City Council Minutes

Pursuant to due call and posted notice thereof, the regular meeting of the Victoria City Council was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Hershberger Thun in the Council Chambers at 7951 Rose Street.

Members Present: Mayor: Mary Hershberger Thun; Councilmembers: Tim Amundsen, Jim Paulsen, Kim Roden and Rick Tieden.

Absent: None.

Staff Present: Don Uram, City Administrator, Holly Kreft, Community Development Director, Cara Geheren, City Engineer and Mike Norton, City Attorney.

Others Present: Sue Orsen, The Victoria Gazette; Unsie Zuege, The Chanhassen Villager; Terry Hartman, Business Development Committee, and others.

Mayor Hershberger Thun presented Mary Hadaway, Mary Erickson, Linda McNulty and Lois Plocher, who was not present, with a certificate of appreciation for all the time, dedication and hard work they put in to Volksfest.
 

A motion was made by Councilmember Roden, to adopt the Agenda. The motion was seconded. With all members voting in favor, the motion carried. Vote: 5 Ayes, 0 Nays.
 

Mayor Hershberger Thun read aloud the items to be considered under the Consent Agenda.

The Consent items were as follows:

Councilmember Paulsen asked to remove item 3.D.

A motion was made by Councilmember Roden, to adopt the Consent Agenda as amended. The motion was seconded. With all members voting in favor, the motion carried. Vote: 5 Ayes, 0 Nays.

-D- Field House Membership Summary and Monthly Financials

Councilmember Paulsen shared information on the positive changes at the Field House and said the program fees are up almost 600%, memberships are up 17% from a year ago and gym rental is up 75%.

Councilmember Amundsen stated that, the Field House for Victoria residents is more of a deal than ever and reminded residents to take advantage of the cost savings.

A motion was made by Councilmember Paulsen, to approve the Field House Membership Summary and Monthly Financials. The motion was seconded. With all members voting in favor, the motion carried. Vote: 5 Ayes, 0 Nays.
 

(4) VISITORS PRESENTATION:

Ms. Kreft said that in the packet is a narrative and Mr. Chamberlain will be providing an overview.

Mr. Chamberlain said this has been great process and will be a good tool to use in the future. He stated that through the process opportunities were highlighted for the downtown area. He said there are three focus points: One is looking not only at the core but the hinge between the west end and the downtown core. Another part of the project was to look at wayfinding and understand how to implement a signage program. Mr. Chamberlain said they also looked at how the Carver Park Reserve and LRT Trail can be incorporated in the downtown core. He said another issue is the parking. He talked about having structured parking in the right location. Mr. Chamberlain said the other issue is the City Hall and the different opportunities for relocation.

Councilmember Roden asked what the next step is in the process. Ms. Kreft said that after the City Council has reviewed and approved it the next step would be to go to the partners along the LRT, including the Hennepin Rail Authority and Three Rivers Park District and show them what the City would like to see. She said after that the Business Development Committee would like to use this as a marketing tool and host an open house.

Councilmember Paulsen asked what level of planning do they have to get to where a fiscal plan can overlay the physical plan. He said he is interested in what the densities are. Mr. Chamberlain said often times when they do a downtown master plan the study is much more extensive. He noted this study was more of a marketing tool.

Councilmember Roden noted that they have structured parking that is suppose to be part of the Creamery project. Mr. Chamberlain said most of the parking associated with that project will serve that project He noted there is some public access to a component of that parking.

Councilmember Paulsen commented on the site lines and asked what kind of density there needs to be to support the retail on a street perpendicular to Highway 5. He questioned how much growth they have to have to fund this plan. Mr. Chamberlain said no more critical mass is needed to make downtown successful. The challenge is pulling people off Highway 5. He stated that downtown Victoria would need to diversify the reasons people would want to come there. He noted commerce and recreation would be part of it. Councilmember Paulsen asked what the process is. Mr. Chamberlain said this master plan is a start.

Councilmember Amundsen commented on the amount of public funding. Mr. Chamberlain said that people interested in investing their dollars want to do it in a place that is prepared for development and having a vision is part of that.

