is there a member of the council who would be looking to pull an item from the consent agenda this evening? or anyone in the audience looking to pull an item from the consent agenda. All right, seeing none, I will uh make a motion to approve the consent agenda. Second that. We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. I.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Now moving on to our regular agenda. The first item on our agenda this evening, item 6.1, which is to consider resolutions approving 2025 year-end transfers, fund balance assignments, and an interloone interfund loan. And presenting on that item this evening is our assistant city manager and finance director, Trisha Pollock. Miss Pollock, welcome.

Thank you. Good evening, mayor, members of the council. Cities are required by law to adopt and maintain a balanced budget for 2025. There were a few unusual circumstances that we don't typically experience in a normal budget year. These events created both expenditure savings and increased revenues that were not budgeted for in 2025. Key items to note were the vacancies and benefit changes that occurred in the communications and building departments along with part-time firefighter wages that were not used. These vacancies and unused funds created a $242,000 savings. Along with those savings, we had just under $28,000 in unfilled police shifts and the county reimbursed us for those funds. On the revenue side, we had budgeted um less than what we had earned on our investment um interest earnings. And additionally, we had some right-of-way permits that were in excess of budget by about $40,000. So, one action that we'll take to use those funds that um were in excess is to assign fund balance. Um that's to recognize and make available funds for future appropriations. These include um these first three items which are on this list are annual routine fund balance assignments and they include um the risk management assignments which is legal fees um and liability and work comp insurance renewals. We've assigned $70,000 and these funds would be reserved to be used if an unplanned or

unexpected event occurred. that would be out of the norm. Um, for example, if a resident or business made a claim against the city and we make a settlement payment or if a potential legal issue popped up during the year and spending funds on legal guidance puts us over our annual budget. Um or also if we were to have a serious accident um and our workman's comp insurance increase beyond our budget amounts um we would pull from this amount um if the funds were be to be assigned. Um another thing to point out is that our insurance um renews from May to May each year. So um it we can't really budget for that next year, the 2027 year and we've already renewed. Um, so this if the insurance went up wouldn't cover for um any of those extra expenditures um before we got our renewal amount. Um the next item is compensated absences for 60,000. Um this is reserved to use if an employee were to leave and their PTO balance payout exceeded our operating budget. Um so we don't account for any contingencies in our operating levy um for these compensated absences. So this assigned phone balance would cover that liability. Uh the next item for 40,000 we have insurance um employee benefit insurance. So again, um a contingency fund for employees. Um for example, if um someone an employee had a qualifying event and an individual was taking single coverage and went to um family

coverage, it could be a difference of, you know, 20 to $30,000. So um this would also cover if we had a vacancy and our new hireer took family and the previous employee was had single coverage. So um that is what those dollar amounts are um assigned for. Um and then next we're looking at community development projects and studies. Um $30,000 assignment provides flexibility to respond to planning and development needs, including funds to support the parking utilization capacity study um that council had directed during their March 9th uh council workshop. The small area plan um for $25,000 supports the development of a small area planning partnership with the Mihaha Creek wershed district um to guide future growth, conservation, and land use decisions in the western growth area. So, this work will also inform the city's 2050 comp plan, which is um getting kicked off here soon. Um the Red Fox Drive extension study um for $10,000 carries forward a previously approved study for Red Fox Drive. The city was awarded a grant from the Carver County CDA to study road alignment options for the Red Fox Drive extension which is a key north south collector in the South Growth area. So this amount would be the match um that the city has to match for that grant. Um in addition the developer who is PY is also participating in the cost of the study and these results will also be

incorporated into the 2050 comprehensive plan. Then our next item the street light replacement um for 9300. So the replacement um is for a nonreparable street light in the St. Maritz interlockan area of Swiss mountain. So um as more lights age beyond 25 years, Excel um we have an agreement with some of our street lights with Excel Energy and then the city is um responsible for replacing those lights once they reach their um end of life is what they call it um after the 25 years and they can't repair it. So, it could go beyond 25 years as long as they can keep repairing it. But this particular light they said they can't repair. We're anticipating that we'll probably be wanting to assign um balances for future light replacements because as our street lights are aging, we anticipate this will pop up um more often in the future.

Trish, is that what it cost to replace one light? 9,300 bucks.

Yes. I think we got a quote from them and they will be they're going to start placement of it this spring. It's right next to the park. So um then the next item is our BSNA um human resources integration which um supports an unplanned project where we integrated human resources software into our current ERP system. Um this integration improves efficiency, mitigates data entry error and duplication and it's also eliminating um a redundant software cost. So um it's really streamlining our um human resources process with our payroll process. So that's about $11,000 and we got that implemented in March. Um the next item is trail reconstruction and the boardwalk railing. Um so this addresses a significant trail um degradation and allows the city to pilot a rope barrier on Duck Trail um to evaluate long-term effectiveness. Funding also supports the installation of a safety railing along the East Auburn boardwalk. As you know, that boardwalk was just recently put in through um a project with the watershed district. We hadn't anticipated the need of a railing originally. Once the boardwalk went in and we realized the safety concerns, um it was clear that we needed to put a railing on. So, um we're going to do that as a separate project and that trail is needs to be um reconstructed as well. There's since there's a wetland, we get a lot of root,

tree roots that come up and are popping up through the trail surface and we would like to try this root barrier that we've talked with Arburetum and Three Rivers Park that have had some success with this root barrier as well to see if that can um extend the life of our trails. We did do some repairs to one on Woods Drive last year and wasn't even a year later and they were popping through again. So, we're really trying to figure out a good solution to these roots along the wetlands. So, this would be able to support that um pilot project as well. Um, next item is uh $9,300 for a couple of it would be two security cameras at the public works building. Um there's one out there currently. This would be to add two more. Um it's in response to recent theft. Um improving safety and reducing blind spots on the property. Um we also want to get a camera on our fuel tanks out there. So that would um be able to accomplish that. And then finally, um we had some unused um funds that we have budgeted in 2025 for the comp plan, $50,000 that we would like to assign to do the work um in 2026. And um that would be as part of the parks master plan, part of that 2050 comp plan um consistent with the Bolton and Mink scope of work for this project.

Are there any questions on the assignments? Pollock. Thank you. Council questions for Miss Pollock on this list comments. No questions, just a comment. I know that we had a lot of discussions with the duck trail people last year on the reconstruction of that trail due to its condition. I'm glad to see that this is something that can go forward and help them. So, thank you. All right. Anything else, council? All right. Seeing more no more discussion. Staff are seeking three three motions this evening. So,

mayor, I got one more slide. Oh, I'm sorry. Can I ask you for that? But so sorry. Um so just one last slide before we go to the resolutions which is addressing the year end transfers. So um this is in addition to the assignments that we just discussed. Um the council traditionally approves an operating transfer of an amount that reduces our general fund unassigned fund balance to a minimum of 30% of the following year's expenditures budget. So for 2025 year end, total revenues were higher than budgeted um projections and total expenditures were lower. Um so this results in a transfer out of the general fund needed for $264,253. Staff is recommending that that amount to be transferred to the downtown redevelopment fund. The funds will be used for removing dirt associated with the downtown west phase 1 project in the amount of 160 thou $169,000 which is consistent with the city's agreement with Olivine Apartments. The remaining $95,253 will be used for city funded improvements to that central green area including adjacent on street parking downtown west. And then in addition to that transfer um our revenue stabilization fund um was established and has an adopted the p the council had adopted the revenue stabilization fund policy which directs funds from building permit revenues that exceeded budgeted projections. So, it's the council's policy that we commit the use of these funds for the

building for building related activity uses only. So, for 2025, building permit revenues exceeded the expenditures resulting in a net difference of $183,284. So, per policy, that amount should be transferred into the revenue stabilization fund. And then these last two items listed here are um housekeeping items for temporary interfund loans. So um these are both bond or debt issuance um funds that um those bonds have been paid for. So we um need to also transfer those into another fund. So the 13,39569 is transferring one bond fund into a a bond that has not been closed that is still current which is a allowed use of those funds. And then the 13,24469 is to close the 2008 bond fund um 522 into an active bond fund. So um those are to close funds and then we have a temporary interfund loan. So for the purpose of the 2025 annual comprehensive financial report, all cash balance deficits in individual funds must be eliminated by either an inter fund transfer or an interfund loan. So, the tax increment financing fund one for TIFF 1-9 needs to receive a temporary interfund loan from the general fund in the amount of $3,373.97

um which are to cover administrative charges incurred by that TIF district which has not yet generated any revenue. So, it's just a temporary loan for year end. It'll make that balance to zero. Then we'll reverse it. It's already been reversed for 2026. And then once that fund starts generating tiff, it will cover those that deficit. Um and then finally um in August 2021 the city opened a special revenue fund for the American Rescue Plan Act or also known as ARPA funds which um were received from the federal government. All funds have been received and expended and the balance of the fund is zero. Fund 219 will be closed as of year end 2025.

Thank you. Questions about transfers? Council, any questions for Miss Pollock on these transfers, comments? All right. Anything else from you, Miss Pollock? No. I have the resolutions in front of you for your consideration. Very good. Thank you so much. We have uh we're going to take three uh motions this evening. So, uh Council Member Roberts, can you please uh give us the first motion? Uh, I make a motion for resolution approving the 2025 year end transfer to revenue stabilization fund balance. 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 Patterson, could you give us the second motion, please? Move to the resolution approving temporary interfund loan for financial reporting. We have a motion. Can I get a second? Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. And council member Ivanski, I'll make a motion to for a resolution approving the fund balance assignment and transfers for year end 2025. Second.

