10/27/1992 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

add those three spaces at this time, the developer has provided drawings indicating the landbanking of sufficient parking for those three spaces should the use of the building change in the future or should it be deemed in the future that these spaces are required, seconded by A. Skoulis, and unanimously approved. IV. NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND SUBDIVISIONS: 1) Natesan/Telegdy Lot Split -_Preliminary Plan. The proposal is to split permanent parcel rnimber 231-29-13, located on the north side of Lorain Road west of Gessner Road, into two (2) parcels. The existing parcel has frontage on both Lorain Road and Gessner Road, and has split zoning: approximately half the existing parcel (fronting Lorain Road) is zoned General Retail, Business, and the north half (fronting Gessner Road) is zoned "C"-Residence, Single. The proposed rear lot line for both sublots coincides with the zone line. The sublot fronting Lorain Road does not conform to the Zoning Code-requirements for frontage and areaa City Engineer Deichmann advised that the lot facing Lorain Road is non- conforming at this time. Mr. Gorris clarified that the lot is to be split along the zone line to make two lots, a commercial lot which will not conform, and a residential lot which will conform. Mr. and Mrs. Telegdy, present owners of the property, and Dr. and Mrsa Natesan, the purchasers, presented the proposal. Mrse Telegdy explained that the adjacent lots have all beeri converted to commercial use and Dr. Natesan has a proposal in the Building Department to alter the 75 foot wide lot for a commercial use. The rear portion (facing Gessner) has a 60 foot frontage and is buildable. Mr. Deichmann clarified that this is not actually a subdivision plat, it is basically a conceptual plan. Assistant Law Director Dubelko clarified that this will have to be referred to the Board of Zoni.ng Appeals for a variance because the lot split will be creating a non-conforming lot which will be less conforming than it was prior to the lot split. Mrs. Telegdy pointed out that the residential lot will conform. Dr. Natesan stated the no matter what is done with the rear property, it will not affect the front, since the zoning line runs down the middle of the lot. Mr. Dubelko responded that there could be other options (such as requesting that the zone line be moved) and this should go through the variance process. It was clarified that a house fronting on Gessner could be built on this lot without a variance if it met all other codes. Mr. Gorris believed that this proposal makes sense. Building Conunissioner Conway pointed out that if the existing house is converted to a commercial use variances could be required. The proposal was explained to Ms. Smith, a neighbor on Gessner, who was concerned that an absentee landlord might own the residential property because there have been problems with that on the street. Mrs. Peppers, a neighbor, was advised that no commercial driveway could be constructed on Gessner Road. It was clarified that after the variance is granted a proper plat would ha.ve to be submitted to the Commission. B. Gorris moved to refer the Natesan/Telegdy Lot Split to the Board of Zoning Appeals with the recorrunendation that they approve the variance on the basis that it makes sense not to have split zoned lots, seconded by R. Tallon, and unanimously approved. Chairman Gorris requested that the Gessner Road residents be notified when the coirunercial proposal comes before the Planning Commission, even though that would not be required after the lot split. 2) Ivanoff Lot Split. The proposal is to split permanent parcel No. -235-6-5, located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Butternut Ridge and Kennedy Ridge Roads, into two (2) parcels. Zoning is "A"-residence, single, entirely, and both sublots conform to the zoning code requirements for frontage and area. 2 ?__ -