Councilmember Tieden asked about the philosophy with the shared parking. Mr. Chamberlain explained it as parking in one spot and using several businesses. He referred to a large retailer needing 4 ½ to 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of retail space. He said that in a shared parking situation the number can get down to 2 ½. He stated that when looking at shared parking there needs to be an understanding with the daytime peak and evening peak parking users. Mr. Chamberlain noted that in some communities a parking study is required for every project. Councilmember Tieden asked how Mr. Chamberlain sees Victoria’s parking. Mr. Chamberlain said it is probably on the lower side of the shared parking count. He said the challenge will be with redevelopment opportunities such as the City Hall. Councilmember Tieden commented on the two potential sites for structured parking. Mr. Chamberlain said the right place for it would be at the existing City Hall and he recommended the City work with the private property owners’ next door to consolidate all the parking into structured parking. He suggested having more of a deck than a ramp and using a speed ramp so the upper level is flat and the lower level is at grade. He noted that decks are more inviting than a ramp.
 

(5) OPEN FORUM:

Ralph Ollinger, 1841 Victoria Circle, said he is concerned with the addition his neighbor at 1871 Victoria Circle is putting on. He apologized for taking more time and commented on the numerous meetings they have attended. He explained that they have a small view of the lake. Mr. Ollinger stated that it does not look like Mr. Coumbe is doing what the Planning Commission and City Council suggested. He said he received a phone call from Mr. Coumbe asking him to agree to the 26 feet and Mr. Ollinger said they would not do that. He said they thought the 24 feet was a done deal and now they are putting a second story on top of the garage. He said they are now looking at a wall from the addition they put on and showed pictures of what they see.

Mr. Ollinger said he spoke with Ms. Kreft and she said that a variance was not needed and he could go as high as 35 feet to an existing building. He questioned how a garage being built became existing. He said he has six questions: 1. Why wouldn’t they be notified of a second floor when knowing the problems of having such a large addition so close to a neighbor in which it devalues their property as well as the daily living? He noted that it is within 50 feet. 2. Where else in town has it been allowed to encroach on a neighbor such as this? 3. Permits are allowed on existing structures and asked about a garage being built qualify as being an existing building? 4. Aren’t the present rules concerning setbacks in place for a specific purpose? 5. Doesn’t all the Planning Commissions and City Council’s time spent on this mean anything? 6. What do they do from here?

Mr. Norton said the basic issue is how the building could get to be as high as it is and he said the answer is the Planning Commission and City Council considered variance setbacks and there was no issue of height in front of either of them. He said when Mr. Coumbe came in for a building permit it must have been within the proper dimensions so the city didn’t have to give any variance regarding the height. He noted that the height is regulated by the zoning code. Mr. Norton stated he will get the answers to the rest of the questions as soon as soon as possible. Mayor Hershberger Thun said that staff will need to go back and do more research. She commented on the building continuing to go on and asked about rights to slow it down. Mr. Norton said that if the City Council felt the building was being built in violation of the codes and variance approvals the City could issue a stop work order.

Councilmember Roden stated she is very unhappy about this. She commented on all the time spent on this and there never being a 2^nd story discussed. She said there is a flaw in the process and they need to fix it.

Councilmember Paulsen noted he saw the house addition and shares Councilmember Roden’s thoughts. He said there should be a new ordinance to cover this going forward. He stated there was a sense of betrayal and said they need to look at all ordinances that may impact this site and make sure they are being complied with.

Councilmember Tieden said it is hard to believe that structure fits the code. He stated they thought they came up with a fair negotiation and he is also disappointed.

Mayor Hershberger Thun said she would like Mr. Norton to take another review of this. She said they also need to make sure all ordinances are being adhered to as Councilmember Paulsen suggested. She asked that staff also work with the Ollingers and Coumbes and have it come back.

Councilmember Tieden commented on what came before the City Council was a garage and not an expanded house over the garage.

Janet Ollinger, 1841 Victoria Circle, said they have been to the City Council four times and the Planning Commission four times. She said she is concerned about this addition above the garage with three windows and said there was never any discussion of anything being put above the garage. She stated it was misleading and she doesn’t understand how this could happen.

Councilmember Paulsen asked staff to look at the fire code with the access walls right away in the morning and to look at the permit value estimate.