We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. The next item on our agenda this evening is item 6.2, two, which is to consider a preliminary plat, comprehensive plan amendment, reszoning, easement, vacation, and early upgrading agreement, and summary publication for the shores of March Lake, second edition residential development. My goodness, that is a mouthful. Presenting on that this evening is our city planner, Brian McCann. Mr. McCann, welcome. Thank you, mayor and council members. Sorry, just need another moment to adjust here. Sure.

Great. Thank you. Uh so yes, we have a request for a six lot single family subdivision called the Shores of Marsh Lake second edition. As you are all well aware, uh the preliminary plat is the middle stage of the land use entitlement process. This is where uh they make their detailed applications, submit plans uh for city staff review for all the important things and then where the major entitlements are granted such as uh some of the requests before you this evening such as uh PUD. Uh and then lastly, if they would receive approval tonight, they would formulate their final plat plans and submit those for consideration by city council at a later date. So uh as I mentioned this is a six lot single family residential development. You noted all the applications that they are requesting this evening including the preliminary plat the resoning to plan unit development uh which requires a summary publication of the ordinance that is a supermajority uh I have that noted on the final slide as well for consideration by the city council. They're also requesting a comprehensive plan amendment to the growth phasing map. That's another super majority vote that uh would need to be considered this evening. They also requested easement vacations and an early grading agreement for the location and existing conditions. The property consists of four parcels. Uh one of those being a large parcel which is mostly within Lake Township. There was a small portion that was annexed into the city of Victoria recently for this development. They also have one lot from the Shores of Marsh Lake first edition development and two outlots from that same development. Uh the site is intersected by County Road 43. It's also in close prox proximity to Marsh Lake, the shores of Marsh Lake uh development and Marsh Lake

Road to the north here. So this is the preliminary plat that was submitted for consideration this evening. Here are uh those six single family residential lots that they've requested. They're proposing to extend Lakeside Drive to a public culde-sac. And then they have three outlots for storm water and wetland preservation as well as private open space for the development. And outlot C uh is anticipated to be uh future right away for the County Road 43 roundabout. So for reasonzoning, as I mentioned, it was recently approved for annexation by the Office of Administrative Hearings. With that, per our code, it's automatically classified as agricultural. The applicant is proposing to reszone it to planned unit development with underlying R1 lowdensity residential. Um, and this PUD that's proposed is uh very similar to the Shores of Marsh Lake neighborhood just to the east. Um so they provided um general input and acceptability at sketchplat but here is where uh the details are approved. Typically we would have the ordinance at final plat. Uh but since this does comply with a lot of the same variations that were proposed with the shores of marsh lake first edition staff were comfortable moving forward with it uh at final plat versus preliminary. Oops, the wrong way. So, here is the planned unit development that was proposed. Um, I only have two areas worth noting that are different than the PUD that was approved for the Shores of Marsh Lake First Edition. Uh, the first one here is the rear yard setback. Uh, they're requesting the 30 ft minimum, which is our standard R1 rear setback.

Uh but the PUD for the shores of Marsh Lake was 50 feet. So that's something that city council should consider this evening. And then secondly, all of the lots within first edition had a 5,000 square ft maximum impervious. They are requesting 6,000 square ft for one lot. Uh this lot one block two right here just because that driveway is going to have to extend into the site further than the other properties. they need that extra thousand square feet of maximum impervious buffer for that lot. So looking at their comprehensive plan amendment, they are requesting to move this area for the development into the darker blue from the lighter blue. What these colors designate is uh decades of growth and phasing within the city of Victoria. So this area was um depicted for development in 2031 to 2040. What they're requesting to do is actually bring this into the 2021 to 2030 range so that it could be uh developed sooner and that is subject to the metropolitan council for review. But I did run this by the city engineer who's sitting next to me and she did not uh anticipate any major concerns with five new single family lots being uh contributed to the sewer system out here. Uh and then we also took a look at the density. So they are compliant with our low density residential range. So we do not anticipate a need to amend our future land use map for this project. Then looking at the shoreland overlay district, it's within a thousand feet of Marsh Lake. So we have to evaluate the standards for our shoreland overlay district regulated by the DNR. Uh as I

mentioned, they're proposing 5,000 to 6,000 square ft impervious, whereas um what's allowed is a flat percentage of 25% per property. They're also proposing that minimum lot size of 10,550 square ft whereas 20,000 square ft is allowed. And then also a minimum 65 foot wide lot width. Um whereas 125 ft is what is allowed per our shore land overlay district ordinance. Uh is also within 150 ft or all of the homes are outside of 150 ft of that ordinary highwire line setback. So they meet that requirements for all of the lots proposed. They're also proposing limited uh grading or vegetation removal out in this area. We did submit this to the DNR. They only had one comment related to the tier analysis that's required for residential shoreland PUDS. What the applicant was required to do was evaluate both additions of the shores of Marsh Lake to determine that the total density for the development was not going to exceed what's allowed. So they did that. They provided this analysis here on the left. Um what it determined is that they're allowed a maximum of 94 units throughout both phases. They're only proposing 48. So they're well under that requirement. Uh so no variances required for the tier analysis. And the uh DNR area hydraologist did not have any additional comments for the city council to consider. Looking at landscaping and tree preservation, they're meeting the minimum 50% open space requirement with 54% proposed. They're also have three trees uh per property as well as some additional buffer trees. They're also planting boulevard trees that meet our spacing and uh size and type

requirements. Uh there is also a 25- ft buffer for those lots having rear end uh front yards on public streets here. So this is the future Marsh Lake Road and they are providing a buffer for those lots here. And then uh tree preservation removal, they are only proposing about 10% of removal of the existing vegetation on site. So there's no mitigation required. Looking at streets, parking and pedestrian connections, they are proposing that public culde-sac with a 28 foot wide public street uh and sidewalk on one side which would stop just short of the culdesac there. Uh parking is allowed on both sides of the street per our ordinance for that. Our uh fire department did request an emergency access with this development because of the PUD uh that is still under review with Carver County. that has not been formally approved yet. So that's included as a condition for consideration by the city council tonight. And then each of the homes is anticipated to have a two stall garage. So that requirement is going to be met as well. Then for parkland dedication, we as I mentioned at the beginning, this is a six lot single family development. One of those lots was already platted with the shores of Marsh Lake first edition. So, we can't count that lot towards parkland dedication. So, we are only looking at five lots here uh coming out to a little less than a quarter of an acre or $24,500 for consideration. There is a private park that exists within the shores of Marsh Lake already. So, the fee is anticipated in lie of land. Then for wetland, storm water management and utilities, it's subject to the MCWD's rules and regulations. uh all the wetlands and wetland buffers have to be

applied as outlots and deed to the city which the applicant is proposing. They are also showing you utilities uh to extend from Lakeside Drive to the edge of the future rightway for County Road 43. And then lastly, they did request a early grading agreement to begin work immediately after preliminary plat approval. So that is part of your uh application considerations this evening. Then lastly, it was the easement vacation. So, they are proposing to vacate the easements within lot one of the shores of Marsh Lake here. Uh that lot that was previously platted. They're adjusting the boundaries here. So, the easements don't work anymore. They're going to rededicate them uh with this new preliminary plat. They're also removing the easements that were on outlots F and G because those lot lines have changed as well with this proposal. So, the plane commission did hold a public hearing at their meeting on April 7th. Uh, one resident spoke asking about the ordinary high water line setback as well as if these lots would have restricted restricted lake access. Uh, which staff confirmed. The plane commission did end up recommending unanimous approval of the request to the city council with a 70 vote. And then for here, I have some suggested conditions of approval that were included with your case this evening. A lot of them have to do with the early grading agreement. you don't see those that often. So, I thought those would highlight those as unique uh ones as well as the preliminary plat approval being contingent on the metropolitan council approving the comprehensive plan amendment. And then lastly, obtaining approval from Carver County for that emergency access to County Road 43 since

that hasn't been formalized yet. So with that um I have five motions for you tonight unfortunately but staff can stand for any questions and a representative of the application is in the audience as well. Very good. Thank you Mr. McCann. Council questions or comments.

We've gone through this a bunch of times. It's basically an extend it's f six houses extension of what was already approved. The reasons for the PUD are because concessions were given for the future county road. This is just completing the um the development. Fair enough.

Brian, I just have a couple questions actually. What were the sideyard setbacks that were on the original Shores of Marsh Lake Road? Uh, mayor and council member Yansky, that was 7 and a half feet per side. Uh, this proposed PUD matches that. Okay. Thank you,

um, I I I don't have any questions. I'm just I I'll make a comment that the I think going forward this is we need to be more cognizant of the requirements that we have on the number of homes that are being served by a single entrance to a subdivision um for our safety equipment. the uh we're seeming to go down a line where there's an increased propensity for the use of, you know, uh sort of emergency access to get equipment in on um these additions, new subdivisions, etc. This this to me seems like that are the kind of things that really need to be used for exigent circumstances. And I'm just um it's just it boxes us in and sets us up for precedences in other places that cause us trouble down the road. Uh I think we need to be more cognizant and be a little bit more steadfast about saying we're not going to compromise our citizens safety. And if that means that we we build less, then that becomes uh a consequence of how we've developed our ordinances. We add these things in place for a reason. And you know, these this um it appears that we seem to be seeing this being used more and more often. We should have u more diligence on that. And then I I think we've also with the sideyard setbacks, uh, we spent a good amount of time looking at what kind of things are causing us problems down the

road in subdivisions after we've built them where later homeowners need to add improvements to lots to deal with drainage and and usage of their property in a way that's commensurate with how they want to live. And you know, It keeps coming down to there's not enough room of the home on the lot with the gradings and the slopes and it's just unintended consequences that we then spend a lot of staff time provide you know uh on variances and whatnot. So uh I think we need to be more diligent on informing developers that we have our sideyard setbacks. we have them for a reason and we need to be less accommodating and flexible in that. And if that means that there's less homes, um you know, the the the mathematics has to be um you know, you you may not be able to bring that subdivision forward. Um or figure out how you're going to manage the economics of the project. I mean, a big part of the draw. We've talked about it over and over again about how Victoria has a little bit more room in its um in its field for its character and we're moving away from that and we need to bring ourselves back home. So, uh but we with this particular application uh it is consistent what we've done before. So, we have precedence for this one. But I I think the a policy position going forward. We need to stick uh stick to our principles on these things and and that that's outlines my comments.

