Planning Commission Minutes

CITY OF VICTORIA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JANUARY 16, 2007

MINUTES

Pursuant to due posted and mailed notice thereof, the Victoria Planning Commission met on January 16, 2007, at 7951 Rose in the Council Chambers.

Chair Simanton opened the meeting at 6:30 p.m.

Members Present: Chair, Gordy Simanton; Commissioners James Donadio III, Bud Hiivala, William Mead VI, and Tom Vogt.

Members Absent: None.

Others Present: Holly Kreft, City Planner; Angie Perera, Assistant Planner; City Councilmember Paulsen; and Tanya Schmieg, Recording Secretary.

A. Adopt Agenda

A motion was made by Vogt, seconded by Hiivala, to adopt the agenda as presented. Vote: 5 Ayes, 0 Nays. Motion Carried.
 

#2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

A. Minutes of December 19, 2006, Planning Commission Meeting.

The following revisions were requested to the December 19, 2006 meeting minutes:

Commissioner Vogt pointed out on page 8 the correct spelling for Mr. Steve Leighton.

A motion was made by Simanton, seconded by Mead, to approve the Minutes as corrected above. Vote: 5 Ayes, 0 Nays. Motion carried.

B. Review Minutes from December 28, 2006, City Council Workshop.

The above minutes were reviewed.

C. Review Minutes from December 28, 2006, City Council Meeting.

The above minutes were reviewed.
 

None.
 

A. Review of the 2007 Planning Department Goals.

1. Agenda Statement No. 07-04
2. Exhibits

Ms. Kreft stated attached is the 2007 Planning Department goals developed by Staff. She noted this will be going before the City Council on January 22^nd during a special goal setting workshop.

Commissioner Vogt asked what begin means, under the Comprehensive Plan, the 5^th bullet where it says begin utility components. Ms. Kreft said they will be working in partnership with the engineering firm to develop those. She noted they have started the water plan. Commissioner Vogt suggested putting work with the city engineer on utility components.

Commissioner Vogt said that under the New Downtown Development, the 2^nd bullet, it says negotiate sale price and terms of purchase agreement and asked if Ms. Kreft will be working as part of the team. Ms. Kreft said that is correct. Commissioner Vogt clarified that it is really not part of the Planning Department’s goals. Ms. Kreft said she will update the language.

Commissioner Vogt said under the New Downtown Development, the 3^rd bullet says if PDA moves forward, then work with developer through platting development process and asked if that has moved forward. Ms. Kreft responded the preliminary development agreement. If the City accepts the components then it would move forward.

Chair Simanton asked about the 2^nd bullet under the Comprehensive Plan, Update Council on status of application for Blue Cross Blue Shield grant and research potential grant through Met Council. Ms. Kreft said it is a grant that staff applied for active communities to provide funding for comprehensive plan updates as it relates to active community goals. Commissioner Donadio said that would be the components of the comprehensive plan that would relate to Blue Cross Blue Shield grant, which are trails and parks and it can be applied to any part of the comprehensive plan. Ms. Kreft said it is actually for the whole plan and there would also be some training involved. Commissioner Vogt asked how much money is available. Ms. Kreft said there are substantial funds available. She said they don’t have a cap or set amount. Ms. Kreft stated they requested 50% of the project costs. Commissioner Donadio asked if there were other grants for things like trails. Ms. Kreft said they have a lot of funds available for planning but not for capital improvements.

Chair Simanton suggested having priorities. He did it based on what would be important for the City in driving revenue. He stated the first one is the downtown redevelopment with parking and noted until that is done they can’t provide any more growth. He said the second is park dedication. The third is the new downtown, which would again create tax revenue for the City. Chair Simanton stated for the fourth and fifth one he had transportation and the 2008 comprehensive plan.

B. Review of the 2006 Annual Report for the City of Victoria Planning Commission.

1. Agenda Statement No. 07-05
2. Exhibits

Ms. Perera highlighted a few things that are carrying over to 2007; the permit for driveways, swimming pool requirements and the definition for impervious surface, park land dedication and the Downtown Master Plan, which hasn’t been formally adopted. Commissioner Doandio asked what is remaining for the Downtown Master Plan to be adopted. Ms. Kreft said they will talk about in the next item. Ms. Perera noted out the land swap area will also carry over in 2007.

