Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSi,ON <br />SEPTEMBER 11, 2003 <br />Rustad felt that the rezoning being requested was spot zoning. He also felt <br />that developing this site as residential in the midst of commercial <br />properties would result in on-going problems. <br />Rustad reviewed some of the redevelopment concepts that he is <br />considering for his property. These include the possibility of townoffice, <br />mini-storage, or four-plexes along Park Street with commercial in the back <br />accessed via the driveway easement from County Road C. <br />Knudsen asked why asingle-family home or a duplex would be <br />inconsistent with townoffices orfour-plexes. <br />Rustad felt that the entire west side of Park Street needed to be considered <br />as a whole. Rustad felt that asingle-family home or a duplex immediately <br />adjacent to commercial development would result in complaints about <br />noise, etc. He noted the residential street behind the Rice at C Center, and <br />noted that there are concerns from the neighborhood about noise from <br />snowplowing, garbage removal, etc. Rustad stated that he is aware that it <br />was good planning to provide transitional uses between commercial and <br />residential development. However, he did not feel this property should be <br />down zoned from B-3 to R-1 and suggested that it would be very difficult <br />to have a property up zoned from R-1 to B-3. Rustad stated that the Comp <br />Plan has indicated that B-3 zoning is appropriate for the west side of Park <br />Street, and he felt B-3 should be retained for this property. Rustad again <br />urged the Commission to consider the surrounding uses on the west side of <br />Park Street. <br />Keis expressed concern that given the limited size of the property for <br />anything other than residential development, that the result will be that <br />Rustad is the only potential buyer for the site. <br />Rustad stated that he was surprised to learn that this lot was not a part of <br />the Edgewater Townofl'ice development. Rustad indicated that he did <br />make an offer for the lot since it would square off his property and could <br />be included in his redevelopment effort. However, he will redevelop his <br />property with or without this lot. Rustad again stated that he felt the <br />rezoning of this property to residential would result in long-term <br />problems. <br />Rustad indicated that he discussed this lot with the Watershed and learned <br />that the wetland on the lot is considered a Managed 1 wetland. That <br />means there is a 50-foot average setback required from the wetland. <br />-3- <br />