07/22/1997 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Deiclunaun advised this is not a problem as Mr. and Mrs. Burgess have already sigaed. He confirmed a representative from each landowner was not necessary. Mr. Tallon clarified that Mr. Burgess intends to purchase the rear of parcel three, and questioned if the Browns own parcel two. Mr. Brown reiterated he owns parcel two and rents out the house on this parcel. Mr. Brennan questioned if the request is to consolidate all these parcels. Mr. Brown advised parcel one will be increased by a single lot and the other parcels are being reduced by a lot. It was noted parcel one does not front on new Columbia and the only access is off of old Columbia. Mr. Tallon questioned if this proposal will make lots two and three less conforming. Mr. Deichmaun advised the parcels will conform to the area requirements, however they do not currently conform to the frontage requirements and the proposal will not chauge this in any way. Mr. Tallon coufirmed the lots would not be less conforming if this consolidation is permitted. He opened the discussion up for the audience, but no interest was expressed. R Tallon moved to approve the Brown and Burgess, Lot Split and Consolidation Plat. which includes re-aligning interior properiy lines of Permauent Parcel Nos. 236-2-006, 236-23- 019, and 233-23-0331 Location is between original Columbia Road (south of Buttemut Ridge Road), relocated Columbia Road (SR252); *and Butternut Ridge Road. Zoning is "A"-Residence, Single Family, entirely: All- proposed parcels conform to the area requirements of the Zoning Code; proposed parcels 2 and 3 do not; nor do they currently, conform to the frontage requirement, it was clarified the commission is not making these lots any less non-conforming. The motion was seconded by K. O'Rourke and unanimously approved. 2) Broxboume Road Extension (east): Improvement Plans. The proposal is to extend /continue Broxboume Road `(pavement and water main) approximately two hundred thirty seven (237) feet to tlie east within a platted.right-of-way and fronting five (5) platted lots. Note that the proposed pavement conforms to the existing adjacent pavement (asphalt), but not to current city standards (concrete). Mr. Mowinski, presented the proposal and advised he owns lot.numbers 156, 158, and 160. The members reviewed the proposal.. Mr. Herbster asked vvhy this street extension is not being done in concrete. Mr. Mowinski responded Broxbourne Road is an asphalt street and he wanted to keep it uniform. Mr. Manning advised the city is currently going through the asphalt streets and putting in new concrete. City Engineer Deichmaun advised the city has replaced many of the older asphalt streets with concrete, however improvements to Broxboume are not on the books for at least two years. Mr. Manning questioned if improvements to Broxboume have been d.iscussed. Mr. Deichmann clarified it has been discussed, however nothing will be started for at least two years. Mr. Mowinski agreed to complete the Broxboume extension in concrete. It was noted the street e}rtension will be approximately 237 feet long. Mr: Tallon did not believe this was big enough as 60 foot of frontage is required for the five lots; which would mean the street would have to be much longer: Mr. Mowinski advised the lots have been platted for several years at 48 feet widths. Mr. Deichmann confinned the lots are already platted as legallots of record. He clarified this part of Broxboume was dedicated, the lots have already been platted and approved by plannuig commission. These lots have sewer connections and are legal lots of record accord.ing to the tax maps. Mr. Deichmaun explained the water main will have to be'installed as per today's `Cleveland Water Department requiTements. He recommended that the pavement be 3