My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-10-05 Planning Comm. Minutes
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
02-10-05 Planning Comm. Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/5/2008 1:06:18 PM
Creation date
6/5/2008 1:04:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />FEBRUARY 10, 2005 <br />Watershed had an alternative plan for creating a setback greater than l5 <br />feet. <br />Huber replied that the problem with moving the building back is that the <br />Watershed does not allow people to encroach on creek beds. He also <br />noted that the side yard setback has been increased to 20 feet. Vigness- <br />Pint pointed out that the proposed setback meets the City Code. She also <br />noted that in shilling the building back they would not be able to issue <br />their own permit. <br />Knudsen pointed out that if the Watershed sells the property to a business, <br />the setback would be out of conformance with the Code. Vigness-Pint <br />indicated that the Watershed hopes to occupy the building for a long time. <br />Knudsen noted that the concern is with public safety and site lines as well <br />as the precedent that would be set <br />There was some discussion about the Planner's recommendation for a <br />secw~ity deposit to ensure landscape maintenance. The Planner indicated <br />that that is a typical requirement for commercial development. <br />Knudsen asked about the issue of screening and the storage of pickup <br />trucks in the pa~i<ing lot. The City Planner indicated that the Code <br />requires the screening of the parking lot I-Ie also noted that storage of <br />passenger vehicles is allowed under the Code with the proper screening. <br />Robert Harris, Noel Drive resident, indicated that the residents on Noel <br />Drive are not in favor of this development He also expressed concern <br />with the outdoor storage of the Watershed's trucks and felt they would be <br />an eyesore. I-Iarris pointed out that when the City first purchased the <br />property with the idea of developing a Public Works site at this location, it <br />abandoned the idea when it found it could not provide die proper <br />screening. Harris also pointed out the fact that a few years ago someone <br />was interested in developing a residential home on the property. At that <br />time the Council rezoned the property to Public and informed the <br />neighborhood that it would remain open space. Now that a public agency <br />is interested in the property, the City is willing to sell it. .Harris felt that <br />the open lot provided a nice transition into the residential neighborhood. <br />Knudsen asked Harris if his view was there should be no development of <br />this property. Harris replied that if the City has to sell the property <br />because it needs the money, he would prefer to see it sold to a taxpaying <br />entity. Harris indicated that he has never seen a government agency not <br />grow, and he was concerned that the Watershed will outgrow this space. <br />Lle pointed out that the garage that the Watershed is proposing already is <br />not large enough to house their vehicles. <br />-5- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.