Councilmember Roden commented on not waiting two more weeks. Mr. Uram said he will meet with Mr. Norton tomorrow to do an assessment and look at the specifics of the building permit. Mr. Norton stated that if staff feels there is a violation they could issue a stop order.

Councilmember Amundsen recommended handing this back to staff and have them move forward with their actions in the appropriate manner.

Mayor Hershberger Thun said at a later date they also need to take a look at this ordinance.

Mayor Hershberger Thun suggested that if there is no violation, staff should immediately sit down and talk with the Ollingers and inform the City Council.

Jay Swenson, 8237 Narcissus Street, said he also wanted to show appreciation to the Volksfest committee chairs. He noted that for 2008 they did not need city funds for promotion or advertising and thanked Mary, Linda, Mary and Lois. He also thanked the city.

Brigid Lund, 8501 Allegheny Grove Boulevard, said she is here on behalf of the neighborhood to reiterate the concern about the berm on Kochia Lane with the addition of the Field House. She noted the Field House is a great asset to the community, but with all the changes they feel the berm is insufficient. She stated they are concerned about the safety of their backyard. Ms. Lund said they feel their berm is low in comparison to others and they would like to raise the berm where needed. She said if that is not possible, they would like additional fill brought in to fill up the low spots. She stated they would like heavy tree coverage and landscaping and maybe replacing some of the tees that are not sufficient to have coverage for all seasons. She talked about also having coverage on the east side of Kochia so they aren’t looking at a parking lot. Ms. Lund noted they want it to look nice and be consistent with other neighborhoods. She said she has personally walked along to every home and has given Ms. Kreft a petition.

Kim Anderson, 8531 Allegheny Grove Boulevard, said they wanted to convey their concern and ask for support and protection as members of the community. She thanked Mr. Uram and Ms. Kreft and asked that their concern be included about the screening as part of the project. She stated they deserve the privacy and protection. She said they are asking that the ambiance and character of the community be preserved. Ms. Anderson said they would like their concerns seriously considered and all the options looked at when it comes to screening.

Mr. Uram said that Ms. Kreft walked Kochia Lane to see what they could do for landscaping. He noted that there isn’t any funding for the west side and they are trying to develop a reasonable solution. He said they are getting cost estimates for some work. Ms. Kreft said she met with the arborist. The traffic engineer will be preparing a memo regarding some changes to the Kochia Lane access.

Mr. Uram stated the agenda item will be for a variance in two weeks and recommended that the Kochia Lane options be a separate item on the agenda.

Councilmember Amundsen commented on adding fill that is four feet high to the soccer fields and asked that staff explore options.

Councilmember Paulsen talked about the Park and Recreation and Planning Commission meetings and said that landscaping on the west side will require the existing plantings to be taken out and put back. He said there will be an elaborate plan for the east side.

Councilmember Amundsen commented on getting the answer on why they cannot do things as opposed to what it would take to do things. He said if it is feasible they should look at it and nothing should be excluded from the options.

Councilmember Roden clarified that this will be a separate agenda item with many options.

Councilmember Tieden asked if they are still looking at putting the fill on the soccer fields. Mr. Uram said the fill on the soccer fields was a school district proposal at their cost. He noted the school district agreed to provide soil borings and meet the recommendations of the report.

Ms. Lund commented on the fence option and said they would rather see something else other than a fence.
 

None.
 

-A- 2009 Street, Drainage and Utility Improvements Resolution Receiving and Accepting Feasibility Report and Calling for Hearing on Improvements

Ms. Geheren showed the project area referred to as the Lions Park area. She explained what they are proposing to do is a combination of complete street reconstruction, curb and gutter and also a storm sewer system. She said there is one section of 81^st Street they are planning to do a reclaim and overlay project and on 82^nd Street. She stated the purpose of the feasibility report is to determine the street and storm sewer costs associated with the assessments. Ms. Geheren said there are some issues that will have to be looked at and one is the sanitary sewer system and the other issue is the parking associated with the park and events. She said the city will have to determine if they are interested in widening any of the roads to accommodate more on street parking. She noted that it would not be fair to assess the property owners in that area for the widening. Ms. Geheren said they used a 28-foot wide street when figuring out the assessments. She said she used the Baycliffe project and the Victoria Circle project for the basis of the cost estimate. The total project cost is $1,579,300 and 50% of that is assessed. The unit assessment is $11,681 and 81^st Street is $5,000.

