06/28/1988 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 28, 1988 PAGE 4 testing laboratory would be required to ascertain if any disturbance to the area would add to the erosion or the city could require a slab house. Mr. Dubelko advised that the owner has a right to develop his property, that the city can only enforce the ordinances, but, if the construction did cause damage to adjacent properties, the developer would be respon- sible, not the city. He stated that the Commission is merely looking at the subdivision in respect to its conformance to the codes. Since the developer was not present the proposal will be continued. T. Morgan moved to continue the Gustafson lot split until the next meeting, seconded by R. Bierman. Roll call on motion: Morgan,.Bierman, Betts, Gorris, and Traczyk, yes. 14r. Thomas, no. Motion carried. 2) Underwood Lot Split and Assembly Plat The proposal is to subdivide permanent parcel no. 237-21-9, which fronts on Mastick Road, and to combine the north (rear) section of that parcel, and also permanent parcel no. 237-21-10 (currently landlocked) with permanent parcel no. 237-23-68 which has frontage on Mastick Road, Clague Road, and Brookpark Road. The zoning is Residence, Multiple to a distance of 450 feet.south of the Brookpark Road Centerline and "A" Residence, Single, on the other land to Mastick Road. Proposed sublot no: 2, fronting on Mastick Road, does not (nor did not before the proposal) conform to the Zoning Code requirement of 80 feet frontage in an "A" Residence, Single Zone. Mr. Boyer explained that the zoning line splits the.property facing . Brookpark Road (sublot 2) with 450 feet (from the center line of Brookgark) zoned Multi-Family and the balance zoned Single Residential and that sublot 2 will be assembled to adjacent property which also is split zoned. The proposal was presented by the realtor who stated the the Engineering Department had required that this rear portion be assembled so that it would not be landlocked and that they were also advised to include perma- nent parcel 237-21-10 which was already landlocked. The oraners of the rear property were not present, but Mrs. Resman.and Mrs. Balog, owners of the permanent narcel 237-21-9, explained that they.were selling the rear lot to the owners of the adjacent Iand;ibut did.not know what plans they had for it. Assistant Law Director Dubelko advised the Commission that a two foot variance for the lot facing Mastick Road would be needed since 80 foot frontage is required; and further advised that the assembly piat not-be approved because of previous problems caherein the city approved- assembly of split zoned lots and; when praposal was in court for re-zoning9 the court stated such an assembly was irrational. He suggested splitting off the lot at the zone line, or having the developer request a rezoning for the residential property prior to splitting.the lot. A neighbor (speak- ing from the audience) pointed out that when a previous proposal was discussed for part of this land, the developers were advised that the residentially zoned property must remain green area. T. Morgan moved to approve the Underwood Lot Split and Assembly Plat to subdivide permanent parcel no. 237-21-9, which fronts on Mastick Road, and to combine the north (rear) section of that parcel, and also oermanent parcel no. 237-21-10 (currently landlocked) with permanent parcel no. 237-23-68 which has frontage on Mastick Road, C14gue Road, and Brookgark Road, seconded by J. Thomas. Roll call on motion: Thomas, Morgan, Betts, Bierman, Gorris, and Traczy.k, no., Motion failed to pass..