Laserfiche WebLink
? <br />construction of the building in the rear. This will incorporate all <br />the suggestions made by the Architectural Review Board as well as <br />the Planning Commission tonight, seconded by T. Morgan. Roll call <br />on motion: Thomas, Morgan, Betts, and Bowen, yes. Mr. Bierman and <br />and Mr: Orlowski, no. Motion carried. <br />VI. NEW DEVELOPMIItTS AND SUBDIVISIONS:: <br />1) Park Ridge Civic Association Location Signs. <br />The proposal is to install two (2) street location "map" signs, one <br />at the Lorain Road entrance to Park Ridge Drive and the other at <br />the Windsor Drive Entrance. <br />Withdrawn by the association. <br />This proposal was withdrawn from the Architectural Review Board <br />meeting and will be presented to them at the September meeting. <br />2) Fdward Hoefer Subdivision. <br />The proposal is to move and re-align the property line between <br />perman,ent parcel nos. 237-24-9 and 237-15-1, located on the south <br />side of Mastick Road, west of Park Lane. Zoning is "A" Residence, <br />Single, and both proposed sublots conform to the Zoning Code. <br />Ms Callahan explainecl that Mr. Hoefer had suffered a stroke and <br />could not be present. She advised that Mr. Hoefer built the house <br />at 24101 Mastick Road forty years ago and subsequently purchased <br />the two adjacent lots. She introduced Mr. Narar who would be <br />purchasing the home and the adjacent lot. Mr. Narar explained that ` <br />he was going to live in the house and believed that the value of <br />the land would be greater if he re-aligns the parcels so that the <br />vacant portion of the lot is buildable. They could sell this lot, <br />or build a house for themselves after the children are gone. He <br />maintained that the bank will appraise the property at.a greater <br />value if the vacant lot is buildatile. City Engineer McDermott <br />explained that the house was originally built over the property <br />line and this subdivision will mve the lot line to the east so the. - - <br />there will be a min;mnn sideline for the house and the vacant lot <br />will conform to the code. The plans did show the.builda.ble area for <br />the house. Mr. Narar maintained that there are no'plans to develop <br />this lot at this time. He repeated that the land will have more <br />value if this lot is buildable, and they may build a a smaller <br />house after their family is raised. He does not believe that the <br />bank would appraise the house for the amount he is going to pay for <br />the property if the second lot was not buildable. Assistant Law <br />Director Dubelko pointed out that there was another vacant lot to <br />the east of the lot in question which had a less than conforming <br />frontage; even though the lot is lawfully nonconforming because it <br />was created prior to the codes it cannot be developed without a <br />variance because there is a coirmion ownership on the land. He <br />pointed out that the owner does have the ability to create two <br />conform;ng lots which would include this additional lot. If he does not include this non-conforming lot, he cannot develop it thus he <br />is creating a self-imposed hardship. Mr. Thomas cannot understand <br />why he would Fay more for the property because he is splitting it <br />? <br />? <br />2 '