Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 <br />indicated that the City Engineer could be asked to comment on whether or <br />not the easements are necessary. Aichinger stated that he would like that <br />information before completing the survey of the property. <br />With regard to "Legal descriptions /Platting ", Aichinger stated that he <br />contacted the Ramsey County Recorder, and they have indicated that a <br />plat is not necessary. The City Planner pointed out that the Subdivision <br />Ordinance requires that these lots be combined, but the City does not have <br />a preference as to whether the property needs to be platted or the metes <br />and bounds descriptions used to combine the lots. Aichinger stated that <br />the former Norm's property would be divided into Parcels A & B, and the <br />three lots would then be under the Watershed ownership as a larger parcel <br />with separate descriptions for the three separate parcels that they will own. <br />Aichinger again raised the issue of not being able to use the garage until <br />the process is complete to Amend the CUP. Aichinger felt that <br />requirement was excessive. He felt that once the Watershed comes into <br />ownership of this garage, they should be able to use it for their purpose. <br />He also commented that the Watershed needs the additional storage space. <br />The City Planner noted that the technical requirements under the Zoning <br />Ordinance prohibit the use of the building until the CUP Amendment is <br />processed. I -Ie again noted that it is under the CUP process that any <br />conditions are imposed. Aichinger indicated that they would not make <br />any improvements to the property until the entire process is completed, but <br />noted that they have a boat that they need to store for the University. <br />Robert I- Iarris, Noel Drive, stated that he did not view the expansion of the <br />Watershed use as a good thing. He pointed out that when the Watershed <br />development was first proposed they indicated that this site was all that <br />they would need, and now they are seeking to expand. Harris pointed out <br />that this expansion results in additional property off the tax roll. He felt <br />the property should remain as a commercial use. Harris also noted that <br />when the Watershed proposed its development, there was misinformation <br />presented relative to the mechanicals for the building, and the result was <br />that the air - conditioning units were installed facing the Noel Drive <br />residential properties. Harris was concerned that the Watershed is again <br />making promises that they will not keep. Harris stated that he is opposed <br />to the expansion of the Watershed use. He again pointed out that the <br />Watershed did not keep the promises that they made at the time the <br />property was developed. Harris also felt that the subdivision of the former <br />Norm's site will make that property less saleable. <br />Lucille Nadeau, Noel Drive, agreed with Harris' comments and pointed <br />out that the Watershed indicated that their initial development was all that <br />they would need. She felt the property would remain commercial and not <br />-4- <br />