Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 <br />be rezoned to Public, thus losing tax revenue for the City. Nadeau stated <br />that she was not in favor of the expansion of the Watershed. <br />Aichinger stated that he understands the neighbor's concern and pointed <br />out that the Watershed put of screening for the air conditioning units as <br />well as painted the units to match the building. He pointed out that the <br />Watershed is purchasing an existing garage. Aichinger felt the garage <br />matches the Watershed's building nicely, and noted that the building is <br />needed for storage. Aichinger indicated that the real estate agent for the <br />former Norm's site says that the subdivision will make that property more <br />saleable given the garage has restrictions on it limiting it to storage. <br />Aichinger stated that the Watershed pursued this property because they <br />need additional parking and storage. <br />Duray asked if the Watershed had any additional plans to expand. <br />Aichinger stated that they cannot add anything else given they are up <br />against property lines. Harris commented that six years ago the Watershed <br />said their development was all they needed, but now they are proposing an <br />expansion. Harris questioned their credibility based on what has been said <br />in the past. He also pointed out that as a taxpayer he is paying double, for <br />the Watershed expansion as well as loss of tax revenue on the property to <br />be subdivided. <br />Knudsen stated that Harris' comments are noted, but indicated that <br />property tax issues are not an issue for the Planning Commission. <br />Knudsen asked what would be the correct course of action for the <br />Commission given the Amendment to the CUP is pending. Knudsen <br />stated that he was inclined to table action until the Commission has <br />complete information. <br />The City Planner stated that the ideal would be to process everything at <br />the same time. The Planner indicated that his primary concern is that there <br />is no site plan to show how the property will look long term. The <br />Watershed has submitted some concept site plans this evening, however. <br />The question is should the City process the Subdividion so that the seller <br />can be paid for the property. The Planner indicated that based on tonight's <br />submissions, the Commission could consider moving forward with the <br />Subdivision with the understanding that conditions will be placed on the <br />Amended CUP. Knudsen pointed out that one condition will be to place a <br />time limit for completion of the landscaping of the property. The Planner <br />also recommended that if the Subdivision is approved this evening, the <br />City withhold approval for the use of the garage until the CUP is <br />processed. While it is not the City's intent to hold up the Watershed, the <br />Planner indicated that it is under the CUP that the property use is <br />regulated. <br />- 5 - <br />