Laserfiche WebLink
MINU'I`CS <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />FEBRUARY 10, 2005 <br />however, that he has never seen a public building sold to private <br />enterprise. <br />Rheaume stated that if the Watershed will not pay property taxes, who will <br />pay for the property's share of the assessment for Noel Drive. The <br />Planner stated that he was not sure. Rheaume noted that the development <br />of this parcel will not gain the City any additional properly taxes. The <br />Planner stated that this is correct, but pointed out that the City will gain <br />the sale price of the land. <br />Knudsen asked i{'the building could be altered to increase the setback. <br />The City I?lanner indicated that it appears that the orientation of the board <br />room and multi-pw~pose room could be changed so the shallow dimension <br />of this portion of the building runs east to west. "Cbis would increase the <br />side yard setback from Noel Drive. <br />I-Tuber felt it would be very difficult to make these adjustments. <br />Knudsen asked why the three zoning districts mentioned earlier do not <br />have an ina~eased side yard setback for a corner lot. The City Planner <br />stated that he does not lo~ow the answer to this question. He pointed out <br />that Glanzer feels it is a discrepancy in the Code, and that is a possibility. <br />Huber suggested that when Noel Drive is widened, the road will be shifted <br />and there will be more grass between the property line and the pavement. <br />Barraclough asked about building adjustments to the entry area and the <br />"V" in the building that could be made to increase the side yard setback. <br />1-tuber felt those adjustments would impact the scupper, walkway, entry <br />and library area adversely. <br />Knudsen felt that the concern about the side yard setback was worth hying <br />to f ud a solution. Knudsen stated that he would like to find a way to <br />move forward on this issue without disapproving or tabling action on the <br />proposal. <br />The City Planner suggested that the matter could be passed on to the <br />Council with language to that effect. Weihe asked if the Commission <br />feels there should be an increase side yard setback for this proposal, would <br />the next step be to change the Code. Knudsen felt that ultimately the Code <br />would have to be addressed. Knudsen felt that the first step would be to <br />deal with this Conditional Use Permit, and then revisit the standard. <br />Chuck Vermeesh, 626 County Road Q-2 and an employee of the City of <br />Maplewood, felt that the City cannot require a greater setback than what is <br />provided for iu the Code. Venneesh indicated that Maplewood has always <br />-7- <br />