All right. Thank you, Council Member Ivansky. Council, any other final comments, questions? Uh I just have one. So, if and I don't know how likely this is, but if the county does not grant uh the uh emergency access um I mean does that make this whole thing moot then or it's like because it's a condition, right? So, it's approved on that condition. So, this would potentially have to come before us again with like a revised. How does that work exactly? Mr. McCann, is that you or do we go to our counselor for that? I think that might be a council question. Mr. Bose, uh, can you restate the question?

Yes. Um, so one of the conditions we have in here is that, um, uh, the county has to approve, um, the emergency access to this because we, you know, there's too many. So, if they decide not to approve this, which I don't know how likely that is, um like would this then have to come back before us because that was one of the conditions and it wasn't met.

Yeah. So, mayor and council, we are at preliminary plat stage here and so any of the conditions that you're setting are uh requirements that you impose on the developer to get things approved or to make changes to their final plat uh accommodate the conditions that you've imposed. So, if a condition that you impose isn't met, uh, that's grounds to deny the final plat or to impose other requirements to address that same issue. So, I guess that's a lawyer's long way of saying yes to your question. If this isn't approved, the ball is back in your court to decide what to do about emergency access. Great. Anything else, Council Member Roberts?

No, I think that's it. Okay. No more discussion um on that. So staff are seeking five separate motions from us this evening. Um so those are shown on the screen in front of us. So council member Roberts, can you kick us off please? Make a motion to adopt the resolution approving the preliminary plat and early grading agreement for the shores of Marsh Lake second edition. Thank you. Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Council member Patterson, make a motion to adopt a resolution authorizing submitt of a comprehensive plan amendment to the Metropolitan Council. Thank you. Can I get a second, please? Second. Oh, sorry.

Council will give that to Council Member Roberts. We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Council member Ivansky. I'll make a motion to adopt ordinance 488 ZC reszoning the shores of March Lake second edition to residential shoreland land unit development. Very good. 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. Back to Council Member Roberts. Motion to adopt the resolution approving summary publication of ordinance 488ZC. 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. Motion to adopt the resolution vacating drainage and utility easements for the shores of Marsh Lake. We have a motion. Can I get a second? Second. Have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. I.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Next item on our agenda, item 6.3 is to consider a preliminary plat comprehensive plan amendment and easement and right-of-way vacations for Bell Maple Farm residential development. The city was made aware of a petition that was received late this afternoon and this development requested a request uh related to a request for an environmental um assessment. So, I want to kick this over to Attorney Vos. Can you provide some additional context on what this means for the item for us this evening, please?

Mayor and councel, I can do that. Um, yeah. So, mayor and council, of course, you've got several approvals in front of you uh tonight. The the core, though, is the preliminary plat requested approval on on uh Bell Maple Farms. Uh, let me give you the the end of the story and then I'll tell you why that's the end of the story. The end of the story is my recommendation tonight uh to you is going to be that you do not take action on this item on any of the items uh related to this development uh and that you table or continue. We can talk about the details of that in a minute, but that you you not take action and probably you don't even need to hear from staff on the full presentation of the development tonight. Uh and there's really mayor as you alluded to two reasons for that. Um two totally independent reasons. One is that it's my understanding. I think u uh uh planning director McCann can tell us a little bit more about this, but one is that um the developer would simply like to have some more time uh to address some issues that have been raised or to otherwise uh work on the development. Um I will tell you as I think you know the three items uh you just had in a planning related item that had multiple different approvals. This one like that has multiple different approvals. Those approvals are all subject to different deadlines, different review timelines. The legislature hasn't made it particularly easy for cities by imposing different te deadlines for different kinds of planning decisions that cities have to make. Uh preliminary plat a subdivision request has its own unique statutory set of timelines. The timeline on preliminary plat approval is 120 days. We are up against that 120 days. Normally, you would have to take action tonight or else we'd be out of time and then there's some negative consequences to that if you don't act in a timely fashion on a preliminary plat. Uh uh two reasons that that can be extended are one, the developer requests more time and the city agrees to it. And so I've

just told you now that I think that that is the case. And then secondarily, Mayor, as you said, um today, just a few hours ago, uh a group of folks that have spoken to you through a representative uh at prior meetings, uh raising concerns about this development, um that group has filed a petition with uh the state agency that deals with environmental laws. It's called the Environmental Quality Board, the EQB. uh that agency um has received a petition from those folks uh with a a large number of signatures on it uh asking for further environmental review. I'm going to take two more minutes and explain this to you because this is a pretty rare u thing. In fact, I've almost never in 30 years seen a petition like this come across. They happen, but they're they're pretty rare. Here is the quick backstory on environmental reviews in Minnesota. Under state law, there are certain kinds of developments that because of their intensity or because of their size just automatically by law have to receive environmental reviews. So very very large residential developments, very large commercial developments, developments like I said that are particularly intense. You know, as an example, right now the legislature is considering making data centers a mandatory environmental review type project. So the legislature has done that with a number of other kinds of big intense pro types of projects. Uh so there are criteria for the kinds of projects that have to have environmental review. And then the laws also say that local governments can discretionarily decide to give a particular project a review because you have a concern that there may be some environmental impact. And then lastly, the laws say that uh citizens that folks that organizations that care about these issues can petition this state agency to make the local government do these reviews if it has not done that itself. So that's sort of the backstory here. The petition that was filed with the EQB just today makes the argument, as I understand, and I've,

you know, I've only had it for a few hours, so it'll only glance through it, but I understand it to make the argument that there are some triggers here that uh are mandatory review triggers related to this development. And then the petition also says, and even if you don't agree with that, we think you should exercise discretion and conduct a review anyway, even if you don't think these mandatory criteria are met. So that petition goes to the state EQB. They have five days to make an initial determination just on the face of the petition whether it's adequate or not. It is possible that a petition goes there and it just dies there. It doesn't go anywhere else because the EQB decides that there's no merit to it or that it's imp that signatures aren't right or something is wrong with petition. So that hasn't happened yet. I mean, this is just today has gone to the EQB, but it if it does come out of the EQB, it is likely to be referred to you as what's called the RGU, the responsible government unit, and then it will be in your court to decide whether a review, an environmental review is appropriate based on the things I've just laid out for you. Typically, you'd look to your city engineer and other professionals to help you make those decisions, but that's sort of that's sort of the process. So, why have I taken five minutes of your time telling you all that? Now, if I can open my handy dandy electronics. Uh, the reason I've told you all that is that when that process is pending, when an a petition like that is made, the applicable rule, and I'll just read it to you, says a petition for an EAW, environmental assessment worksheet, that's the kind of review that's been requested here. When that's filed, a project may not be started and a final governmental decision may not be made to grant a permit, approve a project or begin a project until either petition is dismissed. It is sent to you and you dismiss it because you decide that it's not meritorious or you actually do the review and the review is completed. So that's what state law says. That language about grant the

permit, approve a project or begin a project. You would think maybe that doesn't apply to preliminary plat reviews. But it does. The EQB has said even though the word preliminary is in what we do here in the first step, that is the kind of approval that is put on hold when this petition is uh in play. So there is just simply a rule that says we can't act. That's a little inconvenient here because again we're up against 120 days. But I will tell you that the understanding is that when one set of laws say you can't act local government, obviously your timeline for reviewing that thing is put on hold until you are able again to act. I would say to the extent uh Mr. McCann indicates the developer reps are in the room, it would be useful even if they're not going to stand up and ask for an extension of the time, it would be useful for them to acknowledge that we can't act because this petition has been filed so that we're all on the same page about that. I'd hate to be in a position where developer is claiming we have to act tonight even though the law says we can't act tonight. So it would be useful I think just to knock that issue down.

Okay. And do we have the developer in the room this evening? Hi, welcome. Please step forward. State your name for the record, please.

Good evening, Madame Mayor, council members. My name is Pat Killer. I'm one of the partners with Norton Homes. So, um, we received this same petition this afternoon. Um, we're digesting it as well. Um, the city attorney, I understand what he's saying, and if you're unable to act on it tonight, would we would request, I guess, that you'll table it to the extent that we need to uh provide permission to extend 120 days. We would be willing to grant that for whatever reasonable time period is needed. We do want our our application uh acted upon, but we understand the situation we're now facing. So, we would request an extension, and I can work with staff to determine how long that would need to be, but we're for that if you want to table tonight. Okay. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Hiller. Thank you,

Mr. McCann. Do you have anything else to add to it? Nothing else, Madam Mayor. All right. With that uh knowledge, I will make a motion to table this. Second.