Ms. Perera pointed out there were a number of items where the Planning Commission made one recommendation and the City Council acted on a different item. She referred to the items that were tabled.

Commissioner Vogt asked about 06-23 CUP/VAR VOID. Ms. Perera said it was just duplicated and was accidentally logged in twice.

Chair Simanton commented that it is always helpful to see the year in summary.

Ms. Kreft provided an update on the Timberwall Landscaping Conditional Use Permit. She said they will be extending the 60 day review. She noted they have hired an engineering firm to assist them with the survey and that will probably be back in March.

C. Discussion of Downtown Parking Ordinance.

1. Agenda Statement No. 07-06
2. Exhibits

Ms. Kreft said this is a follow up from the Downtown Master Plan that was previously reviewed. This did go to a workshop with the City Council on December 28^th. From that meeting the City Council recommended that staff draft a parking ordinance of what was shown in the Downtown Master Plan as far as the shared parking scenario. She stated that Staff has been working on that with the City Attorney.

Ms. Kreft reviewed the following four samples:

1. The Current Off-street Parking ordinance with preliminary modifications.

2. Model Shard Parking ordinance from Portland, Oregon.

3. Shared Parking ordinance from Pasadena, California.

4. Parking Ordinances from area communities.

Ms. Kreft reviewed the six items:

1. No exceptions for residential off-street parking requirements in the CBD.

2. Require the applicant to submit a proof of parking study and analysis by a qualified engineer.

3. Require a conditional use permit properties that would require shard parking to meet standards.

4. A clear definition of shared parking.

5. Standards would be applied to both new developments and redevelopments as well as a change in use that demonstrated a need for additional parking.

6. Contract for shared parking spaces on private property.

Ms. Kreft stated in the Chaska ordinance for downtown parking allows for a blanket reduction of 75%.

Ms. Kreft said the City of Excelsior is not included because they are working on this project as well. She noted they also developed a task force and they did not come up with any recommendations and have asked for a six month extension. Chair Simanton asked when that would be. Ms. Kreft said probably May or June.

Ms. Kreft explained that Staff is looking for recommendations and discussion and the next step would be to take it to the City Council.

Chair Simanton asked if this ordinance would change the current one Ms. Kreft said it will be the actual ordinance that is in the City Code. She stated the City Council agreed with the shared parking concept at the workshop on December 28^th. She noted they would be done concurrently. Chair Simanton asked if that would be presented by Mr. Kaltsas or Staff. Ms. Kreft responded Staff.

Ms. Kreft noted in the first section that has the current ordinance, the last page is from the Downtown Master Plan and is the basis for the revisions.

Chair Simanton asked if Mark Kaltsas is finished with his assignment. Ms. Kreft said that is correct.

Commissioner Vogt referred to page 4, appendix A and asked who is doing these studies. Ms. Kreft responded they have discussed it being done by the applicant with a professional engineer and then provided to City Staff for review.

Commissioner Vogt commented on page 5, appendix A, the net savings of 7 spaces which is about a 5% difference, the difference is usually a lot more than 5%. He suggested having an example in the ordinance using something more typical. He noted they would not even be discussing this if it was a 5% difference.

Commissioner Donadio clarified the examples are from Portland, Oregon. Ms. Kreft said that is correct. Chair Simanton asked why Portland was picked. Ms. Kreft said that both Portland and Pasadena are examples from the Urban Land Institute and they have done extensive research on shard parking. Chair Simanton commented that having been to Portland, what they have done in the downtown area with the light rail and the retransformation of the downtown area, the turnaround is unbelievable. He noted they have a really good track record from what he has seen.

Commissioner Vogt noted that his point is when it comes to the formal finished ordinance, any instructions or example should illustrate the differential they would see, which would be a lot more than 5%.

Mr. Hartman commented that this is the first chance he has had to look at this. Ms. Kreft said they will be emailing it to the Business Development Committee and this was just for discussion tonight.

Chair Simanton said in looking at appendix A on page 2, the word "stringent" is used under the overall, jurisdictions may wish to consider the following and asked what was meant by that. Ms. Kreft said there wasn’t any other background information other than the sample ordinance.