Ms. Geheren said she did a comparison from what the assessments were in 2004 to 2008 and there was about a 29% increase as a result of the rising cost of gas. She showed the timeline and said a tentative date for the neighborhood meeting is November 5^th. She said they would start taking bids on April 20, 2009 and the final assessment hearing would be in 2010 so the first it would be on the property tax would be January of 2011.

Councilmember Amundsen asked that Ms. Geheren go back through the history of the proposed improvements for this area and add to the timeline the previous review by previous councils and the request by the citizens to put off the improvements in this area. He noted they put the project off at the request of the neighborhood.

Councilmember Roden commented on the residents being very anxious to have this done and asked about the bonds. Mr. Uram said he is not worried about these bonds, but the upcoming bond sale on October 23^rd. He said there should be more information in the next week on where the bond market is going.

Councilmember Paulsen commented on the $235,000 in the fees and planning and noted that is 14.7% of the total budget. He asked how much of that money will be outstanding before they make the decision to do it or not. Ms. Geheren said all that is authorized right now is the feasibility report, which is under $40,000.

A motion was made by Councilmember Roden, to adopt Resolution No. 08-114, a Resolution receiving and accepting the feasibility report for the 2009 Street, Drainage and Utility Improvements and calling for a hearing on those improvements. The motion was seconded.

Councilmember Amundsen commented on the benefits of having larger roads abut a park and asked what the cost would be if the city paid for the additional four feet. Ms. Geheren said she could get that number. She noted the Park and Recreation Committee have also talked about paving some trails and paving the parking lot. Councilmember Amundsen recommended that they also look at the old playground area, which could potentially be another area for parking.

With all members voting in favor, the motion carried. Vote: 5 Ayes, 0 Nays.
 

Ms. Kreft explained this is a request for redevelopment of the former C.H. Carpenter site. She noted this is a concept plan and this property would need to use the shared parking ordinance. She said they would be asking for a conditional use permit. Ms. Kreft explained that two buildings are being proposed with an outdoor patio area and the western potion of the property would potentially be split and deeded to the city for use of a public patio area. She stated that there are eight parking spaces being proposed in front of the building. Ms. Kreft noted the parking lot across the street currently has 40 spaces. She said that in the packet are the building elevations. The building plans include first floor of potential retail and second floor would be offices. She explained that as part of the conditional use permit the applicant would need to provide a shared parking analysis. There would then be a developer’s agreement and the applicant would need to reimburse the city for providing that parking in a municipal setting, which would equate to 32 spaces.

Ms. Kreft stated that also included in the packet is discussion on the street and utilities and as part of the 429 reconstruction of Quamoclit, staff is recommending that project be extended out to the property line in order to reconstruct the portion of Stieger Lake Lane that wasn’t done as part of the phase one downtown improvement. She noted that would be assessed to the adjacent property owner.

Ms. Kreft said the landscaping and signage fit with what is existing in the downtown. She stated the design standards were reviewed by the Planning Commission and they were overall supportive. She noted there is discussion with the Park and Recreation Committee about the plaza on the west.

Councilmember Paulsen said that getting this site developed is something that should be done. He asked if anyone has talked to Schmitty’s about using some of that parking. Ms. Kreft said there will be a public hearing notice as part of the conditional use permit. She noted that there would be complimentary uses with the shared parking. Councilmember Paulsen stated that talking to the neighbors is important.

Councilmember Roden commented on the common sense of informing neighbors and said they should consider changing the ordinance about notification.