Yeah, mayor and council. I had said maybe we'll revisit. I appreciate what what you're doing there. You know that it's a fine distinction and most cities ignore it, but tableabling means you just put something on hold until you take it up off the table. Continuing means you continue it to a date certain. I I don't we're kind of in between the two of those here because I don't know what the date certain will be. I'm not sure what action we're going to have to take in relation to this petition and I think just tableabling it indefinitely may not work. So maybe what we could do is we could say we're going to table it or continue it, however you want to say it. Uh to to the next regular meeting following the time when you're legally able to take action again, right? When one of those things happens, it's dismissed. it comes to you and you dismiss it or it comes to you and you make a decision to actually do the review. When those one of those is completed, your next regular meeting after that would be the date when we would expect you to take action on this.

Okay. Does that make sense, Mr. McCann? Yes. Can I ask a question? Yes, please. So, does based off of what you're saying? So, like let's say you know this motion or not the motion but their their uh uh the concerns they raise is denied as it's not valid. So, does our timeline does it just basically say like it's, you know, because you said we're up to against statutory deadlines for some of these things. Does it just push to the next meeting or does it like say, you know, from that denial which could happen in five days? I think you said it's so many days after that or

Yeah. Yeah. Mayor, council member. Um, I wish it was kind of that clear, right? This is, you know, I I my whole life is operating in a gray area, so this is a gray area. Um, and so that's the reason I asked that developer and I appreciate Mr. Hiller doing that. But I think just sort of nailing down that we'll this will be due for action at the meet the next regularly scheduled council meeting after whatever happens that allows us to take action. I think that's reasonably clear about when we need to act. We're going to have more information by our next council meeting in two weeks. So So if I say it's to our next council meeting, um, does that work for you? uh attorney votes and all your

yeah mayor and council I guess the the um I I don't want to be in a position where we are needing to go back to Mr. Hiller or to the developer and getting agreement to continue each regular meeting cycle that you go through. So maybe I think I I prefer surprisingly prefer my own way of saying that I think to yours saying just it's it's continued let's say uh to the next regular council meeting following the ability of the city to take action again under the relevant rule. I think that's that's going to be a cleaner way to do this I think. Okay. So can we take that as a friendly amendment? Yep. Yeah. And I you don't have to ret try and redo what I said. Just adopt that by reference

immensely. So, we will consider that a further amendment. So, um we have a motion and a second. All those in favor for tableabling or do we have any more discussion? Council member Henderson, you look confused. Nope, I'm good. I just want to make sure my second still held. I think it I think it does. We That was my only confusion. Robert's rules of order or Robert Fos's rules of order here. No. Okay. So, we have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. Any opposed? Motion carries. That item is tabled. Thanks.

The next item on our agenda this evening, item 6.4 considers a preliminary plaque, conditional use permits, shoreline variance, site plan, building material review, writeaway vacations for Hotel Victoria commercial development. Presenting on that item once again this evening is our city planner, Brian McCann. Mr. McCann, take it away.

Thank you, mayor, and council members. Uh this is going to be a little bit of a rehash of the first item uh that I was here for, but we are at the preliminary plat stage where the major entitlements are granted. They have some cups and a variance request this evening. So those are two examples of some of the major entitlements we'll be uh considering but then also uh staff to detail reviewed of all their applications. So, they have five requests for the city council this evening. The first being the preliminary plat. Then they have three separate conditional use permit requests. We've kind of roped them all into one here. Uh they are also requesting an increase to the maximum impervious through a shoreland variance. They're also requesting a site plan and building materials review and right-of-way applications for the location and existing conditions. Uh right now it exists as a single site located at 7929 Victoria Drive which currently occupies the Winchester and Rye building with some open green space to the north here where they are proposing the hotel. The site is surrounded by streets on all sides as you can see uh in the image on the left. It is also in close proximity to the Lake Mananka Regional Trail and within 1,000 ft of Stiger Lake. So that's where that shoreland overlay district falls into play again. And the site is approximately 50% impervious currently. So here is a rendering of the hotel proposal that was submitted. The building consists of 46 units within the boutique hotel. Uh they have a proposed covered parking garage which houses 41 parking stalls. They also have a proposed fitness center uh inside for the guests as well as a lobby and breakfast bar and multiple meeting rooms

and spaces. They are proposing some modifications to Siger Lake Lane and Ry's Way, including some of the existing parking that's on street there. Uh it is a fivestory building proposal at uh the point on the north side uh closest to the lake with approximately 57 ft at that tallest point and then uh it's closer to about 48 ft on the back side of the building adjacent to Winchester and Rye. So here is the preliminary plat that was submitted. Lot one consists of the hotel and lot two consists of the Winchester and Ry building. You may have noted that in uh the city staff review memo that was attached to the report, there were still some questions regarding overlapping uses. Uh they have the meeting space proposed above the Winchester and Ry building on the second level. And then on the first floor, they have a small kitchen expansion within the hotel site. We did run that by our uh fire chief and building official. we were able to resolve that comment last week. I just wanted to note that for the city council. Uh but moving on, these were the renderings that were provided showing um the exterior materials uh color height of the building for reference and uh adjacency to the Winchester and Rye building seen in the renderings here. for the zoning and comprehensive plan. It's currently zoned central business district and guided downtown mixed use in our 2040 comprehensive plan. Uh commercial use of a hotel is a uh conditional use within our zoning district but is also an allowed use in our comprehensive plan. Uh so as I mentioned they need a conditional use permit for the hotel use as well as building heights over 50 feet uh which

the applicant has requested. So here staff noted that 57 ft height uh between the lowest grade of the building and the tallest point. It's actually worth referencing that since this is within our shoreland overlay district uh this height definition is actually different than what we have in our code. So we actually take uh the higher grade. So this requirement is actually a 48 foot. So, it actually complies with our 50-foot requirement. Staff just discovered that today and unfortunately didn't have time to update the presentation uh prior to tonight due to the all day workshop. So, my apologies for that. But there are some still uh conditional use permits that are being considered this evening. Uh so city council should look at uh consistency with the comprehensive plan, health and safety, compliance with the rest of our zoning code standards. Uh all of these apply as considerations for cons conditional use permit approval. So if the city council has any concerns about any of the items on this list, uh we can definitely talk through those further and see if they're worth granting a conditional use this evening. Then dshoreand overlay district as I mentioned it's within a thousand feet of the ordinary highwire line of stiger lake lane. So commercial uses are a conditional use within the shoreland overlay district. So that is the third conditional use permit that was requested this evening. On top of that they are requesting the increase of the maximum imperous requirement from 80% up to 88.3%. uh early in their application, staff did coordinate a meeting with our DNR area hydraologists and the applicants engineer to talk about um that increase in impervious and what the applicant

would have to do to mitigate that increase. Um the applicant and their engineer did provide documents that satisfied the DNR's concern regarding storm water management. So the DNR area hydraologist did not have any comments on the proposed variance tonight. With that, they submitted a variance narrative for consideration by the city council regarding um the three criteria for review of a variance. The first one being if a request is a reasonable use of the property. So, the applicant stated that it's currently developed with a long-standing restaurant use and represents a logical and compatible expansion of hospitality services on the site, stating that it's a reasonable use. Secondly, is the problem unique to the land and not created by the land owner? They state that due to the size and configuration of the lot and the presence of the existing building, they're constrained with that 80% imperous maximum uh that would allow development of a reasonably sized and functional hotel. And then lastly, if the variance is granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? uh they do not believe it would because it introduces a hotel use compatible with that existing restaurant that is consistent with the broader mixed use and hospitality character of the area. Looking at the building materials, they are proposing uh exterior materials consisting of green glazed brick with metal trim, siding and roofing. Uh they did incorporate a lot of design criteria as well since we have elevated central business district design standards including facade modulations, balconies, uh the flat roof as well as some distinct ground floor windows that separate it from floors above and the awning over the entrance.

They also provided uh a lighting plan and some signage uh renderings. So they anticipate that the exterior lighting on the outside of the building will enhance the entrances of the building and their signage but uh won't become a nuisance or contribute to light pollution to adjacent areas. They are also showing about 85 square ft in signage which is compliant with our code as well. Then moving on to landscaping and tree preservation. They are exempt from open space and minimum planting requirements since they're within the central business district. They did not uh provide boulevard trees as required every 35 ft. Uh due to the downtown urban environment, um it's hard to make a project like this work that has the necessary sidewalk components, parking, um and being able to meet that spacing requirement for trees. So they're asking for consideration from the city council for a deviation for that. Uh they also placed foundation plantings where practical and they're removing 100% of the existing significant trees on site. That requires about 22 in of replacement per our tree preservation code. That's not a lot. Uh but given the site they're showing 9 in of replacement trees here. So they're also asking for a deviation from the city council on that. And what that deviation could mean could mean additional planting somewhere else in our downtown area or contributions to the city's tree fund at $100 per inch per our uh fee schedule. So looking at streets, parking, and drive aisles, they are proposing to expand Ry's way to 20 ft on the northeast corner. You might remember there was a project uh that is expanding

