10/27/1981 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

a PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 27, 1981 PAGE 2 combined. A variance would probably be required. Mr. Dubelko would like to study the Ordinances further before giving an opinion as to the legality of this rezoning. The neighbors are opposed to the rezoning. The Comruission agrees that this is an erosion of a residential area. R. Perla moved to place the Andrew Rizzo Rezoning Request in committee for a determination from the Law Department as to what code violations there are,if any, and request that the Law Department research the question of no frontage on Lorain Road and the square footage requirement, seconded by T. Morgan, and unanimously approved. (2) Kennedy Acres Subdivision Revised Plan, located south of the intersection of i+Thitethorn Ave. and Kennedy Ridge Road; twenty three (23) sublots proposed from existing parcels 235-4-1, 235-4-18, and 235-4-21. J. Brown moved to take the Kennedy Acres proposal out of Committee, seconded by J. Burns, and unanimously approved. u ? J. Dubelko, Assistant Law Director, distributed copies of the legal opinion requested October 13th and explained each item. The problem of land-locking the Matheis property will not be resolved by making theoriginal s/1 24 into an unbuildable Block "A"; this could be considered condemnation without due process of law. A possible solution would be for the developer to grant a perpetual easement along the northerly boundary line of each parcel for purposes of ingress and egress. Also, he advised that the lots must conform to the Ordinances in effect when the revised plan was submitted, not those in effect when the original presentation of the subdivision was made. Mr.- Bauer was advised tha-L a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals for the depth of sublots 4, 5, 12, 13, 18, 19, 21, & 22, would be necessary before Planning Coaunission could make recommendations of approval to the Council. He also advised that Planning Commission can conditionally approve the sub- division with a notation to Council that there is a violation of the Platting Ordinance with respect to the length of the cul-de-sac which is over 500' and that that requirement would have to be waived since the land could not be reasonable devel- oped otherwise. Mr. Bauer, the Developer, his attorney, P. Gareau and the engineer P. Saylor, were in agreement with these suggestions. They wi11 include the easement as requested and will apply to the Board of Zoning .Anpeals for variance for the depthof some sublots. Mr. Gareau then requested that this plan be ammended so that Block "A" will now revert to sublot 24 as ori;inally platted and that the easement will be granted. The Planning Commission was in ajreement that this was a good use/ for this land which is difficult to develop. The one resident present stated that he was anxious to have the pro- perty developed since the vacant land has created problems, especially since he has been assured that the water problems