My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02/27/1990 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1990
>
1990 Planning Commission
>
02/27/1990 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:31:37 PM
Creation date
1/29/2019 5:03:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1990
Board Name
Planning Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
2/27/1990
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
- .? <br />w <br />PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27, 1990 PAGE 2 <br />Chairman Thomas explained that this proposal was tabled since the plans <br />presented did nbt show r.tuch buffering or landscaping. Revised nlans have <br />been presented. Mr. Gavin, attorney, stated again that it was not feasible <br />economically to-use this lot residentially since it is substantially less <br />than the minimum width required for lots in this area; and also it abuts <br />two commercial par.cels, one of which belongs to Mr. Georgalis. It is his <br />intention to use this parcel for parking for the restaurant on his property. <br />14r. Gavin explained .that the new plans show three types of fencing; a con- <br />crete wa11; a board on board fence; or a chain link fence with slats and <br />he believed that the concrete wall would be best adjacent to the homes and <br />the board on board or chain link adjacent to the yard. It was determined <br />that the driveway was about 20 feet wide and would maintain two way traffic. <br />Mr. Thomas clarified that the Commission was not reviewing the plans at <br />this time, only the rezoning; the plans were requested only to show <br />approximately what this would look like. Because of the required 50 <br />foot buffer, Mr. Gavin claimed that no building could be built on this <br />lot. Mr. Betts pointed out that if the present restaurant were torn down, <br />a building could be constructed to within 3 feet of the property line. <br />In response to the Commission's questions., Mr. Georgalis advised that he <br />only owned the one restaurant, and did not own either of the adjacent <br />ones; and that no assembly of the property was proposed at this time. <br />Building Commissioner Conway stated that he is concerned since the front- <br />age is on Silverdale, this lot line (adjacent to the xesidence) becomes <br />a sideyard and the required sideyard buffer becomes 5 feet, so theoretically <br />a 30 foot wide building could be constructed facing Silverdale. Mr. Gavin <br />stated that they would agree to a condition that no sturcture would be <br />built on this parcel. Assistant Law Director Dubelko stated that this <br />might not stand up if a new owner took over the property. After some <br />discussion with the owner, Mr. Gavin stated that they would agree to a <br />deed restriction.that no structure would ever be built on this parcel. <br />hlr. Dubelko agreed that this could be enforced. 14r. Betts pointed out <br />that a new building could still be built to within 3 feet of this property. <br />Mr. Conway further advised that the property would not have to be assembled <br />with the front parcel in order to be used for parking. Mr. Hoyte, the <br />adjacent neighbor, advised that he was told by a builder that this property <br />could be developed residentially; and pointed out that there were many <br />smaller lot on the street. He questioned why Mr. Georgalis needs more <br />parking since this restaurant has changed hands four times in the last <br />two years. He claimed that Mr. Georgalis has told him of some plans to <br />purchase the adjacent Arby's after their lease is up for some t_ype of <br />master plan. Mr. Hoyte also pointed out that Mr. Georgalis does not maintain <br />his property at the present time, and probably will not when this is a <br />parking lot. He advised that there are two residentail lots adjacent to <br />this property and that he purchased his property from Mr. Georgalis without <br />being told that a rezoning was going to be requested for the adjacent lot. <br />Mr. Conway advised that a house could be built on.this lot with the approval <br />of the Board of Building Code Appeals, and theoretically a 27 foot wide <br />house would conform, however he could not answer to the feasibility of this <br />lot being used residentially. Mr. Gavin responded that since a 60 foot <br />wide lot is requzred this is a tremendous variance and it must be considered <br />that the property is next to two commercial lots. Mr. Thomas agreed but <br />stated that he is sure there will be some type of expansion, the present <br />building will not stay as is. Mr. Gavin suggested that probably it would <br />be best to tear down both buildings and build a conforming.structure, <br />but pointed out that P1r. Georgalis did not own botli buildings. He stated
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.