Ry's way towards the south 20 feet. So now Ry's way will be 20 ft the whole length of the way which is good. Uh they are also proposing uh 41 parking spaces. Our code says that hotels are required to have one space per room and an additional 20% for a club or lounge or lounge which neither of those are being proposed with this. So they are proposing um five less spaces than what is required. There are 28 existing stalls on Stiger Lake Lane and Ry's Way. And it's just worth noting uh that the proposal is showing a removal of four stalls on Stiger Lake Lane approximately here where my cursor is and then a loss of about six stalls here on Ry's Way to accommodate that parking garage entrance for the hotel. So, uh, net total of 31 parking stalls if you're taking those those 41 underground stalls and taking that loss of 10. So, staff thought it would be helpful to provide some additional context on the parking in this area. Uh, it's our understanding that Winchester and Ry was uh previously allowed to be underparked and contributed uh to uh parking downtown here. Um, with this proposal, they would be removing 10 of those previously approved stalls. So, that's something that the city council should consider this evening. Um, and when we are looking at parking that could potentially be explored for a shared parking opportunity, uh, the city council should consider offsetting uses. you know, if it's a bakery in the morning versus a full dinner restaurant at night. Those are uh situations where parking stalls could be utilized in the morning and in the evening without conflicting between two existing

businesses. Um the applicant could consider applying for a conditional use permit for shared parking if that is the route they would like to go, but that would have to go back to plane commission and city council for subsequent review and approval. And then next they had a interim parking plan that was proposed at sketchplat. It was not indicated uh in the plans for the preliminary plat but staff thought would be helpful for the city council to note that that was part of their proposal. Uh this was discussed at planning commission. Again the applicant stated they do still intend to provide the 66 parking stalls here but a lot of that would be used for contractor parking and staging for this project. So, we're not quite sure how much of that would be fully publicly available or kept after uh redevelopment of this site in the future, but we did include this as a proposed condition if the city council chooses to approve the preliminary plat and applications tonight. So, the pedestrian connections, they are showing 8 foot sidewalk on the west and north sides of the development. They are also showing a small private entrance uh in the blue area here on the southeast side. Uh staff did request that a maintenance agreement would need to be executed for that since the entrance is partially within the public right ofway. And then just also knowing again that the Lake Minnitanka Regional Trail is nearby for additional pedestrian connections. So for parkland dedication, uh commercial projects less than an acre in size are exempt from that. The project site is about 3.2 acres. So they are exempt from this requirement. We don't anticipate any fee or uh cash fee in lie of land for this proposal. Then looking at wetlands, storm water management and utilities. It's subject

to the MCWD's rules. Again, uh impacts to wetlands are unlikely given the site's current conditions. Uh but it's also worth noting that this property is outside of the downtown regional storm water system, but the uh applicant and their engineer did accommodate that additional storm water through some storage tanks and additional best management practices. And then lastly, uh they have utility connections proposed with the sewer coming from Stiger Lake Lane and the uh water coming from Victoria Drive. And then the last uh item that they had requested was the right-of-way vacations. They're proposing three small areas uh for consideration for right-of-way vacation on the project site. Uh this one down here, I will note, is a little bit unique. It does contain a parking stall. So, city staff would actually like to retain this area through an outlot dedication, which the applicant has proposed in their updated rendering. So, uh, just something to note, these stalls would become publicly owned with that. And then the neighborhood meeting, uh, they held that pretty recently on March 31st at Winchester and Rye. I attended and heard general support for the project from a lot of the attendees. There weren't many, if any, negative comments on the proposal. Uh the all the attendees stated that this generated additional business for the downtown property owners and that hotels are a needed service within the community, but they did have some questions regarding the construction timing and staging, the types of amenities that are proposed within the hotel and the ant anticipated guest counts. So, our plan commission did hold a public hearing. Uh four residents and business owners spoke in support of the proposal. staff also received about 15 public comments in support of the proposal which were attached to your case this evening. Um the plan

commission discussed parking the variance consideration as well as some of the um currently constructed downtown building heights uh and how they compare to this project and then the generated uh business from the hotel. The plan commission did end up recommending approval with a 6 to1 vote. And then if the city council is uh heading towards the direction of considering approval tonight, these conditions were included in the resolution for consideration. Uh the unique ones being the increase in impervious up to 88.3%. um that conditional use permit height, which we actually know is not relevant anymore, but a conditional use permit approval for the hotel use and a commercial use within the shoreland overlay district still apply. Uh they have to provide a staging plan for review and approval by the city before a final plat submitt and then requiring that interim parking that we discussed and a maintenance agreement for the sidewalk within rightway. Uh all the other conditions are pretty standard that you see such as entering into a development agreement complying with the city attorney's plat opinion. Um but we did have some optional conditions of approval that the city council could consider this evening that were also attached to your case. Uh the first one being that the applicant apply for and receive a conditional use permit for that shared parking that we talked about uh to mitigate the five parking stalls that they did not accommodate for their project in their underground parking garage and that would be executed prior to the final plat or there's an option to provide an additional 10 parking spaces uh that would be retained and kept publicly through development of 1600 Arboritum Boulevard uh for that

interim parking project. And then lastly uh that the applicant should provide a sidewalk connection from that interim parking at 1600 Arburedum Boulevard uh towlit to get uh potential hotel guests to this site faster from that interim parking area. And then lastly, just any other conditions that the city council wants to consider tonight uh that are reasonable are also within your wheelhouse to consider this evening. So with that, I have two sample motions for you to consider. Unfortunately, the applicant wasn't able to make it to the meeting tonight, but city staff can answer any questions you have, and uh a couple other representatives of the applicant are in the audience tonight, including their engineer if you have any specific questions.

Very good. Thank you, Mr. McCann. Council questions.

I'll start with one for Mr. McCann. The easement vacation. Do we have agreement that the one vacation that would essentially turn publicly owned spaces into private hands is being removed from the easement vacation. Yes, mayor and council member. Um I thought I had updated the plaque before this, but we did receive revised plans, including a revised preliminary plat um showing this area here as an outlot that would be dedicated to the city. So, we've already begun that process with that.

Okay. So, we'll essentially be vacating the easement, but then we're going to get an outlot in return that then becomes under the domain of the city. Correct. So that effectively that parking will stay there as long as the city determines that it's needed. It couldn't be summarily removed because it was in private hands and turned into say like an outdoor dining area. That's correct. Thank you for that.

Then uh council, let's just jump in. We're losing 15 stalls with construction. We're losing on Stiger Lake Road and we're losing on Ry's way there. There is parking that is going to be in the building 41 spaces, but that is not open correct during the day so that public Yeah. the 41 parking can go in there and use those stalls. The 41 stalls are private parking. Those are not available for public use. Correct. Okay.

So, I look at it as you lose 10 convenience spots. We've also added a situation where we've got a um a valet service which is there to provide access to other types of parking around. We are also receiving an expansion of Ry's way. Um there's a lot of public benefit here. I mean, our businesses over the next couple years are going to need assistance down the road. I mean, what are we trying to do? I I think this is a great project for the city. I think it needs to be approved. I think we need to figure out a way to get it done. And if that's applying for a cup for a variance to get uh an aotment of shared parking, great. Um I don't see it as losing 15 stalls. I see it as we could possibly gain 60 stalls. based on the future projects. Um, I think you might have to give up a little bit to gain down the road would be my my thoughts on it at this point. I mean, the storm water's managed. It's under height. We're losing 22 in of trees. It just feels like it's something that needs to be done for the city. Uh, my straw polls at the Victoria Fieldhouse passed 40 to three. We've obviously seen a lot of people that have been talking or writing in in support of it. Um, you know, as as our attorney said tonight, sometimes you got to operate in the gray. And I think that this project will not only provide us some added benefits in the future, but getting to that point of being a positive thing for the community is going to happen. and we just need to operate in the gray a little bit as we're going through approving the preliminary plat.

Okay.

Well, I I don't take umbrage with your statements about this is this isn't a good project. It is. I think it should be done, but I don't think we've been put up here to operate in the gray. We've been put up here to operate and not create future problems or even immediate problems. We are here to solve problems. So I think that in that vein we if we would move forward on this I think the question about the stalls that we're losing on Stiger Lake Lane could probably be solution through a valet that means that people might have to be you know putting on their jogging shoes and moving cars for guests and moving them down to another spot of the city. The what uh I I have consternation about is that when we're taking away stalls from a part of town where we have the most contentious uh use of parking space on busy nights and then just removing them. We need assurance that there is a uh a a rockolid way of being able to bring those spaces back and they're available upon the um opening of this hotel so that you know the interim construction. Sure. That's that's the pain point. If if I'm going to allow you the use of gray, that's where I would say that we have a space for gray. But we we we talked about this at Sketch Plat that there needs to be something that puts those spaces back with uh no ambiguity, no um potential risk to the parking situation that those won't be there. And if we can if we can get that, then then that's the

ideal way to move it forward. But we simply can't uh in good conscience say we're going to take 15 spaces and not have a rock solid way of dealing with the vacancy front. Well, our parking plan is in the gray and it is ambiguous and the shared parking aotment is not clearly defined and I think that if we are going to be allotting shared parking for a variety of different organizations that the hotel should be one of those that gets the allotment. Does that mean they need to apply for a cup? Sure. Um I would put that as a condition within it. Um, I mean, I just don't think we have business we're gonna have a lotments for businesses that don't exist. We don't do something about it.

Well, I I don't disagree that we don't have uh some ambiguity with shared parking and, you know, sort of uh, you know, the merrygoround of of spaces and projects and things that were approved. I think that I think that there's probably some merit for that statement. Um what we don't need to do is make the problem worse in the immediate. So, we need to uh ensure that we're getting some, you know, some some hard hard agreements that these spaces will be replaced in a reasonable uh proximity to where they're being removed because the proximity of them being removed is among the you know where we hear the constrnation about parking. So, um, if we want to put solid conditions that we're going to get that, then I think we've got something that we can work with. But absent that, because we didn't get that in this uh, we didn't get that in this submission that's sitting before us tonight. We heard it about it sketch plat, but I don't, you know, I don't see that we have anything firm. we have Mr. McCann bringing us something that uh you know frankly feels like an insertion into the record rather than um what was on the application that is before us tonight. So we can you know if we can get to a condition that makes sense. I I think that that uh you know it's incumbent on us and that's that's a responsibility to move forward and without it we we're in some in some in a difficult spot. Um the sketch plat on this did put some

spots at 1600 Arboritum and now um the applicant has since said we're not we're not going to put spots there long term they're temporary that's a separate project alto together there separate ownership we'll do it while we're under construction but we are not going to keep that there long term so that is a concern so we do need to find some additional spaces because I feel like those public parking spots that are being removed for the construction have been allotted and figured into our shared parking plan. And you know, it's a delicate balance. We don't want to overbuild parking. We don't want to underbuild parking, but it is a delicate balance. And with the the pulling back of allowing those spaces for long-term permanent use is a concern, and I want to figure out a way to get to yes on this project. I love this project. I love the downtown. Um, I would be in favor of trying to find a cup for a parking solution that's long-term and permanent and whether that's putting people down, whatever whatever that might look like.

