Laserfiche WebLink
<br />will front on Lorain Road. A revised plat was presented to the members showing <br />the Lorain Road portion (block "A"). A resident, Mr. Mingee, advised that the <br />road into this area is paved up to the rear of the adjacent lots on <br />Woodside Drive. Mr. Carlton, project manager for Vienna Woods, explained that <br />this is the fourth phase of the subdivision, block "A" will be the fifth phase. <br />Mr. Gorris questioned if any variances would be required in order to build <br />homes. Mr. Deichmann stated that the lots conform to code, but the Building <br />Department would check for sideyards. In response to P1r. Thomas's questions, <br />Mr. Deichman advised that this development would not take the sewers aver their <br />capacity; that there would be no open culverts. Mr. Carlton clarified that <br />block "A" will be developed for a commercial use, but it is split zoned. Mr. <br />Thomas suggested that the rear property lines adjacent to this block should be <br />brought back to the zone line so that block "A" is all commerciala Mr. Carlton <br />stated that they would be using the residential area for their retention. <br />Assistant Law Director Dubelko advised that the split zoning would ha.ve to be <br />address either by Mr. Thomas's suggestion, or with a restrictive covenant deed <br />that no rezoning would be sought for this portion of the property and it would <br />be used only for retention and would not be developed. He clarified that a <br />commercial retention system could be put on residentially zoned property. Mr. <br />Thomas preferred that the lot lines be changed, since a restrictive covenant <br />could be overturned by the courts at a later date. Mr. Dubelko stated that the <br />deeper lots could be created, but an easement retained by the developer so.that <br />he could use that portion for drainage. The deed restrictions would not ha.ve to <br />be addressed by the City, enforcement would be up to the developer. Mr. Kadar, <br />one of the owners of Vienna Construction, pointed out that a precedant was set <br />by the U-Store-It development because they ha.ve developed the rear portion of <br />the property, and he would might need to used this land as a buffer to shield <br />from that property. He was advised that this was developed illegally and is <br />being contested in court. It was pointed aut that this was one reason not to <br />have split zoned lotsm Mr. Dubelko stated that buffering could be part of the <br />deed restriction. Mr. Mingee wanted information on the proposed homes. Mr. <br />Bartels, also with Vienna construction, advised that the homes would be larger <br />than the existing homes and would be approaching 3,000 squa.re feet, and that <br />they had no definite pTans for block "A". It was clarified that this is a"C" <br />residential zoning, but all of the homes are upgraded from the "C" <br />restrictions. Mr. Thomas doubted that a 3,000 square foot home could be put on <br />a"C" lot. Mr. Bartels stated that it is a"C" zoning, not a"C" lot. Mr. <br />Carlton stated that any house. proposed would have to conform to all <br />regulations. Mr. Kadar stated they would be up scale house, not bare minimums, <br />and the lots conform to "B" restrictions. Mr. Gorris was concerned that the <br />proposed houses would be so large that variances would be required. Mr. Kadar <br />stated that he would withc]raw the proposal, pointing out that if the city does <br />act on the U-Store-It property, he might be able to redesign his <br />subdivision.Mr. Carlton asked that the neighbors present ma.ke their coments at <br />this time so he can take their opinions into consideration when the propsal is <br />redesigned. Mr. Collett, a resident of Gessner, is concerned about water <br />coming from this property and hopes that they can do something. Mr. Lucero, a <br />resident of Gessner, believed that there might be a problem with sewers in <br />their area since theirs is a problem area. Mre Deichmann explained in detail <br />how the sewer system is being repaired and upgraded, concluding that the <br />problems on Gessner would be corrected with the next phase, and that 10 houses <br />would have no effect. It was clarified that the 36 inch sewer was part of their <br />underground retention. Mr. Kadar stated that block "A" was the last of the <br />property to be developed. Mr. Kadar withdrew the proposal. <br />7