CC_Minutes_2010_1213 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

690 Mr. Paschke reviewed the process for Comprehensive Plan Amendment through this body, as 691 well as the City Council for submission of such an amendment and reconsideration by the 692 Metropolitan Council; and clarified the actual parcels on the south being discussed. 693 Commissioner Boerigter sought to clarify the intent of the discussion, with both previous and 694 current Comprehensive Plan designation as part of the larger Har Mar Mall design and common 695 ownership, with use of those parcels for parking and buffering. Commissioner Boerigter noted 696 that, if the intent was to avoid development of those parcels or to provide any access off the Mall 697 in that area, that was one issue. However, he noted that, if the intent was that future 698 redevelopment of the entire site or multi family housing not be considered over another use that 699 was an entirely different issue. Commissioner Boerigter noted that, just by rezoning the property, 700 it didn't mean an apartment could not be considered as a future use, or that additional access 701 would be granted off that street. 702 Mr. Paschke concurred, noting that rezoning did not automatically provide access rights onto a 703 public street; and without any proposal on the table, it was difficult to predict future needs or 704 requests, and regardless of how the property was zoned, it didn't impact the access issue, without 705 any such request going through the public application process based on the PUD currently on the 706 property and/or creation of future zoning district standards. Mr. Paschke further noted that the 707 existing parking lot was required for Har Mar Mall to meet their parking requirements, and in 708 order for those requirements to go away, some other use would need to go on the site, with 709 consideration for such approval or denial going before the Planning Commission and /or City •710 Council. 711 Commissioner Cook observed that adjacent residents did not want additional buildings in that 712 area, whatever tool was used, but appeared to not be opposed to the parking lot. 713 Commissioner Boerigter observed that there were lots of neighbors who didn't want specific uses 714 adjacent to their properties; however, he noted that this didn't necessarily mean that such a use 715 was predicted, and didn't convince him that the Commission should exclude future 716 redevelopment of the site. 717 Mr. Paschke advised that, even if the zoning were changed to some designation other than 718 Community Business, it didn't guarantee that some other use may go on the site, potentially even 719 residential on those southern properties, which may be palatable to adjacent residents. Mr. 720 Paschke advised that residential use is identified as an appropriate land use designation within a 721 Regional Business district. Mr. Paschke advised that, under the current PUD, there were two (2) 722 specific agreements in place conditioning any redevelopment done on site, and that those existing 723 agreements would not go away, with the PUD superseding zoning code. 724 Commissioner Gottfried noted the intended logic of the Comprehensive Plan Update and 725 Rezoning process to eliminate dependence on a patchwork, PUD approach to land use by 726 applying more consistent and equitable rules city -wide. Commissioner Gottfried noted 727 Commissioner Boerigter's comments as to whether the intent of this discussion was to retain the 728 status quo providing confidence to adjacent residential properties that the existing use, as it had