So, first of all, and I think we're all in agreement on this. I think we all love the project. We think it's a beautiful building. We think it is long needed, right? Like I mean, I've thought about this for years about, you know, all the events we have at Lions Pavilion and graduations and all that stuff. Um, I don't think any of us have a problem with the project overall. I think we love it. Um, I share Councilman Bansk's concerns about the parking issue. you know, we're, you know, there can be disagreements between the downtown business owners and property owners and some of us on the council whether or not we have a parking issue, but I think the one thing we all agree on is that there is a proximity issue and taking the 10 spots from the some of the most approximate spots in our downtown is a big problem. Um, and you know, we sat here and I think Council Member Beransky, right, said, you know, about the property, uh, it's whatever the address is, the additional parking spot, like, you know, Mary, are you giving you're basically you're gifting us those 66 spots for the public to use? And she's like, yes, like that is that's more than he absolutely did.

Yeah. She said those 66 spot well my those 66 spots are for the public use and no you're not I'm speaking thank you this those 66 spots are going to be for public use and we said and she said it's temporary but she did not say it was for interim parking for probably for the project people working on it was for our use and then eventually that spot was going redevelop. And we've basically said, okay, it's going to redevelop and it's going to have to park that redevelopment and it's also going to have to have those spots that you're short in the vicinity of the um hotel and I think I believe right she said the number will get smaller but we will still have more than enough more than what we are required to have for parking. And now this is completely gone. Like I get it might be a separate project, but I it I I know we're not we a lot of the uh people who are in favor of this and again I'm in favor of the hotel um keep referring to a parking structure that is not part of this application. And it very much feels like that we're getting to a spot where it's we're going to reduce parking that forces our hand to do something else that is not part of this project. And again, I would love to get to yes on this. I would love to find a way to do this, but I I mean I I don't know how because,

you know, it's one thing when you're talking about, as Brian said, right? Like you have businesses that operate in the morning, so those spots are used by those businesses in the morning. You have other businesses at night that are using the same spots. There's, you know, we're told there's no extra parking. So, how does how do if we're taking away 10 spots, how are we finding extra parking without using those 66 spots? I again, I I would I want to get to Yes. I agree with you, mayor. I want to get to yes, but there needs to be some major con like conditions on this. And I don't I know the applicant is not here. So I don't even know how this would be like I don't want to say no, but I'm like we're also up against a deadline, right? Statutory deadline. Like would she agree and I don't know when we could do like to table it to a certain ex do an extension like because I'd rather get an extension than say no but we have to be able to figure out parking before I say yes.

Okay. So we have some representatives in the audience. So uh Mr. Elmquist Eric you want to speak? Please state your name for the record. Thank you.

Uh madame mayor. Uh council members. My name is Matt Pavoc. I'm a civil engineer working on the project. Um trying to help out uh here with the parking conversation. So um kind of first things first, you know, development team, everybody understands the touchy nature of this topic. Um so I think it's first of all most important to level set with the exact numbers we're talking about. So the net street parking delta is eight stalls from the existing street spots to what we're proposing. So It's eight. It's not 10. It's not 15. It's eight. Um the second part of that is we could reduce that number from eight to five or six if we removed the hotel drop off. So if you recall from the sketch plan, we had a drop off on Stiger at that time. It was just kind of a pulloff. And uh it was a good idea from somebody, I don't remember if it was a council member or a planning commission member to suggest more of a formal drop off, which we did. But that then resulted in a couple of more spots being removed. We do like that design idea. We think it's a better um better function for the hotel, but that could get us to five or six. So then we're talking about, you know, a handful of stalls in a in a downtown area of many many stalls. Um so that I think is important to to point out and I think that um if Mary were here, she'd want me to to to convey that. The second part um off-site parking has to be used for private. So, this is information that was, you know, figured out through the process as they're developing and working with that addition different investment groups and things. Um, so it's going to be used for staging during construction and then afterwards it can still be used for hotel overflow parking. So, private

parking for the hotel employees, staff or uh people staying there. Um, so it's still those people could potentially park on the street, but they don't have to if there's available private parking elsewhere. So, there's again kind of a gray area of who's parking where. Um, same with Winchester and Ry employees could be parking at this off-site location rather than on the street right there. So, there could be some programming or ideas there that could help private versus public parking. Um, again, to help mitigate, again, we're talking about a handful of stalls. So, um, I think that's important just to kind of state that. I know that Mary wants this hotel. I mean, the downtown folks want this hotel. It's going to be a critical uh piece uh for economic development in the downtown. Uh, and I'm sure many uh the businesses would attest to that. If they had to choose between five stalls and this hotel, I think they would choose the hotel, but I'll let them uh speak if there's an opportunity for that. Um, so u I think that's all that I had to say about it, but um here for more questions if you have any, but uh unfortunately Mary kind of couldn't make it to

Can I just um two questions? So, um, what I I'm sure it's because of the site. Um, but is the underground parking limited based off of the topography, the watt like or is it just a cost thing that you can't do it any like deeper or bigger bigger?

Yes, it is maxed out for the footprint that we have available. And we're actually showing tandem and double parking within the hotel uh that can be accommodated because it's valet. So, they can pack them in there tighter than normal parking lot which is advantageous. Um but there isn't any way to get more in there physically just with the space.

And then so the private lot that is overflow lot would that still be so I guess where I'm trying to get at is would it be able to be valet? Like so if your let's say your hotel gets full of your parking spots I guess right the underground parking would they then valet it over there versus I mean obviously someone could choose not to even go to valet they could just take street parking but the the thought would be that you wouldn't be putting it on the street somewhere like you'd hope to valet it over to the overflow lot. That's my understanding correct. That would be the plan. Tomquist.

Mr. Quest please. Yes. Um the plan would be we would have a contract between the two properties so that they we would lease space from one property to the other separate ownership groups so we can't encumber one with the other and I didn't mean to speak over you before. I'm sorry for that. But there was never any mention of gifting 66 spots. We've had conversations about development developing that spot and getting a tiff agreement going where we could maybe get TIFF to help provide 66 spots. So it would be through TIF that that could happen. So it was never a gift. So I just wanted to clarify when I said gift too, I wasn't saying Mary said it was a gift. Okay. Yes.

We said up here you're it's a gift to the people of Victoria and she was like yeah right. Like and it wasn't her word she was saying but she's like yes. So, it's just a difference of terminology that we weren't getting because it it could be used, but it would have to be through some tiff agreement where there's funding available. A developer can never pay for 66 spots to give to the city. It just would never happen. Sure. Okay. Well, we we shouldn't spend time on hypotheticals with TIFF potentially paying for spots in a development that we have no application for that isn't even under consideration. So let's good point. Let's let's get back to our

and we should also move off the fact about valeting cars between the temporary lot and the hotel because that's the it the in its core that's just flip-flopping between 41 spaces that have no public access period. So we don't even need to think about counting those because they're not relevant to the discussion. What's relevant to the discussion is that we're losing parking around this property. We need to come to an understanding of where that gets replicated so that we don't make a problem that we already have worse. It's pretty straightforward. So, and I don't ever remember at SketchPlat any talk of a gift, but what we needed was a way to secure the parking on the other property. So that we would always have available for downtown parking in that spot and that this you know to as for example so that we don't have employees parking there. We don't have um things being used that are not going to replace what's being taken away. And I don't want to get back and forth with the, you know, Matt counts it one way, the Brian counts it another way. The numbers that we have before us are are what we have to consider if we're going to put conditions so that we get that and we can get to that. I I I think that that's our that's our mission up here because I don't think there's any daylight between the community council and staff and the owner that this is a great project for Victoria. What we need to do is not play a shell game with shared parking and make a problem worse by net taking spots away. And that's where we need to get to.

Thank you, Council Member Vansky. Mr. Alquist, do you have anything else to add here? Then you can go ahead and take a seat. Thank you. Okay. So, Mr. Pavoc, I do want to ask because you said so I I I think it's important that we talk about are we eight or 10. So, we're taking four stalls off of Stiger Lake Lane and six on Ry's Way. Can you And these are highlighted, correct, Brian? Mayor and council members, these are the stalls after um Okay. the project would be constructed. Uh, I can go through my slides and see if I have an aerial

or Matt if you can just describe them to us because I think I think we're all familiar with the ones that are kind of All right. I'm so confused about where we are right now. But yeah, I can explain some. Yes, please. We're taking six We'll just we'll talk about what's being removed and then what's what's being put back. Okay. So, there's six stalls on Stiger and 10 on Ry's Way in the existing condition. So that's 16. Okay. And then in the proposed condition, there are two on Stiger and one, two, three, four, five, six on Ry's way. So that's eight. So 16 minus 8 is eight. Yes, I agree with that math. Okay.

