10/26/1993 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. the first lot to the north of their property is a 75 foot wide parcel and the lots on Barton Road are various sizes. Mrs. 0'Rourke questioned why these lots could not be split equally, instead of one being smaller. He responded that they could, but they were trying to have only one which did not meet the 70 frontage requirement. Mr. Thoma.s stated that he has viewed the property and, from the developers point of view, this lot split makes sense, but it might set a precedent for the Commission to create a parcel this size. Mr. Grendell stated tha.t these lots are deep and on the last lot the house will be setback farther and a mound with trees will be installed to bu.ffer from the 1ot on the south. Mr. Orlowski believed it would be better to rezone these lots instead of developing them imder Mixed Use. Mr. Dubelko agreed that it would be cleaner to rezone block "A" to "B" Residence and request a variance•on the one lot. Considering the depth of the lots he did not thirik there would be a problem with a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Grendell stated that the Planning Commission would ha.ve more authority imder the Mixed Use zoning. Mr. Dubelko stated that if this was developed under Mixed Use, the owners would have to amend their preliminary land use plan which originally showed this as Block "A", to clearly show this as a single family residential useo The Planning Commission would have the same discretion as with any Mixed Use development. He does not believe that this would be as clean as it would be if it were rezoned unless these homes were to be tied into the CinnamOri Woods development. Mr. Orlowski would prefer to rezone the property. Mr. Grendell stated that this property could be developed for cluster housing up to Barton Itoad but that would not be in keeping with the rest of Barton Road. Mr. Gorris assured him tha.t there was a general consensus of the Commission to it rezone to "B" Residence and to suggest that a variance be granted considering that these are deep lots, but he is eoncerned that this might set a precedent. Mr. Dubelko stated that he would not have a problem defending that in court. It was clarified that there were 3 lots between these lots and the Cinnamon Woods drive. Mr. Dubelko advised that it would be appropriate for the developer to withdraw the request for a lot split and ask that Planning Commission initiate a rezoning of Block "A"• and then refer to Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Grendell agreed to withclraw as long as the Commission is willing to recommend the variance. L. Orlowski moved to request that the Law Department initiate an ordinance for the rezoning of Block "A'" of the recorded (volwne 262 page 50) Cinnamon Woods Dedication Plat to change that from Mixed Use "D" to a "B" Residence zoning, seconded by J. Thomas, and unanimously approved. ITI • BUILDING DEPARTMIINT REQUESTS :( resLUned) 4) Ice Cream Parlor/Restaurant, 27045 Lorain Road. Proposal to construct new building (existing building will be demolished). Heard by Architectural Review Board October 20, 1993. Mr. Isabella, developer, and Mr. Benik; owner, presented revised plans. Mr. Zergott, of the Architectural Board, had reviewed the landscape plan and believed that there was too much money _put into the side landscape buffers and had suggested that the plantings on the side be gathered into groups and spend additional money an landscaping in the front. It was clarified that they would still be installing the mechanical units in the recessed area as originally planned, and had only mentioned at the Architectural Board meeting that there was a problem with the screening and had suggested placing the units in another location as had been done an another building. Building Commissioner Conway had then advised that the location of the units on that other building had been the subject of some controversy. Mr. Conway clarified that there had been discussion about moving the units, but if they did move them they woutd have to return to 4