Planning Commission reviews revised West Creek Village sketch plat; provides feedback on trails, streets and lot standards

The City of Victoria Planning Commission reviewed a revised sketch plat for the proposed West Creek Village residential development on March 4, receiving a presentation from city staff and comments from the developer but taking no formal action. The project area is roughly 90 acres west of County Road 10 and north of the railroad, and the applicant described changes to an earlier plan intended to resolve stormwater and density constraints.

City planner Bridal McCain said the revised concept replaces larger counts of townhomes with a mix of housing types: about 36 single-family homes, 18 twin homes and 56 townhomes in the latest plan. “This is the sketch plat process, so this is just to give the developer feedback on their proposed concept,” Bridal McCain told the commission. Staff noted wetlands and a creek on the property, three likely comprehensive-plan amendments the developer will need, and Metropolitan Council density guidance that the proposal would slightly alter at a citywide level.

Josh Metzer of Lennar, the developer, told commissioners the design change reduced the number of townhomes after stormwater treatment space was refined and that the project team had worked to align lot widths and setbacks with nearby developments. “We were here back in August with a different version of the concept,” Metzer said. He described the sequence that led to the current mix and noted the developer’s willingness to adjust lot widths, setbacks and street design based on feedback.

Key technical points discussed included annexation (the site is within Laketown Township and the township has approved annexation), needed comp-plan amendments (changes to low/medium density designations and a conservation residential district), stormwater and wetland buffers, and park-dedication calculations. Staff reported an updated park-dedication estimate of 3.65 acres or $383,600 in lieu of land based on the current unit mix.

The commission focused at length on streets, parking and pedestrian connections. Staff and the developer proposed private streets for portions of the townhome area that would typically be 24 feet wide; staff noted the municipal code disallows on‑street parking on 24‑foot streets, allows parking on one side at 26 feet, and allows parking on both sides at 28 feet. Commissioners generally expressed a preference for a slightly wider private street (26 feet) so parking on one side would be allowed, and asked the developer to confirm fire access and turning radii with the Fire Chief.

Trail placement drew detailed comment. Staff suggested the city’s residential-collector standard favors an eight‑foot trail for the full length of Creekside Lane; commissioners coalesced around supporting a full-length trail on the south side of Creekside Lane to connect to Marsh Hollow and the proposed neighborhood park, and were largely indifferent on whether a full-length north-side trail was needed immediately. The commission voiced support for ensuring pedestrian connections that would allow children and families to reach the park safely.

Commissioners also discussed typical PUD deviations that the developer requested: narrower lot depth on a few “pinch-point” lots (to as little as 100 feet for one or two lots), 56-foot lot widths to allow an 8-foot side setback and 40-foot building product, and higher impervious allowances for some small lots. Staff and the applicant said most single‑family lots would meet R‑1 standards and that deviations would be limited to a small number of lots forced by wetland buffers.

No formal vote was required at the sketch-plat stage. Staff will take the commission’s feedback to the applicant; the developer indicated plans to take the revised concept to City Council for further direction and, if acceptable, to proceed to preliminary plat and PUD applications. The commission will consider the formal preliminary plat and ordinance items at later hearings.