PL PACKET 08202024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

August 20th, 2024 Page 2 The Planning Commission discussed the merits of the proposed use, and how it compared to the Comprehensive Plan objectives for the site, as well as to the intent of the existing PUD zoning, which anticipated housing that was designed to be affordable to low and moderate income tenants. The rezoning ordinance recognized the change from commercial to residential use, incorporating the approved site and development plans for the multi-family project, as referenced the R-4 zoning district (the City’s multi-family zoning district) as the reference district for performance standards not specifically identified in the approved PUD. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan calls for mixed residential and commercial uses in the area. The Land Use Plan expected a continuation of the commercial land use pattern on this site, but included language that accommodates the conversion of commercial land to residential when the specific site and other needs – including affordable housing goals – supported the change. It was this set of policy considerations that led to the City’s participation in a multi-site PUD approval that included this property. That PUD (the current controlling zoning) shifted the Bremer Bank location to a site owned by the City, which was originally acquired for redevelopment, with the goal being affordable housing. In turn, the housing objective was shifted to the site currently under consideration, thus the multi-family project approved there. The Planning ultimately voted to recommend against the proposed amendment in a split vote. Favorable votes included comments that the use was a valuable one for the neighborhood and community at large, among others. Votes against the amendment cited concerns over an inadequate description of the project plans, the loss of the opportunity for affordable housing on the site, and concerns over the loss of taxable land, presuming that the new owner would put the property to a tax-exempt land use. After the Planning Commission’s June hearing, the applicants provided additional information to staff, supplementing their request to more fully describe the proposed use, and address certain concerns raised by the Commission. The applicants asked to delay the project’s consideration by the City Council to allow this additional information to be reviewed. It was determined that the additional information constituted a substantive change to the understanding of the project proposal, and that the project as now understood was not fully noticed in the initial hearing. As such, staff notified the applicants that the project needed to return to a new public hearing before the Planning Commission. The applicants provided additional written documentation on the proposed amendment as a part of that new schedule. As now described, the proposed application would reintroduce administrative offices for internal use, as well as commercial office uses available to private tenants/lessees.