Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Downtown Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council continues Hotel Victoria review after heated parking debate; 30‑day extension ordered
Summary
Councilors debated a proposal for a five‑story Hotel Victoria in downtown Victoria, focusing on a net loss of on‑street public parking and mitigation options. Staff, the applicant’s engineer and council agreed to a 30‑day continuance to produce firm parking mitigation conditions.
The Victoria City Council paused action on the proposed Hotel Victoria after a lengthy exchange about downtown parking and mitigation options, and voted to continue the matter for 30 days to allow staff and the developer to negotiate firm conditions.
City planner Brian McCann (S11) summarized the application: a five‑story boutique hotel at 7929 Victoria Drive with 46 units, a covered garage holding 41 private stalls, and associated site modifications within 1,000 feet of Steiger Lake (shoreland overlay standards apply). McCann said staff coordinated with the DNR area hydrologist on stormwater and that planning commission recommended approval 6–1 with conditions.
The central dispute involved the effect on on‑street public parking. Civil engineer Matt Pavick (S13) told council the applicant’s design reduces net on‑street stalls in the immediate area from 16 to 8 — a net loss of eight public stalls — and that design choices (for example, removing a formal hotel drop‑off) could reduce that loss to five or six. “The net street parking delta is 8 stalls from the existing street spots to what we're proposing,” Pavick said.
Councilors pressed for firm, enforceable mitigation rather than temporary staging or ambiguous shared‑parking plans. Options discussed included a conditional use permit for shared parking allotments, temporary off‑site staging during construction, valet arrangements, paying into a parking fund, or using future redevelopment parking through a TIF process — but councilors emphasized that replacing proximate public stalls was a priority.
Several council members said they supported the project generally but could not approve it without a secure mitigation plan that ensured public parking was not permanently lost in the downtown core. Staff and representatives of the applicant agreed to work with council and to return with an agreed‑upon plan; the council voted to table the item for an additional 30 days to allow that work to occur.
