My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PL PACKET 10152024
StAnthony
>
Parks & Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
2024
>
PL PACKET 10152024
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/9/2024 10:06:50 AM
Creation date
10/9/2024 10:06:41 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes <br />August 20, 2024 <br />Page 2 <br />1 granted under the original PUD project. The site is the former Bremer Bank facility at the NE <br />2 corner of Kenzie Terrace and Stinson Parkway, with an address of 2401 Lowry. The parcel is <br />3 just under 2 acres in size. <br />4 <br />5 The Planning Commission originally held a public hearing to consider the application on June <br />6 18, 2024. At the time, the applicants had described their request as consisting of the conduct <br />7 of after-school programming and office uses in the existing building. They indicated that the <br />8 building itself would not be remodeled on the exterior. Interior remodeling would consist <br />9 primarily of modifications to create an activity space in support of the after-school <br />10 programming. The applicants suggested that one floor of the building would remain unused at <br />11 the current time. No changes to the existing site plan were envisioned. <br />12 <br />13 The proposed change would alter the approved PUD ordinance by replacing the expected 76- <br />14 unit multiple-family residential use with a proposed office use and after-school program for <br />15 school-aged children. The site plan approvals under the approved PUD would be altered to <br />16 retain the existing building and site improvements, which largely consist of paved parking lot <br />17 serving the original bank facility. <br />18 <br />19 At the public hearing in June, the applicants expanded on their description of the uses of the <br />20 building, which included testimony that a variety of language and other academic classes <br />21 would be provided, as well as technical training in various disciplines. <br />22 <br />23 The Planning Commission discussed the merits of the proposed use, and how it compared to <br />24 the Comprehensive Plan objectives for the site, as well as to the intent of the existing PUD <br />25 zoning, which anticipated housing that was designed to be affordable to low and moderate <br />26 income tenants. The rezoning ordinance recognized the change from commercial to residential <br />27 use, incorporating the approved site and development plans for the multi-family project, as <br />28 referenced the R-4 zoning district (the City’s multi-family zoning district) as the reference <br />29 district for performance standards not specifically identified in the approved PUD. <br />30 <br />31 The 2040 Comprehensive Plan calls for mixed residential and commercial uses in the area. <br />32 The Land Use Plan expected a continuation of the commercial land use pattern on this site, <br />33 but included language that accommodates the conversion of commercial land to residential <br />34 when the specific site and other needs – including affordable housing goals – supported the <br />35 change. It was this set of policy considerations that led to the City’s participation in a multi- <br />36 site PUD approval that included this property. <br />37 <br />38 That PUD shifted the Bremer Bank location to a site owned by the City, which was originally <br />39 acquired for redevelopment, with the goal being affordable housing. In turn, the housing <br />40 objective was shifted to the site currently under consideration, thus the multi-family project <br />41 approved there. <br />42 <br />43 The Planning Commission voted against the proposed amendment in a split vote. Favorable <br />44 votes included comments that the use was a valuable one for the neighborhood and <br />45 community at large. Votes against the amendment cited concerns over an inadequate <br />46 description of the project plans, the loss of the opportunity for affordable housing on the site,
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.