Laserfiche WebLink
.. , ? <br />i: <br />that this easement would have to be thorouglily reviewed to make sure all water <br />retention requirements for Parcel "A" were covered, but ha.ving the system on <br />parcel "A" would preferable only from the standpoint of having everything on the <br />parcel that is required to serve that pareela Mr. Neff pointed out that most of <br />the water drainage fell toward Mill Road (toward parcel "B"). Assistant Law <br />Director Dubelko stated that this would be an Engineering Depa.rtment decision, <br />not the legal department's. Neighbors, Mr. Hoelter and Mra and Mrs. Herbster had <br />several concerns: back yards-are flooding now, and this might make it worse; the <br />property is not very well maintained now, if it is split off from the agency, the <br />condition could become worse; would like to lmow what is proposed for the <br />property after it is joined to the Sherwin Williams property, and pointed out it <br />is di.fficult to turn into or out of Mill Road now; and finally Mill Road is not <br />wide enough to handle much more traffic than •it has. Mr. Thomas stated that a <br />subdi.vision would not be needed to establish a lease on a portion of the <br />property. The subdivision can be presented once the Engineering Department's <br />concerns have been resolvedo Mr. Deichmarm again explained what was needed in the <br />easement agreement. Mr. Thomas stated that he tmderstood that the E.P.A. had not <br />cleared the Sherwin Williams property and if there is standing water there might <br />be contamination. He would like to know what has leen inspected, what needs to be <br />done, etc. There is no guarantee that this segnent will be sold and parcel "A" <br />can be leased without the subdivision. Mr. Gorris agreed and pointed out that the <br />Sherwin Williams property is one of the focus areas to be studied for the master <br />plan. Mr. Neff asked the Commission to outline all of their concerns, and pointed <br />out that they had agreed to provide an easement to ma.intain the storm water <br />retentions system. Mr. Orlowski stated that this system might not be adequate at <br />the present and there could be problems down the line and the Commission woiald <br />like the Engineering Department to take a look at it. Mr. Neff responded that, at <br />this time, they will be adding nothing new and this system had been approved <br />previously. Mr. Deichmann stated that the back yard water problems that exist in <br />the area may or may not be related to the existing storm water retention on this <br />property. This could not be determined without extensive field work to do a <br />topographic survey to see what the limits of the drainage problems are, and the <br />Engineering Department wolald not ha.ve the manpower or the funds to do such a <br />survey. Mr. Thomas restated his concerns about standing water which might be <br />contam;nated; if the Sherwin Williams property had been cleared by the E.P.A.; <br />and proof of adequacy of the retention system which he would expect the owner of <br />the property to provide.. Mr..Neff statcd that the City ha.d approved the retention <br />system in the past, nothing is being changed now, they are only sepaxating a <br />portion of the lot. Mr. Gorris reiterated that this parcel is to be studied in <br />conjunction with the master plan and this lot consolidation would open up <br />frontage on Mill Road. A1r. Deichmann again explained what was needed for the <br />easement to drain water onto another property, and reiterated that he had no <br />problem with an easement if it is done properly since it is- an existing system, <br />if there comes a time when a development is proposed for this property, then the <br />developer must submit the topographic survey which should go about 30 feet beyond <br />the property. It was clarified for a neighbor that this easement would be <br />permanent. The members agreed that there was no rush to subdivide the property. <br />Mr. Orlowski pointed out that if this is tabled it would give the County Plann;ng <br />Commission a chance to look'at the parcel. Nir. Lum pointed out that if the <br />subdivisian was approved, and subsequently when a proposal is presented for the <br />property, it must be approved by the Commission. Mr. Thomas again stated that <br />there would be no hardship in not subdividing the parcel immediately, and this <br />would give the Commission a chance to review the property. The developers agreed <br />to have the proposal tabled. J. Thomas moved to table the proposal for the <br />8