Is there any clarification from your perspective, Brian, on that so we can Yes, mayor and council members. The way I was looking at parking here was parking all along the entire length of Ry's Way since that is the subject property we are considering tonight. There are 22 stalls on Ry's way and after they were showing 16. So that's where I got six instead of Matt's other number. I can't remember exactly what he said. And then six here on Stiger Lake lane down to two. So, four here and sixth in this whole length.

Can I ask you just a really crazy question? So, you've got diagonal parking on the right side of Stiger here. Is there any way to make it diagonal parking on the left side of Stiger where you would add versus the parallel parking? I know that gets into farting around with streets and curbs and all that sort of stuff, but I mean, could you add three to four spots there? then we're short one or two and we're we looked into that and it isn't there's just not enough rightway available to Fair enough. The stall stall is the right size. Again, I'm not an engineer, but as we're looking at it,

yeah, I we're all scratching our head trying to figure out how to get to yes on this thing. And I I do think that we have to have a conditional use permit that says how we're going to where we're going to park some of these folks. Um you know, we are we are evolving as a as a community and we are going to have some additional public parking as downtown west develops. Um there is a interim period of time here where it's going to be difficult and it's very difficult because we hear it all the time. There's no place to park. We try and you know put out great signage. We tell people tell your people where to park. We ask you to put your folks you know put your employees further down in the public parking. Um and I We want to get there. And so, um, I also know, council, uh, or Mr. Bos, I want to ask you, I know we're up against another timeline here. So, if we say we want we want this thing to go forward, but we need a better plan for parking, what does that do to our timeline? Is that can that be part of our conditional use and it comes to us in final plat or

Yeah, mayor and council we staff uh and I talked about that a bit today. Um you know my advice always to cities is in a perfect world which we don't live in usually in a perfect world when we do preliminary plat approval we should have conditions that are achievable that can be satisfied completed before final plat approval. Right? Right. So if we're going to condition a preliminary plat on you got to change this out lot into a regular lot obviously that can be done through a survey or changing the plat drawing. Right. So that's in a perfect world those are the kind of conditions that you would impose at preliminary plat stage. Um what I hear you saying is as to parking or maybe more specifically as to the loss of public parking separate from on-site parking or under parking separate from that issue. loss of on on street public parking will have a condition that sort of will reach an agreement. The condition will be that we reach agreement about what you're going to do about this. That's a little bit softer, a little squishier to the gray area kind of analogy we've been using, but I I I'm not going to tell you that's not doable. And that would allow you to take action tonight if we could craft such a condition. Would allow you to take action tonight and you wouldn't have a 120day rule issue here. Um, I just don't know what that is though, right? I don't know what the objective is. Um, is the objective to have an agreement that says as to the six or 10 or I don't know where the math has ended up here on the number of lost public parking on street parking spaces. I'm not sure if I understand that where where we're at on that, but regardless, um what is the goal to have an agreement about where instead of those places people uh accessing this development are going to park? Is that is that what we're after in a cup or an agreement or what is the objective?

So, here's my concern. So, we need 46 parking stalls. So, they need basically to park this project, they need five public spark parking spaces. We can't overnight park on the street. Is that correct? So, we couldn't use overnight parking, those five public parking stalls for overnight parking for hotel guests. But wouldn't they be on the temporary site for park hotel? That's what I'm Well, that's what I'm wondering. Is is that the idea is that those So, you know, she's proposing to use five public parking stalls to park the project.

No. Okay. Mr. Pavoc, please. Mayor, I think the 46 required stalls are private stalls that would be in the hotel and in the offsite parking. Okay. Not the public. The public were just talking about before and after. Okay. Available public stalls is my understanding. Got it. Okay. Okay. So, that clarifies the the difference between 46 that's required and 41 that's actually on the site. We are losing spaces plain and simple. The new math is now where's eight

whatever whether it's eight or 10. We are losing public park.

We we need to have those spaces returned in some form or fashion as a condition to move forward. or we if we can't if we don't have the owner here to agree to conditions, one possible outcome is that we deny the application and then the let the owner restart the application process and we can have a conversation about, you know, hey, fees that you've already paid, we'll we'll look past that and have you reapply, but we we can't let things go past the statutory deadline and have this project approved. approved as it's been applied for because it's unacceptable. So we or we uh because I'm struggling as to say how can we have impose a condition here at preliminary plat and not have the owner acknowledge that they agree to it. We don't have legal counsel representing the owner. We have an engineer and we have another downtown property owner. I don't think that we So, so can he?

So, can can Mr. Almququist or does it matter because Mayor because Mary's on the application? Mr. Vos, I look to you to Yeah, mayor and councel. Um, we don't uh slice the onion that thin typically here. Um, I mean, I think that to the extent Mr. Almquist represents that he's an owner of the project or a part owner of the project. I think that we just would normally accept that. Okay. So, Mr. Almquist, do you have any comments on where we think we can find these lost spaces on Monarch project? We took Quam Cliff and we're creating spots. Are those possible to be shared? Those are new spots.

No, they were not. That's public. the the the the Monarch project is not under consideration. I'm not I I'm not trying to say anything about it, but those are new additional spots to the downtown. Can we share in those spots under the shared parking agreement? I think we're losing spaces. So, we you know, we're just shellgaming between I got so well then then I think the matter is settled like we No, I agree with you. But we had brought proposals on other options that we're not allowed to speak about. No, I I the because we were told at the last council meeting

that we have excess parking in the downtown. So, I'm sitting here today hearing that we're talking about five, six spots and I'm really confused as as going forward with this project which is needed in in Victoria. I'm confused. Do we want to talk about what the solution is or do we want to talk about five or six spots? Well, I I I think that to clarify um the that I I I don't agree with your statement about the that there's uh an excess parking space. What we talked about that coming from me? Well, you you brought it here. So

it came from the council last. Okay. The what the council I recall speaking about was that we are not convinced that we have a problem. We need to lead with data and find out. That was the council.

I think it came out there was excess parking. I don't think I take umbrage with your statement and I'm going to respectfully end this debate with we are believe that there's a proximity issue and not a space issue but we don't know and we're going to in we're going to inform council through staff of analyzing that. That's where we left it. This particular project that we have in front of us tonight asking us for a decision is about taking spaces away. we should come to a reasonable decision. And if you say that you're an owner, I haven't seen you on any of the applications. So, but I'm going to defer to attorney O that we're going to we're going to take the that you can speak for this application if we can get to a condition in the approval that in this private spaces that we're going to have this with some form of assured parking to replace those then I think we've got a way that we can council I think agrees that we can move forward. So, it's how do we craft that? And I mean, I'm going to maybe ask staff here. You put a conditional statement in the conditions. Do we feel that that is strong enough to replace what is being taken away? Because we we we understand that it's pretty clear that there's been a whole lot of manipulating of the shared parking. We don't we can't make it worse by removing things. And and that's my point. We can have a discussion at some point about what lives where, but at the end of the day, you know, if you have eight less spaces, that's eight less to share. That's simple. That's that's real estate. That's a firm. I guess I would look at building a additional use permit

and possibly a conditional use permit hybrid where you could purchase shared aotments within the new configuration of the downtown parking lot. I don't know exactly how to word that. Maybe it's we're sharing three spots within the new lot and you pay for three of them or not. That hasn't been done yet. And we've given a lot of v we've given variances for um impermeable surface right of way and all that and and I get it. It's just it's not done yet. That's shared parking. Is there a way we can use those a lotments within that lot for shared parking to come up with the five or six that we're missing

in the existing lot? In the existing lot that's being re I mean it's being restriped. We're taking out all the BMS and all the trees and all the grass and basically making it all pavement. Is there a way that we can use and a lot? Can we a lot five or six or three and then have some sort of I mean I don't want to lose the project over five or six spots. I don't want to lose the project over three spots. I mean I want it to get done and I think we're all there. Where where is the compromise? Yeah. I mean I and we're again we're not losing over five spots, three spots. The number is eight. So okay,

where are we going to get those? And are we going to get something that those spots are there? And you know there can be a discussion later in in time when that 1600 develops that the there could be air quote an overbuilding of parking so that when that project finally develops that these eight are actually returned to the the public parking domain. Um, and that that that I don't that's where I see we've got some latitude on getting things done. But, you know, here and now, even though we've heard a ton of support from the community that this is a great thing, we've also heard from the community that, hey, this idea of interim or temporary parking doesn't fly. We if we're going to remove, we we need to ensure that it gets replaced. So if if we can get a condition that satisfies that and I think that it's a win-win.

I I'm not sure that we can encumber somebody else to provide parking spaces on land they don't or a project they don't own or they're not part of the ownership group. So

yeah, we we can't we can't unless there's some kind of tiff agreement that we're getting funding for that we're turning it into city parking. We can't have nor should we require I I just I mean I just don't know how you ever say we know that this is going to redevelop at some point in time. I mean even if you think about in downtown west, we know that we're going to get some parking spaces down there eventually, but we can't encumber those spaces for a project. I I I don't I don't know how we do that. I understand what you're saying and we know that there is a common ownership there, but I don't know how we can encumber that for the future. And honestly, I I'm of strong belief that we do have enough parking down here. I feel like yes, it gets pushed east. I get that. or it gets pushed west and more of those spots along Styer Lake Lane are used or there's more usage in the in the flat slot um

down to Omni all Yeah, you can go I mean all the way down to Omni there. I think there's opportunity that will happen. So I yes I have some heartburn about this but not enough to deny this thing going forward. I feel like the eight spots or 10 spots or however you do the math, we could configure it to five or six if we take out the turnaround area. And I think we're getting public benefit with widening of the road. That's got to be worth something. I don't Yes, we are losing some

end spots which give me heartburn, but I think that the overall project from a public benefit negates that and that's where a conditional use permit for shared parking within one of the other areas would be my recommendation. So I well this hotel is parking itself but it's all private parking and we're taking away the public parking and exactly looking for I'm just I'm just looking for legal numbers. We've Is there a paying into a parking fund like we've done or that people have done in the past? We're looking for suggestions from staff to help us get there.