Ms. Kreft referred to the points made in the staff report and asked if the Planning Commission agree to the no exception off-street requirements. Chair Simanton asked what Staff’s definition is for no restrictions for residential in the Central Business District. Ms. Kreft said they would have to provide the off-street parking on their site. Commissioner Donadio said they have to provide sufficient off-street parking for residential units on their site. Chair Simanton asked how that works with residential property that already exists. Ms. Kreft said that would be non-conforming use. Commissioner Donadio said in the buildings being proposed when they are talking about mixed use buildings, for the ordinance there is going to be sufficient parking for the residential component then on top of that the calculation begins with regards to shared parking for the retail component. Ms. Kreft said that is what staff is recommending.

Commissioner Vogt referred to the parking lot dimensions table and asked about the stall length for parallel parking. Ms. Kreft said that is the width and the length would be the 23.0 feet.

Chair Simanton commented on Section 30-146 and asked what classification a "Madelyn Creek" would be put in. Ms. Kreft said probably townhomes. Chair Simanton talked about the history of Madelyn Creek and said they came in with one parking space and the Planning Commission said they needed at least two. He suggested taking a look at this. Ms. Kreft said that Staff is recommending two spaces for multiple-family as well.

Commissioner Hiivala referred to question number two, require the applicant to submit a proof of parking study and analysis by a qualified engineer and asked what they are going to study. Ms. Kreft said they will study the peak demands and what the demands are based on the use. Commissioner Hiivala commented that they could come in contrary to the ordinance and say the engineer say it will work. Ms. Kreft said that Staff will have to look at the overall big picture.

Commissioner Hiivala said he thinks number one should be spelled and explain "no exceptions".

Commissioner Hiivala referred to number four and said to give a clear definition.

Chair Simanton asked if there was anything addressed as far as trucks and loading. Ms. Kreft responded that they aren’t proposing any changes to the off-street loading and unloading. This is located under 30-146. Chair Simanton asked if there is a time requirement for truck loading. Ms. Kreft said currently there is not. Chair Simanton noted that in some of the other ordinances they had specific times when they can come and go and encouraged Staff to take a look at that.

Chair Simanton commented on the municipal ramp assessment in Wayzata and asked how that works. Ms. Kreft said she doesn’t know specifically but can follow up with that. She said cities use a special taxing district to assess property owners for that. Chair Simanton noted the City Council is not in favor of a municipal ramp. Chair Simanton said that Excelsior has tried to implement that and referred to a restaurant they wanted to assess $200,000 and the petitioners walked away. Ms. Kreft said they had a $7,500 parking space fee for businesses that use municipal parking but the task force recommended doing away with the fee. Chair Simanton suggested finding out the challenges have been with Wayzata.

Ms. Perera said another idea that was mentioned is the TIF district for the taxes that would be incremented to be applied to a municipal parking structure. Ms. Kreft said the increment that is needed is substantial and noted the smallest amount is 3.5 million for a parking structure.

Commissioner Vogt mentioned he was an observer at the workshop and some of the comments coming from the incoming Mayor and others were that if they go to a shared parking concept the new development has to pay a certain portion of the parking. In each case they will probably require additional parking. He noted the developers would be responsible for some parking or providing funding. Ms. Kreft said yes, and the Attorney is researching that. Commissioner Vogt said depending on the outcome of the research that could be built in to the ordinance. Chair Simanton said the seventh point could potentially be the parking assessment.

Chair Simanton stated the shared parking is something they all agree with.
 

Councilmember Paulsen is the new liaison.

Mr. Paulsen said he has a couple of notions. He said he needs to study the shared parking. He referred to the economics and measures of scale. Mr. Paulsen said one of the notions he had is the downtown plan is perhaps too small and one thing to think about is incorporating the 13 acres.

Mr. Paulsen commented on one item from sitting in on the workshop he thought that Mayor Bohn felt that TIF would pay for the parking. Ms. Kreft said that was one of the items discussed.

Chair Simanton explained the Planning Commission was concerned about taking up valuable retail business and office spaces with surface parking. He noted part of the plan that went back to the City Council was a downtown square. Mr. Paulsen said they need to have a study of what the retail sales are of some of the businesses. He said one of the warning signs is when you see services in retail facilities and referred to the Apache Mall in Rochester.
 

A. Communications.

None.

B. Other.

Ms. Kreft stated the next meeting is February 6^th.
 

A motion was made by Donadio, seconded by Simanton, to adjourn the meeting at 7:16 p.m. Vote: 5 Ayes, 0 Nays. Motion carried.
 

Respectfully submitted,

Tanya Schmieg
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.