2012-02-01_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, February 1, 2012 Page 4 it was the City’s determination not to sell back that piece of land, and that it was not 148 necessarily needed to make the proposed development work. 149 Chair Boerigter asked if the land would then remain available for City right-of-way; to 150 which Mr. Paschke clarified that the property was not City right-of-way, nor was it needed 151 as such. 152 Mr. Lloyd concurred, noting that this was the reason a formal vacation was not being 153 requested, since the property had originally been intended to be used in conjunction with 154 the roadway, but not strictly for right-of-way purposes. 155 Member Gisselquist noted his understanding of the decision currently before the 156 Commission based strictly on land use, with parcels being brought together by private 157 owners, with the land disposal considered in light of the Twin Lakes Master Plan and 158 Comprehensive Plan. Member Gisselquist advised that the disposal of City land was of 159 concern to him, understanding that plat itself allowed little decision-making by the 160 Commission. However, Member Gisselquist noted that, with the land disposal, it brought 161 to the forefront the documents worked on over several years by citizens (e.g. Zoning 162 Code, Comprehensive Plan, etc.). 163 Mr. Lloyd indicated that the most fundamental way staff reviewed the proposal was 164 seeing it as Comprehensive Plan amenable, noting that it was the purpose of the revised 165 Zoning Code, and bringing it into consistency with the goals and policies of the 2030 166 Comprehensive Plan, not just for the entire City but specifically for the Twin Lakes 167 Redevelopment Area as well. While the Zoning Code revisions are still fresh, Mr. Lloyd 168 noted that staff made their recommendation after a thorough review and confidence that 169 the development met zoning requirements, and fell under the guidance of the 170 Comprehensive Plan. 171 Member Strohmeier expressed concern with the public notice issue after hearing from 172 various neighbors who had also expressed their concerns about the public notice for this 173 proposed development. Member Strohmeier questioned the trigger for requiring a 174 community open house; opining that this was a pretty substantial planning decision, and 175 questioned why it hadn’t mandated an open house. 176 Mr. Lloyd advised that open houses are mandated for would-be applicants or applications 177 that deviated from City Code, or those things not in the usual realm of a particular Zoning 178 District. Mr. Lloyd noted that this plat had more to do with the Subdivision Code and 179 realignment of parcels, and provided several examples of developments requiring open 180 houses. 181 Member Strohmeier opined that the community, as well as he, had been caught off guard 182 by this proposal. 183 Member Lester questioned what other land uses were proposed for this parcel in the 184 future. 185 Mr. Lloyd advised that the overall Site Plan indicated several smaller restaurant uses on 186 the smaller lots, but the Plan also facilitated ownership of parcels for other allowable 187 uses. Mr. Lloyd opined that restaurant uses would typically follow a Wal-Mart 188 development, but the buildings illustrated on the Site Plan presented were simply 189 included to address potential zoning requirements as an example, but may not be their 190 exact use as the parcel develops in the future. 191 At the request of Member Wozniak as to what other uses may occur, Mr. Lloyd advised 192 that whatever was allowed as a use in a Community Mixed Use District. 193 Applicant Representatives: 194 Will Matzek, Engineer of Record for Wal-Mart development team 195 Mr. Matzeck thanked the Planning Commission for their time and consideration of the two 196 requested actions, and concurred with staff’s review of the proposal details. Mr. Matzeck 197 advised that of the overall Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area of approximately 179 acres, 198