Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves Shores of Marsh Lake II preliminary plat, rezoning and easement vacations
Summary
The Victoria City Council unanimously approved a six‑lot Shores of Marsh Lake second edition preliminary plat, rezoning to a PUD, submission of a comprehensive plan amendment to the Metropolitan Council, summary publication of the ordinance, and vacation of drainage and utility easements, subject to conditions including Metropolitan Council and Carver County approvals.
The Victoria City Council voted to approve a set of land‑use actions for the Shores of Marsh Lake second edition, allowing a six‑lot single‑family subdivision to proceed toward final plat stage with conditions.
Brian McCann, the city planner, described requests that included a preliminary plat, rezoning to a Planned Unit Development with underlying R‑1 (low‑density residential), a comprehensive plan phasing amendment to bring the site’s development window earlier, easement vacations and an early grading agreement. McCann said the applicant proposes three outlots for stormwater and wetland preservation and one outlot that could become future right‑of‑way for a County Road 43 roundabout.
McCann noted two PUD items different from the original Shores of Marsh Lake phase: a rear yard setback of 30 feet (the earlier phase had 50 feet) and one lot seeking a 6,000‑square‑foot maximum impervious surface where most earlier lots had 5,000. He also said the DNR’s tier analysis found the combined phases fall well under the maximum allowed unit total and the DNR’s area hydrologist provided no additional comments.
The planning commission held a public hearing and recommended unanimous approval (7–0). Several conditions were included in staff’s packet; McCann emphasized that the preliminary plat approval is contingent on Metropolitan Council approval of the comprehensive plan amendment and on Carver County approval of emergency access to County Road 43.
Council discussed side yard setbacks and emergency access. When asked whether the application would be moot without county emergency‑access approval, City Attorney Vos advised that the council could impose conditions and that failure to meet a required condition could be grounds to deny final plat approval later. The council approved five motions by voice vote: preliminary plat and early grading agreement; submittal of the comprehensive plan amendment to the Metropolitan Council; rezoning (recorded in the minutes as ordinance “4 88 z c”); summary publication of the ordinance; and vacating drainage and utility easements.
The approvals were granted with the conditions proposed by staff; Metropolitan Council and Carver County reviews remain required before final plat recording.
