Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Van Scoy asked how much of Lot 2 is buildable. <br />Associate Planner Gladhill stated that the lot is 1.6 acres, probably an acre or less is buildable. <br />Commissioner Cleveland stated this type of building doesn't fit this property at all. The <br />Commission previously talked about this land being designated as parkland and giving the owner <br />an opportunity to share in some land in the Town Center. <br />Associate Planner Gladhill stated City Staff has been exploring different options for protecting <br />the area as park. One option that was brought forward to the Pazk Commission was a <br />conservation easement. The Park Commission's response was that a conservation easement <br />could prohibit it from being developed as a park. <br />A representative of River's Bend Holdings, LLC stated one of the issues that the owner would <br />like the city to look at is the cul-de-sac around the well is shown as street utility, and if it could <br />be changed into an outlot or easement that would allow the building to be moved further to the <br />south. <br />Associate Planner Gladhill stated the request to vacate the right-of--way came very recently to <br />Staff. Because this is a public well, Staff is not supportive of vacating the right-of--way at this <br />point. Our recommendation and up to City Council's final decision is to continue to show this as <br />aright-of--way. <br />Chairperson Levine asked if the right-of--way was vacated would there be any safety concerns. <br />City Engineer Himmer responded the cul-de-sac is in place for turnaround purposes. It is a clear <br />area azound the well to keep contamination or run off from going into the well location. He <br />stated he understands the request; however, nothing can be located within the 50 foot clear area. <br />If the request is for setback purposes only, the City could consider it; however, it is a different <br />process to vacate the right-of--way because the plat has been approved. <br />Chairperson Levine stated he would like to see this as a one lot subdivision. <br />Associate Planner Gladhill asked the applicant if he understood what was being requested and <br />informed him that the Commission was relaying information of what the Commission would like <br />to see on the plat before bringing it forward to City Council. The applicant responded that he did <br />understand. <br />Commissioner Van Scoy stated that if an acceptable building plan for the second lot can't be <br />found, he would agree with Chairperson Levine that this should be a one lot subdivision. <br />Associate Planner Gladhill stated the options the applicant had at this time. <br />Case #3: Request for Site Plan Review of Transformation House; Case of John C <br />Weicht & Associates, LLP <br />Planning Commission/August 5, 2010 <br />Page 4 of 10 <br />