Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />August 13, 2020 <br />Page 6 of 12 <br /> <br /> <br />Brauneis asks if that is actually 16 feet, totally 71 feet. <br /> <br />Williams says that with the 8 feet tree lawn, 8 feet sidewalk, plus the 30 feet you are <br />asking, it is totaling to 46 feet from the edge of the property line. <br /> <br />Rhymer says that is probably correct. It is most likely 71 feet. <br /> <br />Moline asks if there is a reason that they cannot push all of this further back and even <br />to the point of re-platting the open space. <br /> <br />Rhymer says the struggle with that is grading and the retention. We have to look at how <br />this affects all three parcels, not just one. <br /> <br />Moline asks if there is a consideration of re-platting the city buffer back where the trail is <br />or narrowing it. <br /> <br />Ritchie says due to the grading, the width of that is needed. From a policy perspective, <br />if planning commission feels that they should have a discussion on the necessity of <br />having that trail there, which would be a big discussion if we want to go away from <br />having that trail concept. <br /> <br />Howe mentions that it may seem awkward to have the middle of the lot developed and <br />the other parts not yet developed. What is the concurrency of the development to the <br />adjacent lots? <br /> <br />Ritchie says that the application includes no concurrency for the proposal right now. <br /> <br />Rhymer mentions that this development is the catalyst to get the adjacent lots <br />developed. They will not be able to move forward until this development does. <br /> <br />Howe states he is having difficulty because the approach is not towards a <br />comprehensive ownership. Although we are discussing the entire property, we are really <br />only reviewing the middle portion. <br /> <br />Zuccaro that the expectation of the city is that this property all be developed together, <br />cooperating on their proposal and development together. <br /> <br />Ritchie mentions that staff has not discussed concurrency agreements with the <br />applicant. <br /> <br />Howe asks the applicant where they stand on having a 40 foot parking setback. <br /> <br />Rhymer says that if we get a 40 foot parking setback, drive aisles that are allowed <br />within it, and a landscaping buffer, we could do that, but they run the risk to come back <br />to planning commission and get a waiver in order to encroach on that when the retail <br />can’t make that space work. <br /> <br />Public Comment: