Laserfiche WebLink
REGULAR MEETING <br /> APPLICANT: Wilderness Resort Villas LLC. <br /> Applicant requests to rezone from Waterfront Commercial to Residential. <br /> Chad Connor, WSN, and Mike Wagener were present representing Wilderness <br /> Resort Villas LLC. <br /> Mr. Marohn explained that no formal Staff Comments had been prepared. The <br /> request could be withdrawn or the Commission could table the request. It is a <br /> downzone from Waterfront Commercial to Residential. There would be no <br /> reason to look at this adversely. Both lots meet provisions of the Ordinance. <br /> Nothing restricts development for a dwelling. Approximately 7,000 sq. ft. of <br /> Waterfront Commercial was added to Tract B. Mr. Marohn recommends <br /> approval. <br /> Mr. Connor stated that the calculations are way under first tier density by <br /> removing this space. Mr. Marohn stated that it does not create a non-conformity <br /> at the resort, but does limit the ability to develop at the resort. <br /> A motion was made by Tom Adams, seconded by Bill Habein, to recommend the <br /> Council approve this rezone request. All members voted "aye". Motion carried. <br /> ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA: <br /> 6. e. Chris Greer Permit Extension. <br /> 6. f. Heritage Preservation Commission. <br /> MR. MAROHN LEFT TO ATTEND ANOTHER COMMITMENT. <br /> OPEN FORUM: <br /> Brent Ryappy, 3579 County Road 168, was present. Mr. Ryappy explained that <br /> he had requested a lot subdivision and was told he needed a certificate of survey. <br /> After submitting same, he was told by Staff that they needed a topo survey as the <br /> survey submitted did not indicate any thing on the parcels, such as dwellings, etc. <br /> His subdivision has now been approved, but he now has been told he needs to <br /> dedicate right-of-way and file a deed restriction. He doesn't feel he needs to <br /> spend any more money with his surveyor writing the descriptions for the <br /> dedication and deed restriction. He also thinks the condition of approval should <br /> have stated 33 feet, rather than 66 feet. <br /> The Commission asked Staff to prepare a generic list of conditions on previous <br /> splits to hand out to new applicants indicating what may be asked of them. <br /> Staff was asked to clarify the 66-foot statement in the conditions. <br /> Planning Commission 2 <br /> November 18, 2004 <br />