Laserfiche WebLink
r~z.nuT~s <br />c~cy coUn~;.1 <br />Ji.~nc 12, 1985 <br />Klidzejs <br />Easement <br />VacaC:i.on <br />(ConC.) <br />I)e;lacc( <br />~i1y;e <br />f?ro~>osal <br />Ap.,encta <br />Item Dlo. 5 <br />frorn C9r. Klidzej s. Pahey fel.t Chmt thE records should be rese~arched <br />i.n Ch:i.s matter. 1'ahey instructed the Gi.Cy En~ineer and Ci.ty AtC.orney <br />to ].ooi< into the matter and reporc Y~aclc at the next Coueicil meecing< <br />Mr. Robert De.t3ace appeared before the Council requesting plat a~~proval <br />for liis and Mr.. Li1~e's prope.rt.y on CounCry Drive. Del3ace also <br />requested ttiat a POD be approved ior OutloY; i) and Lot 4 so that <br />these two ].ots wpuld be combined at the ti.me that morCga~;es on the <br />pr.o~erty were satisfi.ed. <br />Deilace sCaCed that he would li.ke to bui.l<I a bui.l.ding on Lot 1 ri.ght <br />away, buC did rioC lrnow when a bu1.l.ding would ~o in on Lot 4< <br />Mrs. Scalze s[ated thet she fe1C t:hi.s was Che same situati.on as the <br />Gorcly l~lowe proposal on I?arlc Strr_eC i.n tl~tat: t:he C:i.ty i.s bei.ng astced <br />to create a non-conformi.no lot because of Pi.nancial arran~;ements. <br />yr. DeAace repor,Ced tha[ l~e has informed the Plranner what he wanCs <br />Co do wiCh the property, and his proposal is whaC the Pl.anner came <br />up wi.Ch as a solution. <br />The PLanner pointed out Chat OuClot D i.s ea par.t. of Ryan's developmenC, <br />but Lot 4 i.s not. <br />Mr. DeBace sCat:ed that he could t~nil.l.d an addiCional. bu:ild~ing on <br />OuClot ll, b~it feit i.t wouLd be a better arrangement tu bui.ld on <br />I,ot 4 and when mortgages were satisfi.ed, combine Oi.iC1.oC D and Lot 4. <br />Nlr „ Scalze poi.nted out thaC Ryan's Inctustri.al Yarlc was decl.ared a <br />PUD not Co facili.tate lots without road fr.ont.i~;e, buC to handle a <br />mess Chat ~vas i.n t:he parlc. Scala.e stated that al.l. the l.ots i.n Ryan's <br />parlc have road frontage and the Ci.ty has requi.red yr.. Ryan to combine <br />properCy that dld not LroriC on a road. <br />Sca].ze pointed out, that the ,P'lanner h~is submiCted an alternative <br />propo,al £or the developmenC of the properCy. <br />h[rs. N~~rct~in:i i.nfor.med the Cow~e~i1 that the Building Inspector has <br />indi.cated that i.f Outlot D and Lot ~F are combined a seconcl building <br />cannot be greater than 30% of Ch~ origi.nal butildi.ng. <br />Ntr. t'ahey ~slced abont Clie sewer siCUtztion i.n the ar.ea. 'f'he 1?nn,ineer <br />staCed that t.mder Che Planner's proposai, the sewer woul.cl be cutting <br />through lots. Thc I.ngi.neer also po~inted out that t:l,ie soils in the <br />airea are not the best. <br />Scalze stated that t}.te Plannei's proposal would Lit wiCllin Ci.ty Code. <br />i1r. Gollova poi.nted ou[ the area involved, the road bending in tlr.i; <br />area and the Ir.eeway coming around Che b~iclc o:f. Che property. <br />Page -3- <br />