Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Prior Lake planning commission recommends denial of Tower Street rezoning after hours of public opposition
Summary
After hours of testimony from residents and commissioners' questioning, the Prior Lake Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of a developer's request to change two parcels on Tower Street from commercial (C2) to high-density residential (R3). The proposal included a conceptual 166-unit, 3'4 story apartment building; concerns centered on traffic, scale, tree loss and loss of commercial land.
The Prior Lake Planning Commission voted July 6 to recommend that the City Council deny a land-use and rezoning request for two parcels near the intersection of Tower Street and Toronto Avenue that a developer had proposed to convert from retail/general business (C2) to high-density residential (R3).
Staff described the application from Rohrer's Acquisitions LLC and BK Tower Properties as a request only to change the comprehensive plan guidance and map the parcels to R3; no site plan or PUD approval was before the commission. Planning staff said the developer's conceptual plan shows a 3- to 4-story building of about 166 units with roughly an even split of underground structured parking and surface stalls — approximately two parking stalls per unit — and outdoor amenity areas. Staff emphasized the submission is conceptual and that detailed issues such as final building height, parking layout, drainage and stormwater would be reviewed at a later PUD and preliminary-plan hearing if rezoning were approved.
Casey, the city planner who presented the staff analysis, told commissioners that the site sits immediately west of the school district office and that the western parcel is largely encumbered by a drainage and utility easement, limiting developability. He said prior planning work shows the city has a large acreage of undeveloped commercial/industrial land overall, but that much of it lacks utilities and that Met Council guidance requires the city to show enough acreage for future multifamily development in its next comprehensive-plan cycle.
The developer's representative, Nick Astheim of Rohrer's Companies, said the property has been marketed for five years with limited commercial interest and that the applicant had iterated several concept plans to reduce massing and increase setbacks after neighborhood meetings. Astheim provided rough rent ranges — about $1,500 for smaller units up to roughly $2,700 for three-bedroom units — and said a smaller, by-right project (roughly 60'75 units) could be built on only the eastern parcel if rezoning were not granted.
Hundreds of pages of public comment and two dozen speakers appeared at the meeting's public hearing. Neighbors urged commissioners to preserve commercial land, questioned traffic projections and predicted negative impacts on privacy and tree cover. "It feels like bait and switch rezoning," resident Alex Sheer said, arguing the neighborhood was not expecting a high-density apartment complex on land that had long been commercial. Other residents cited parking pinch points during athletic events and said winter tree cover would not provide long-term screening from a four-story facade.
Staff and commissioners repeatedly noted the distinction between the narrow action before them (a plan and zoning map amendment) and the broader, later PUD and site-plan review that would examine traffic studies, stormwater, exact building height and landscaping. Casey said the applicant will be required to produce a detailed traffic-impact study and that any PUD review would include pedestrian and intersection work; he added that comparisons to commercial uses such as daycare facilities showed different peak-hour profiles.
After extensive commissioner questions and public comment, Chair Fleming called for a finding on whether the land-use and zoning amendments were appropriate. Commissioner Rook moved and Commissioner Schmokel seconded a motion to recommend that the City Council deny the rezoning and future land-use amendment. The motion carried; the commission will forward its recommendation to the City Council for consideration (the council is scheduled to consider the request on July 14 and a supermajority of four of five councilors would be required for approval).
What happens next
A denial recommendation from the planning commission does not end the process. The City Council will consider the request and the Metropolitan Council must review future land-use map changes. If the council approves a rezoning and map amendment, the applicant would then submit formal PUD and site plans for public hearings where traffic, stormwater, building height and design details would be considered.
