Commission denies small-scale commercial land-use change and tables related residential request in Crystal Lake area

Washington County commissioners voted to deny a proposed small-scale future land use map amendment that would have converted 6.05 acres at Crystal Lake Drive from residential-low to neighborhood commercial, and they later tabled a related request to change 32.75 acres from residential-low to residential medium-1 to allow further discussion about a development agreement and project details.

Planning staff had recommended approval of both small-scale amendments; the planning commission instead recommended denial of the neighborhood commercial change (6-0) and recommended denial of the residential medium-1 change by 5-1. Neighbors and commissioners raised repeated concerns about water resources, septic systems, drainage, traffic and the absence of a firm, committed plan for specific uses. Planning commissioner testimony said the lack of a defined proposal and infrastructure questions drove their unanimous denial.

At the meeting, applicant representative Mr. Crook and development partner Casey Henderson described a concept plan for a neighborhood-serving development and a residential subdivision (roughly 43 lots in the concept), and Henderson said he would not include manufactured homes and that homes would be market-built residences. Several area residents and commissioners questioned whether neighborhood commercial would allow undesirable uses (for example small gas stations or other uses residents feared) and noted that neighborhood commercial allows a variety of uses up to 5,000 square feet. Commissioners discussed development agreements as a potential tool to lock in specific uses and design standards if the developer were willing to negotiate conditions.

After public comment and discussion, the board voted to deny the neighborhood commercial amendment (upholding the planning commission's recommendation) and later voted to table the residential medium-1 amendment at the developer's request so that the owner and county staff could meet and discuss a development agreement and other conditions. The applicant told the board he would take part in those discussions.

Provenance: neighborhood commercial discussion begins with staff presentation at agenda item 3.47 and continues through public comment and votes; the residential medium-1 amendment is agenda item 3.5 and was discussed and tabled in the same meeting.