Laserfiche WebLink
Excerpts from Plan Commission Minutes of March 7,2013 continued: <br /> Mr. Newton asked what the lot is zoned. <br /> Ms. Stickle responded B-2, Commercial. <br /> Mr. Cochran stated that the City Plan Commission does not usually see m' or plats; however, <br /> there are some provisions that staff does not have the ability to sign. Mr. Cochran stated that one <br /> (1) of the lots does not have direct access or does not have frontage on public right of way. Mr. <br /> Cochran stated that the property is located at the northeast quadrant of Interstate 72 and Route <br /> 51. Mr. Cochran stated that when Cracker Barrel came to Decatur and wanted to purchase a site <br /> for development, the property lines needed to be amended to put up the fac lity because the lot <br /> was too small, while doing so they had to do a minor plat subdivision to change the lot <br /> configuration. Mr. Cochran stated that the developer never intended for this of to be one (1) lot <br /> and there was no reason to create a second lot until there was a reason to do so. Mr. Cochran <br /> stated that the developer of the subdivision is also the owner of the Baymont Hotel and the <br /> owner now wants to sell the hotel. Mr. Cochran stated that by creating the two (2) lot <br /> subdivision, an opportunity for future development is presented. <br /> Mr. Newton asked what could be potential uses for a lot that does not have frontage. <br /> Mr. Cochran stated that a mini warehouse could be a possible use, userslll, that don't require <br /> significant traffic. <br /> Mr. Frantz asked who would remain owner of the property. <br /> Mr. Cochran stated that presently the piece of property is owned by an entily and the property <br /> will be listed for sale and the Baymont would be sold off to another entity. <br /> Mr. Frantz asked if the sale of the Baymont is contingent upon the minor plat assing. <br /> Mr. Cochran stated that the owner does not want the additional property. <br /> It was moved and seconded (Peck/Newton) to forward Cal. No. 12-10 to the City Council with <br /> recommendation for approval as presented by staff. Motion carried unanimou ly. <br />