03/09/1993 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

? . - .?-. -- ..? -, that normally a developer is allowed 60 days, but if no representative is present, that should not apply. L. Orlowski moved to table the Little Cottage Doll House, 30036 Lorain Road, proposal to determine if "Reader and Advisor" is a like and similar use as specified in section 1139.01(b) and as required in Section 1123.10, seconded by A. Skoulis, and una.nimously approved. Chairman Gorr-is requested that the Clerk advise the. board prior"to the expiration of the 60 day period. Mr. Dubelko stated that the new code required that the 60 day period starts with Planning Commissions first review of the proposal. IV o NEW DEVEIAPMENrS AND SUBDIVISIONS : 1) Cleveland Electric Illuminating Companp Assembly and Lot Split Plat, Resubmission. The proposal is to combine and re-subdivide all or part of Permanent Paxcel Nos. 237-5-1, 237-5-3, 237-5-23 and 237-7-18 into two (2) parcels. This revised proposal was originally reviewed by Planning Conunission an January 12, 1993, Proposal was continued from the February 23, 1993 Planning Comnission meeting. 11. At the last meeting, Assistant Law Director Dubelko had submitted a letter advising that he did have some concerns about the proposale Vice Chairman Orlowski explained that he tabled this because he N,Tas not sure if Mr. Dubelko preferred that the property be rezoned rather than placing a restrictive covenant on the ane parcel. Mr. Dubelko advised that as the property stands now, there is access onto Lorain Road, however after the subdivision is approved, this General Retail property would have no access except anto.a residential street. Although he would prefer that the property be rezoned, such a rezoning would have to be approved by a referendun, which could be defeated. Mr. Skoulis questioned if the restrictive covenant would stand up in court. Mr. Dubelko responded that he could see no reason why it would not, but if someone did sue it might be overturned. Mr. Skoulis noted that Uniter3 Survey is apparently going to buy the property, and. would probably agree to the terms of the aovenant, however a subsequent owner could file a law suit. Mre tzorris pointed out that if the rezoning was defeated, the owner could appea.l to the court because he had been denied the use of his land. After some discussion, it was decided tha.t a restrictive covenant limi-ting the use of the lot to Multi-Family would be sufficient. Mr. Dubelko wants both the present owner and the equitable owner to join in exeeuting the deed. Since there was no representative present; it was decided to table the proposal until a representative of both the awner and United Survey, the prospective buyer, are present. Mr. Dubelko clarified that he would want both parties to sign the covenant. B. Gorris moved to table the C.E.I. Assembly and Lot Split Plat, Resubmission imtil some one representing the developers is present, in the meantime the Clerk is to contact the developers and advise them that the Conuni.ssion would be agreeable to a restrictive covenant an this parcel provided that restrictive covenant _is agreed to by both parties as outli.ned by Mr. Dubelko, seconded by K. 0'Rourke, and tmanimously approved. Mr. Dubelko clarified that if both parties are agreeable, he will draw up the covenant. 2) Duane Road Right-Of-Way Dedication Plat. The proposal, by the City, is to accept for Right-Of-Way Dedication, a twenty (20) foot wide strip adjacent to the existing north line of Duane Road, which is needed for roadway improvements. City Engineer Deiehmann explained that the originally recorded plat for the north half of Duane Road was defective and during construction of the road,. it was discovered that instead of a 40 foot width, the city only owned a 20 right of way which was not sufficient for the road which was to be constructed in place of 4