Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />City Council <br />Sept, 25, 1985 <br />Market P1ace Kodet stated that it is not impossiUle to build over a sewer 1ine, <br />Expansion but if they cannot do this, the square footage of the building can be <br />(Cont.) cut back to take care of the matter. <br />Scalze pointed out that the addition would be ri~ht next to a dedicated <br />street and there would be no setback. Kodet stated that this would be <br />per.mitted under a PUD. <br />'Che Clerk also pointed out that the Ci.ty can require a setback if it <br />desires under a PUD. <br />Pahey stated that the property should not be handled under a PUD just <br />to ignore Code. <br />Scala.e pointed out that the original plan for the additi.on to the Market <br />Place was much different than chis one. Kodet stated that it was also <br />done at the time that Garden Terrace Apartments was not in existence. <br />Scalze asked how far the addition was off First Sank Drive. Mr. Kodet <br />replied about five £eet. <br />Eahey stated that he felt the PUD across the street should comply ~vith <br />setUacks and this one should as wel.1. Fahey stated that he was not in <br />favor of ignoring setbactc requirements so that the addition can be biggere <br />Mr. Grittman felt that the setback requirements shoulct be compli.ed with. <br />Gri.ttman stated that the setback from a public right-of-way would be <br />40 feet. From non-residential there is no setbaclc and the rearyard <br />seCback would be 20 feet. <br />Scalze asked if there was a dedicated public street in front of Garden <br />Terrace Apartments. The Planner stated that it is shown as a road <br />easement. <br />Pahey stated that the setback requirement may effect the size of the <br />building. Pahey also stated that he was not prepared to waive the <br />setback requirements. <br />Scalze suggested that perhaps a better plan would be for another tier <br />of shops aLong the existing corr.idor. Mr. Kodet stated that a ceriter <br />of this type is more efficient ~oith visible access to each shop. <br />Mr. IIlesener stated that he had a problem with the proposed parking <br />along Middle Street> Fahey agreed and stated that he cvould be willing <br />to waive these parking spaces. <br />Mr. DeLonais expressed concern about the drainage of his property. <br />lleLonais was also concerned about the parki.ng on Middle Street and <br />poi.nted out that Pizza Hut has an access to Middle Drive that wouLd be <br />eliminated by this parking arrangement. DeLonais did not feel that a <br />main thoroughfare shouLd have cars bactcing into it. <br />Page -8- <br />