Well, the paying into a parking fund, I think, is a is is an option. I mean, we can certainly look at doing that, but the the number of $5,000 gets us nowhere towards building any kind of additional public parking. So, you pay, I don't know, whatever it is, 20,000, 40,000, $50,000 into a parking fund. You can't build parking for that, which is kind of what that parking fund should be for, but you can't build any parking for the price. So, I'm not sure that that was asking on the additional spots that with the new developments, can we pay towards that to have our spots count towards that

along Quam CL? I mean, those are all new spot sets on city land. Can we contribute to those spots to help build where that's adding spots to the downtown? Yeah. Yeah. I I'm just looking for I mean, sure. I I I appreciate that. I'm just so at some point if one way is done something is done for someone else, why should we be required to go get our own? Yes, we I I don't like the fact there spots being taken. Um but we're looking for a solution to get those few spots back. Yeah. And I mean, you know, honestly, you know, you those spots are support your business.

Exactly. And so, so we've got business people who are saying, "Go ahead and take my spots." Take my spots. Exactly. So,

take my spots. And we've heard good support. I mean, I watched the planning commission meeting. I heard good support. I got lots of I got some emails that support this project. Um, and and the people that are supporting the project are like, "Go ahead, take my spots." So, you know, I I'm sitting up here loving a project and I am not prepared to let it go for eight spots because I feel like we've got some spots. We've got people who are saying, "Go ahead and take my spots. We love this project. We think it's worthwhile. We think it generates enough synergy downtown that it it makes up for people having to to drive a little farther, walk a little farther. So, um,

do we do we like the optional conditions of approval that we see in front of us? Because I think if we can if we can get these optional conditions agreed to, I I think that gets us where we want to be. It's the it's the commitment to replacing the spots. I think you determined two and three aren't really possible. Started. I thought we've determined two and three aren't really possible. Well, the Well, the sidewalk connection, we we haven't even we haven't talked about that. I mean, I think that

that seems like that's straightforward, but or do we modify number two to say retain through redevelopment at 1600 Arboritum Boulevard or other suitable places within the city within the CBD within the next five to 10 years? You put a timeline on it or not? I don't think they'd be opposed to a timeline. This seems open-ended. I'm looking at Mr. Do you have anything else you want to add, Tom? I do not have anything. Okay, go ahead. Next.

Mayor, before Mr. Elmquist goes away, he's not going to leave the room, I suspect. But um uh I mean I I've said uh to some raised eyebrows that I think the practice has been that to the extent you've got somebody who is a part financial investor in a project, that person can speak for the project. I don't I don't think we've stuck to just the the one person that signed an application. So, but that's true. Then also with respect to the timeline. Uh I don't know if Mr. Almquist wants to offer 30 more days to work through some of these ideas. It's I it it strikes me as quite difficult to on the spot here try to negotiate out conditions and the language of conditions that are going to work on this issue where I mean I sounds like some of you and certainly me I'm learning new things right now like the number of spots that are going away. Sounds like that fact is in dispute. Is it 10? Is it eight? Is it six? I I don't know that we know that as we sit here right now. So

well but the staff has a different number than you have. So, um, that's there's a disagreement about that. So, um, so I mean, it strikes me that having another 30 days to work through some of the concepts that I've heard thrown out here tonight would make a lot of sense. Uh, that's better, it sounds like, from everybody's perspective than a denial tonight. And it's probably better than trying to make it up on the fly. So, u, I think Mr. Almquist can offer 30 more days to talk about these things if if he wants to. I I I would hope that you would because again I I would love to vote for this. I just I have concerns about those 10 parking spots and I I just don't know how as council said like how we're going to figure this out tonight and you know between you guys and staff I'm hoping you know we can figure something out that we get to yes. So I I mean I I think it's going to be too complicated to say yes with a bunch of different conditions

that makes sense. So I'd rather table it than if if he'll give us an extension. What is what does that mean? Who are we working with? How are they going to work with us? Um is it Jen? Is it Dana? I mean who who's going to sit down? They'll have to talk. See what's I I would assume that we're we're you're working with Mr. McCann. We have worked with Brian. We've met with Brian. We've we had our numbers down. It was news to us that the number of spots that we are short. So, we keep getting to one hurdle and then there's another hurdle. We just need help with someone from staff or from the city that can help us to get there.

Okay. So, Brian, is that is that you? Is are we on record? But I think I mean I think the difference is is now he's heard from the council and he's heard what we've said and so now he has more direction to

open to direction on where we can do. I just feel that it's just been one hurdle after another and I don't feel that they're hearing us and I just feel that if Brian can work with us we can make we'll take the 30 days and go. But we were pretty we were Mary and I talked and if it didn't go tonight we were going to pull the plug. So it's pretty tough to get to this point all the effort in time two years of our life back and forth back and forth change after change hurdle after hurdle and then now another 30 days. But um if Brian will work with us and come up with a solution then I will take 30 days. Well, it could it well I mean I'm not going to sit here and commit for staff, but I'll ask the question of staff. Is it a 30-day problem? Do you is that what you need or could is this something that staff feels could be worked with the the owner developers to determine if by our next council meeting we can be here because we have a hole and I think that it's abundantly clear where our position is. We like the project. We think it's we think it's accretive to the city of Victoria. But what we we need to come to I think terms with is that we can't let's just for argument sake believe that the number now is eight. We can't lose eight spots for this project where it's at.

Can I ask a question and I know you don't want to hear it. Nobody wants to hear it. Why are we not discussing the deck the tiff to get these spots in additional spots? It's not part of the application for one and for two that that question's been asked and answered. We are talking about this project and its ability to park this. We are talking about it, but we're also talking about a shortage of spots where there's enough tiff that could pay for this deck. I mean, I believe we're waiting for your guys's application. We've been waiting for a letter on what the cost will be um from Have you received that yet? We're looking for a school work. We have not received. Okay.

Council, I would prefer not to litigate the matter of TIFF parking deck. It's not germanine to the application. It's not germanine to this project. It has it has been evaluated and looked at. We already have a plan. I I think we're burning daylight by talking about hypotheticals. Let's let's talk about whether or not we can get an agreement that we're going to get this parking spaces that we need or that we need to table this so that they can go back with staff and figure this out. That's where we're at from I'm sorry. I'd like to hear from Miss Harden. Oh, please. Miss Hart.

Thank you, mayor, members of the council. Well, yes, we are in receipt of an email from Mary Mabonson requesting us to evaluate um a potential expansion of a tiff district looking at two different scenarios. So, one expansion that would have three parcels, another one that would have additional parcels. What we've been what the staff has communicated to Miss Mavon is that um con in order for us to pull together a scope of work which would include um cost estimates that an application would be needed to be completed. Uh it is a business subsidy application, the same application that everybody that is applying for TIFF would need to apply for and we would need to be in receipt of a $1,500 fee in order for us to move that application forward. We are waiting for that information. Thank you.

Can I make a comment to that, please? Just one second. Um, we are not looking to get, we are just looking to know what we're paying for because we were told to just drop off a check and we're just like, what are we paying for because we are willing to pay for it. So, Mary's we get a letter from the tiff, whoever the uh in charge said this is what it is. This is the scope of work that we think just an estimate. We're just looking for what we know what we're paying for. Okay. So, we have that information. So, we will we'll we'll get we'll close the loop on this. I appreciate your time. We'll we'll close the loop on this. So, I understand where you're coming from, but

to Council Member Ivansky's point, we we have business in front of us right now. So, let's let's cover this. So, I'm hearing uh Mr. you're willing to go another 30 days, work with the work with the staff trying to figure out where we're at here, whether there's enough spaces currently in inventory to absorb these 10, five, whatever it is, current spaces in inventory. Paying into a parking fund is also an option. um getting an agreement on another piece of property where those spots will be replaced once once that property redevelops. I think um other options council that I'm forgetting that we're looking at

C for shared for yeah condition shared aotments. Um just one small other piece with that is it 30 days or 15 days for our next council meeting that we hope to have this completed. I mean, if we can do it in by the next council meeting, fine. But if not, we've got an extra couple of weeks.

Mayor, members of the council, the next council meeting is April 27th. And um just to note, the applicant is not here today. I don't know when she's going to be back in town. And so in order to maximize her time and um our time to our ability to get busy schedules together and everything, I would um recommend doing the 30 days and if we can bring it sooner, we will. Um we won't hold it just to hold it. Does there have to be an emotion or anything on the extension of time or is his word on the record sufficient for that extension?

Or do we need to table this? Yeah, mayor and councel, I would I would table all the action items. Um, and probably in making the motion, say based on the developers representation that we can have an additional 30 days, we'll table for an additional 30 days. I will make I will make that motion. Second. All in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Okay. There are no more items on our regular agenda this evening. We'll move on to reports and emerging issues. Attorney Vos, you're up first. Mayor, Council, I have nothing to add. Thank you, Miss Hardy. Anything from you? Nothing from staff, Madame Mayor. Any members of the council have any issues to bring forth this evening? None for me, mayor.

All right. There are no more items to come before the body this evening. Uh, may I get a motion to adjurnn? Motion to adjurnn. We have a motion. Can I get a second? Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Please stand adjourned.