Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission recommends approval of Shores of Marsh Lake Second Edition preliminary plat
Summary
The commission recommended the preliminary plat, rezoning to a PUD, a comprehensive-plan amendment and related easement vacations for a six-lot single-family phase of the Shores of Marsh Lake development, subject to standard staff conditions and metropolitan council review.
The Victoria Planning Commission on April 7 recommended City Council approval of a preliminary plat and related applications for the Shores of Marsh Lake Second Edition, a six‑lot single‑family residential phase within a larger ~41.76‑acre area. The commission voted to forward the project to council with staff-recommended conditions and required follow-ups.
City Planner Brian McCann presented the proposal and summarized five requested actions: preliminary plat approval; rezoning from agricultural to a planned-unit development (PUD) overlay; a comprehensive plan amendment to adjust growth phasing; easement vacations; and an early grading agreement. The project area for this phase is about 5.37 acres; the broader property comprises four parcels.
Staff highlighted two notable deviations from the existing adjacent PUD: lot rear setbacks (a 30‑foot rear setback matching current code, versus 50 feet in the adjacent PUD) and a requested increase in maximum impervious surface (lot one requests 6,000 sq ft rather than the 5,000 sq ft typical for the development). All lots meet a minimum 150‑foot distance from Marsh Lake's ordinary high water line. The parcel was recently annexed into the City of Victoria and therefore received agricultural zoning automatically; the applicant seeks the PUD overlay.
McCann said the DNR requested a tier analysis for shoreland density; the developer supplied an analysis for both phases showing a theoretical maximum of 94 units across phases, while the combined two phases propose about 48 units — well under the DNR's computed maximum — and the DNR had no outstanding concerns after that submission. Staff also noted tree‑preservation, open‑space, stormwater, and emergency‑access considerations; the proposal includes an outlot for stormwater/wetland preservation and coordination with the county on emergency access for a dead‑end street threshold.
An applicant representative, John Sonic of Charles K Company, said the project was delayed while title issues were resolved and now the developer seeks to complete and landscape the neighborhood. One resident asked whether the setback would be 150 feet and whether water access would be allowed; staff confirmed the 150‑foot minimum and said water access would not be allowed for the new lots.
Commissioners asked clarifying questions about the phase boundaries and the remainder of the larger parcel; staff confirmed the remainder will remain in the current owner's possession and a future PUD will be required for any additional development. A motion to recommend approval with staff conditions carried by voice vote, with one recorded opposition.
The commission's recommendation will be transmitted to the City Council for final action; staff noted the council will consider the item at its April 13 meeting and that metropolitan council approval of the comprehensive plan amendment is a contingency in the recommended conditions.
