Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews concept for Jack Duncan site at 550 North; live-work units proposed
Summary
Developers presented a concept for two commercial pads and up to three live/work units behind State Street; council and planning commission raised ordinance and design questions and no legislative action was taken.
Council members reviewed a concept plan for a small, irregular parcel at 550 North State Street that a developer proposes to build with two commercial pads (potential Jack in the Box and Dunkin' Donuts) and a small live/work component.
Community development director Michael Florence said the property includes a narrow 70–75-foot strip that abuts rear lots and is technically inside a 300-foot planned-residential-development setback that the city’s ordinance ties to commercial frontage on State Street. That 300-foot rule generally reserves the portion of the corridor nearest State Street for commercial uses; the developer requested feedback about allowing residential live/work units in that small strip.
Duane Rasmussen, representing the applicant, said the planned live/work units would be small, ground-floor workspaces with living space above intended for employees or business owners and that several potential small-business tenants (for example, glass repair or light fabrication) have shown interest. He said the retail pads are largely under negotiation with national tenants and that the developer “would like an approval because we don’t want to sign and then not have an approval.”
Planning commissioners who reviewed the concept offered mixed feedback: some supported a trial or limited live/work use, others recommended caution about amending the ordinance. Council discussion touched on design (rooflines, building massing, parking and vehicle circulation), the need for examples of elevations, and the timing of adjacent property sales (a working dental practice on an adjoining parcel whose owner indicated he is not ready to sell). Council member Hoyt recused himself from the discussion because of a declared potential conflict.
No legislative action or ordinance amendment was taken; staff and the applicant will continue working on site design, elevations and possible ordinance language if the council indicates they wish to pursue an exception or text amendment at a later hearing.
