Laserfiche WebLink
. • ? <br />zoning code. The required lot width is 150 feet, and the actual widths are approximately 89 feet, <br />89 feet, 107 feet and 81 feet, respectively, measured perpendicular to the mean lot depth line. <br />The proposed Ganley Real Estate Company parcel will conform to the area and lot width <br />requirements of the Zoning Code. <br />The proposed Rozakis Family, LLC parcel will conform to the area and lot width requirements <br />of the Zoning Code. The required area is 40,000 square feet, and the actual area will be <br />approximately 1.2 acres. <br />Ms. Wenger read the following report: <br />This proposal was tabled by the Planning Commission on November 25, 2003 pending City <br />Council's approval of development plans and rezoning of property for a new car dealership and <br />other site improvements. Council's denial of the rezoning caused Ganley to file a lawsuit against <br />the City. The lawsuit was recently settled, so Ganley will be able to proceed with development <br />plans that were approved by Council. The last step in this process is for Planning Commission to <br />approve the lot split and consolidation proposal that is before you. <br />The proposal involves splitting one parcel into two, and consolidating the back portion of the <br />split parcel to four neighboring parcels to the east. The resulting two parcels that would be <br />created both conform to lot area and width requirements of the Zoning Code. Ms. Wenger <br />recommends approval of this proposal. <br />Asst. Law Director O'Malley is concerned about the consolidation plat. Once you consolidate a <br />lot, if it has a split zoning situation, it would present a dilemma. These lots were bowling alley <br />style lots that were severed by zoning district lines years ago. It is recollection that the <br />development plan approved by the Commission was further modified by City Council with <br />additional buffering to the north and was approved. The matter before the Planning Commission <br />is only for the lot consolidation and the lots do conform to code. What is not before you tonight <br />is the settlement agreement. The development plan has not been returned to you for further <br />review and that the resolution of this lawsuit is that this consolidation plat be approved. The <br />residential portion of the land was landlocked. It was left landlocked as a result of the zoning <br />district line that was drawn. There was no plan for the use of the access of the residential portion <br />of the property. The back land remains residentially zoned but some limited commercial use will <br />be permitted as a result of the development. Another consideration is that the Planning <br />Commission and City Council approved the development plan. However, <br />He informed the Commission that they are not expected to review the development issues <br />reviewed a few years ago. <br />Tim Feller, McSteen & Association, came forward. His firm is responsible for preparing the lot <br />consolidation plat. Assistant Law Director O'Malley advised the Commission to ask the <br />applicant if he has ever seen a notation on a consolidation plat that makes reference to a court <br />case or asettlement agreement by volume and page in the court's docket. The settlement