Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/10/2006

Home

158 Case #5: Discuss Code Amendments for Portions of the TC-2 Town Center Zoning District; Case of City of Ramsey Associate Planner Geisler stated the City has initiated a Request for Proposals (RFP) process for the redevelopment of the area generally west of Armstrong Blvd and north of Highway 10. This area is currently part of the Town Center zoning district. This redevelopment project will require some revision of the zoning standards for this area. Staff is bringing a draft code revision before the Planning Commission for discussion prior to the scheduling of a public hearing. Associate Planner Geisler explained the City Council de~'~;~strict as a redevelopment area on February 14, 2006. The Ctty issued an REP:~tnd is~C~entl}grewevang three proposals. The City Council is expected to select a prefe~.~c~evelop?[ ?t June ~, 2006. It zs expected that this entire area will be acquired and develi3~d:~by one'~ast'e~ cre~oper and.will contain larger-scale commereml uses than are intended fo[ CgT0wn ,Center (such a~ blg:bgx retail). The area is currently zoned TC-2, which is not intende~to accommodate this Scale'~f&ommercial development. Rather than assuming a lot-by-10~ ~eyelop~e~t pattern and~ hstmg specffic setbacks and lot standards (as is the case in the B4 .a~nd B22:(/b~ng districts), the draft code is written to require a Master Plan for the entire d}~_trict, and i~y~ 37 ~erform'ance standards that will be used to guide the development of that P[~: '~'~. Associate Planner Geisler advzsed this represents a}dzffemnt approach to zomng than the Czty has taken in the past and will require a differ~fit rev(.e~ p~;ci'sg for development within this area. Staff is proposing to utilize the planneS:~¢nit D~iopmen~ .(P,~) process, and to approve a Master Plan as a Preliminary Site P!an ~der ~*PUD requ!re'/i~ents. Under this idea, once the City has approved a Master Pla~ that meets th* performance.standards in the proposed code, any s~gmficant changes to the ,M. aster Plan would reqmre)the developer to process a revzsed Prehmznary Site Plan for the entire szte. A f'mal szt,~plan would be processed for each phase of the project as they are const.ructed~..:¢nsunng compliance with the Master Plan. Ms. Gezsler reviewed th~.draft code revisi0~ She ~dicated the Council discussed the code at a recent work sessmn ~ was generally m f~ivor, of:the~rewsmn vath a recommendatzon for ad&tlonal storm,~!er m~r3~t;i aa~di~j~g,~to the'[an~iP~rng section with the possibility ora tree canopy requ~em~fit; and the po~sibil/~of larger pa ,~ng stalls in this area. ,C6~ssioner Tfites Rolle~"~qu~d if the existing businesses in this area will remain and ~ssoc[ate Planner Geisler rephedtl/e C~ty lmuated emznent domam in this area. Commi~i~fi~r v~an~coy rec~uesied clarification regarding the statement not usually found in shopping ~h~e~Stru~tures~lfi~ed in Subdivison 1; Intent. Associate Planner Ge[sl& explained this area wi]i not really be an enclosed mall type environment; it will b~ ~ore of a Riverdale type setting, and is expected to have multiple pads throughout the site. Chairperson Nixt indicated this statement should clarify between a large central structure with multi-tenants, as opposed to various structures occupied by 1 or 2 owners and surrounded by parking. It should be clarified that this area will provide complimentav/uses, but uses that are Planning Commission/June 1, 2006 Page 16 of 19