Laserfiche WebLink
second request made was if the board approved the lot split that it be conditioned on the parties <br /> reaching consent to the access and parking questions and no curb cuts. <br /> Mr. Gareau pointed out that the correspondence received in January from Attny. Carson <br /> suggested there was some sort of development plan. The question was that the objections seem to <br /> be more in line with future development proposals versus the lot split. Mr. Carson state that Mr. <br /> Gareau was correct, a lot of the objections were based on a perception of what could happen and <br /> may be viewed as premature; however, his client did not want to be in a future position where <br /> people would question why he didn't object earlier. Mr. Gareau pointed out that there was <br /> already an agreement in place regarding expansion etc. but that would not be allowed to happen <br /> unless all parties agreed. He also explained that they are only looking at the city's code as it <br /> pertains to this particular issue, which is not about the private agreement but simply the city code <br /> and the issue with parking. <br /> Mr. Hudak stated that they planned to continue discussing plans with the mall, mayor and other <br /> businesses to ensure agreements. He also expressed that the shared parking and access would <br /> remain and continue to remain that way for Parcel A, and they are unable to calculate parking <br /> spaces for parking B because they do not have a development plan. Mr. Hudak also defended his <br /> case by using another application for a lot split in 2021 of Harry Buffalo that was approved, and <br /> pointed out that they were not involved with that nor did they feel the need to object, and that <br /> split was also a part of the REA agreement. He ensured that they were in talks with their <br /> neighbors and that another entity went through the same thing with no problem. <br /> Mr. Gareau and Mr. Hudak conversed about the UFA square footage in the code as well as <br /> shared parking options or lesser parking spaces based on a new calculation. Mr. Hudak stated <br /> that if they satisfied the city that if the UFA is a lower number and provided evidence of that. <br /> And showed the number of spaces on parcel a could be reduced. Mr. Gareau stated that the <br /> condition would be to either show a shared parking agreement or show compliance. <br /> Mr. Anderson asked for clarification with the Law Director if it would have been appropriate to <br /> make an agreement between both parties that were present as a condition of the lot split. Mr. <br /> Gareau explained that it would not be appropriate, and the conditions that would be appropriate <br /> would be an approval subjected to with respect to the parking; documentation of shared parking <br /> agreement, or a calculation submission with approval from the engineer showing compliance of <br /> the code, and no access to Country Club Blvd. <br /> Director Upton explained that there was a delay with the county due to a large number of <br /> employees opting for retirement, and the delay was not indicative on their opinion of the lot split. <br /> Ms. Hemann offered that the previous lot split was more of a natural one, and her question was if <br /> they could call a special meeting to see what the talks amounted to with the surrounding <br /> businesses. Mr. Gareau suggested they move this forward with the motion. <br /> Mr. Anderson moved, seconded by Mr. Patton, to approve 22-23456; Star-West Great <br /> 2 <br />