Laserfiche WebLink
?•.?- ? <br />2) Vienna Woods Lot Split. " <br />The proposal is to subdivide permanent parcel No. 231-27-03 which fronts on Lorain Road, into two <br />(2) parcels..Proposed Sublot `B", which will remain fronting on Lorain Road, is split-zoned: mostly <br />Retail, Business, General, but having a"C" Residence, Single, strip at the north (rear) portion. <br />Proposed Sublot "A" is zoned "C" Residence, Single Entirely. Both proposed sublots conform to <br />zoning code requirements for area and frontage. -_. <br />Mr. Kadar, developer, and Mr. Lambros, attorney, presented the plans. Mr. Lambros explained that <br />they are splitting the parcel for sublot "A" which will be residential and sublot "B" which fronts Lorain <br />Road. Assistant City Engineer McDermott pointed out that the lot is not.being split at the zone line and, <br />if it is subdivided tlus way, it will be split zoned. Mr. Tallon estimated that the property line is about 100 <br />feet off the existing zone line, and suggested that he split the property at the zone line. Mr. Lambros <br />stated that the property to the east (U-Store-It) was rezoned for retail, so they would like to keep this <br />portion as a buffer area. It was clarified later that U-Store-It had received a variance, and it had not <br />been rezoned. Mr. Tallon explained that the city has been trying to el'niuate split zoning, since later on <br />someone might try to rezone the residential portion to retail and they prefer not to approve a split zoned <br />lot. W. Lambros stated that this property could be used for water retentiou and a buffer zone. If they <br />split the lot at the zone line, Mr. Kadar advised that if they must include it in the subdivision, so there <br />would be long narrow lots and they would lose the buffer between residential and retail. He stated that <br />they had planned 12 residential sublots for the parcel. It was pointed out that the setback would be <br />measured from the residential zoning line, so a building could not be put right on the property line. Mr. <br />Lambros repeated that the commercial property neact door had been extended into residentially zoned <br />property. Mr. Tallon clarified that a variance had been granted beeause the buildings encroached <br />illegally. Mr. Lambros thought that maybe they should get a variance or rezoning because the U-Store- <br />It property created a hardship for their property. The members discussed the plans. Mr. McDermott <br />advised that the zone line was 500 feet from the centerline. Mr. Herbster noted that the residential <br />section would be landlocked. Mr. Tallon scaled the plans and questioned why they could not add one or <br />two more residential sublots. Mr. Kadar responded that he had attempted to lay it out several ways and <br />a 12 sublot subdivision on a cul-de-sac was about all they could do, and if they had to include this <br />residential portion in the subdivision, there would be long nanow lots on the south which would detract <br />from their value. Mr. Tallon believed that they, could get two more lots out of that property by iuuning a <br />street along the parcel to the east. The developers studied the plan. Mr. Lambros stated that they will <br />study to see if they could add more lots, but if they.cannot, they do not want to have a neighbor closer <br />to the commercial area. when they develop it. Mr. Tallon stated that the .property will stay residential, <br />but the city does not want to create a split zoned lot. Mr. Lambros responded that they know they <br />cannot use the 200 foot strip, even if it is attached to the commercial property, but by putting it on the <br />residential side, they might have to tack it on the sublots above it. After some discussion, Mr. Tallon <br />suggested that a deed restrictiou could be put on that strip so that they could never build on it, and <br />could never get a variance. Mr. Tallon would lilce a clarification on this by the Law Department. Mr. <br />Lambros agreed and asked if they would grant the subdivision based on the approval of the Law <br />Department of the deed restriction. Mr. Kadar e}cplained to Mrs. Abbott, a neighbor, that the only way <br />they could split the property at the zone linewould be to be add that portion to the residential property <br />making long narrow lots which would be closer to the commercial property when they develop it. She <br />could not understand what difference it made which property the residential land was added to. She <br />would like to have the area left natural. Mr. Tallon explained the commission was concerned about it <br />being rezoning or getting a variance. He asked the developers to take the proposal back and try to <br />reconfigure the property to get as many houses on the property as possible. Meantime, the commission <br />will refer,this to the Law Department for their opinion on the deed restriction, and tlus proposal will <br />3