Councilmember Paulsen asked Mr. Norton if there is anything in the shared parking ordinance they need to have, given its length and difficulty to understand and with going to a conditional use permit. Mr. Norton said they haven’t used this before. He said it is a process that needs to be figured out. He noted that other communities have a shared parking concept without having this kind of process. Councilmember Paulsen asked if it is it wise for a city to have an ordinance that puts them into a future situation of where an institution is being committed to an if and when environment. He questioned why all the language and processes are needed and asked about the base level plan. Ms. Kreft explained the base level referred to is the parking analysis done under the previous downtown master plan. Councilmember Paulsen asked which document is the base level parking. Ms. Kreft said it is still the previous document. Councilmember Paulsen commented on future councils. Mr. Norton said that if the council wants to amend its downtown master plan and adopt the new master plan staff would determine if additional analysis needs to be done. He said that at certain points there has to be updating of the baseline analysis. He noted the key from the beginning has been the willingness of the government to provide additional parking.

The City Council took a five-minute break at 8:25 p.m.

The City Council reconvened at 8:30 p.m.

Councilmember Paulsen asked how they provide the most flexibility to future councils. He commented on going to a conditional use permit plan without all the additional language where the city is told this is what you have to do and not have the funds to do it. Councilmember Paulsen said he is interested in what other cities are doing.

Mayor Hershberger Thun said they need to talk about the concept and then at a later date bring the shared parking ordinance back to be re-looked at.

Councilmember Amundsen commented on everything in the staff report and said the parking is part of the concept. He stated he likes the site layout and another amenity would be added to the city. He noted the parking shouldn’t be fixed on this plan, but it should be looked at when there is no plan in front of them. He stated he has never seen that lot full and thinks it could work. Councilmember Amundsen said he would recommend that they move forward in support of this concept and then take a serious look at parking.

Councilmember Tieden commented on the ongoing parking issue.

Councilmember Paulsen reiterated that he is saying not to have a document like this.

Mayor Hershberger Thun recommended that the shared parking be brought back as a separate issue.

Councilmember Roden said she thinks this is a great project and it would improve the area. She stated that she would like to see it move forward to the next step. She asked that more research be done on what the pros and cons are with what other cities have learned on the shared parking. She also suggested looking at other options.

Mr. Hartman stated that they did informally talk to all the neighbors. He noted that the owner of Schmitty’s said the parking lot sits empty all day and there would be no impact on him. Mr. Hartman said they anticipate boutique type uses. He said he appreciates the concern with the parking and it should be looked at every time a new project comes in.

Councilmember Amundsen asked that the Business Development Committee look at partnerships between the city and business community and private enterprise. Mr. Hartman commented on the shared parking document and the city taking the lead in building the infrastructure.

Councilmember Paulsen asked if there would be phasing. Mr. Hartman said it would be done with two separate buildings.

The consensus of the City Council is to move ahead with the concept plan.
 

-A- Update on 13.5 Acres

This will be taken off the agenda now that the city owns the land.

Mr. Uram reported that there was a meeting on making the project more feasible. He noted the initial bids came in higher than budgeted. He stated that he believes they have a solution and he expects the school district to start work next week.

No update was provided.

Mr. Uram commented on the timeline for the emergency management program and said they are looking at six to nine months. He is recommending that the two council members that previously participated help with the plan. Councilmember Paulsen commented on having great talent wearing multiple hats. Mayor Hershberger Thun asked if it will really take six to nine months. Mr. Uram said he looked at what was done previously and it may not take six to nine months. Councilmember Roden asked that when the plan is done to take the legal ramifications in to account. Councilmember Amundsen noted the focus was once people took charge, all that was needed was someone to gather the information. Councilmember Tieden talked about the feasibility study for the water treatment plant.

Ms. Geheren commented on making sure the contact list is updated.

Councilmember Roden asked if the trail crossing on Park Drive will be striped. Ms. Geheren said she will check on that.

Councilmember Roden commented on the speed on Bavaria Road and Rolling Acres.

Councilmember Roden passed on an idea that someone had on reciprocal memberships at the Victoria Field House.

Councilmember Amundsen commented on the great service with the community concerns.

Councilmember Tieden thanked the Hartmans on the Bayfront Art Fair. Mr. Hartman noted that everyone was happy with the turnout.
 

None.
 

None.
 

A motion was made by Councilmember Roden, to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 p.m. The motion was seconded. With all members voting in favor, the motion carried. Vote: 5 Ayes, 0 Nays.

Respectfully submitted,

Tanya Schmieg
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.