Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves rezoning and entitlements for Victoria Gateway East development
Summary
The Victoria City Council unanimously approved a set of entitlements for the Victoria Gateway East project — rezoning the site to Central Business District, granting conditional use permits for drive‑throughs and design deviations, and authorizing a comprehensive plan amendment submission.
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Victoria City Council on Sept. 8 unanimously approved a package of entitlements for the Victoria Gateway East commercial development, a roughly four‑acre site adjacent to Highway 5 that the applicant markets for a Hometown Bank and Mocha Monkey coffee tenant and a prospective two‑story medical office.
City planner Brian McCann told council the project includes a preliminary plat, a comprehensive‑plan amendment to change the land use guidance from low‑density residential to downtown mixed use, a rezoning from R1 (low‑density residential) to Central Business District, and three conditional use permit requests related to drive‑through lanes and CBD design‑standard deviations. McCann said wetlands border about three quarters of the site and there is a roughly 30–40‑foot grade differential down from the adjacent former fire station, requiring retaining walls and wetlands buffers to be placed in outlots.
McCann said the applicant is proposing two primary buildings: a combined bank and coffee building with drive‑through lanes and a two‑story medical office building (the medical tenant has been identified as Ridge View Medical as a prospective user but that was described as not guaranteed). Staff noted that CBD zoning permits medical clinics, offices, restaurants and financial institutions outright, while accessory drive‑throughs are conditional uses. The applicant has also proposed a zoning text amendment to allow the existing single public access and to clarify how the drive‑through proximity standard applies when abutting a residential district.
On parking, staff reported the bank/coffee/restaurant uses would require 57 spaces but the applicant proposes 39 for that building; the medical building’s demand was estimated at 78 spaces and the applicant proposes 98. With shared parking between the two buildings, the plan exceeds the minimum by two spaces, McCann said. He also described landscaping and tree mitigation measures in the submitted plan; the applicant’s plan shows substantial tree removal on the site and a replacement obligation noted in the submittal materials.
Questions from council focused on lighting, traffic and emergency‑vehicle access. Steve Subrasi, the civil engineer for the applicant with Landform Professional Services, said exterior fixtures are specified as downcast with a mounting height he stated is about 22½ feet and noted the site sits substantially lower than neighboring residences, which along with retaining walls and screening should reduce light impacts. Subrasi also said the redesigned drive‑thrus remove the previous intersecting “weave” circulation pattern and that the roundabout planned along Highway 5 would be the site’s long‑term primary access point.
Ryan Syler, representing the developer (listed in the record as Headarters Development), told council the developer intends to build both phases simultaneously so parking would be constructed at once; if phases are staggered, the developer said they would consider building additional parking early to serve the bank. The developer and council members said they do not expect the proposed uses to generate substantial nighttime activity; the medical tenant was not expected to be an emergency facility, though an urgent‑care component was not definitively ruled out.
Council members said the revised design addressed many previous concerns and moved that the council adopt five discrete actions: approval of the preliminary plat, conditional use permits, and site plan and building‑materials requests; authorization to submit the comprehensive plan amendment to the Metropolitan Council; adoption of Ordinance 482 ZC rezoning the property to Central Business District; adoption of Ordinance 483 ZC amending section 31‑3 of the Victoria zoning code; and a resolution authorizing summary publication of ordinances 482 and 483 ZC. Each motion was seconded, called, and carried with affirmative votes and no recorded opposition.
The council’s approvals are procedural steps: the comprehensive plan amendment must still be transmitted to the Metropolitan Council, and final platting, building permits, and any required outside agency permits (MDOT comments were noted as minor and the applicant remains subject to MDOT permit reviews) must be completed before construction can begin. McCann also noted the applicant will need to satisfy Minnhaha/MCWD ([MCWD] spelled in the record) wetlands and storm‑water requirements and utilities will be extended from Highway 5.

