02/28/2007 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e? • , ? for each business there is no intent to change anything. Cross easements would be established for both the lots which he suggested was common practice with other sites in North Olmsted. His client is not requesting anything out of the ordinary but seeking relief for the family. Les Szarka and his wife would own the rear lot and his brothers and sisters would own the front lot. Ms. Wenger said that while she was sympathetic to the applicant's dilemma she is concerned that potential future owners and the city would be placed in a very awkward situation of having to deal with a non-conforming lot which is almost totally un-developable. As a planner she has to look at the future of the site and though there may be good financial reasons for the split there are no future uses for what the split will create. Mr. Gareau felt that as both buildings were already developed as commercial there would be no future problems. He suggested that the city already granted multiple variances for the office building when it was built and they are just requesting an invisible line to clarify things for the owners. Mr. Malone said he agreed with the planner as one day the restaurant may be gone and the city would have to figure out what to do with the small lot. The number of variances which would be required to develop the lot would be unrealistic. The city has been placed in the same situation before and he would not want to see it happen again. Mr. Szarka felt the matter of variances were moot as they were already granted multiple variance and said the city created the situation by allowing the office building. Ms. Wenger reminded the applicants that they were asking for new property lines, which creates the need for multiple area variances and having both buildings on the parcel was and is allowed by code. If the lot split is granted and a new use is introduced at any time in the future it would exacerbate the situation as there are other issues besides area variances i.e. circulation, parking, emergency access, loading zones a whole multitude of planning issues which haven't been addressed. Mr. Malone asked what types of easements were currently in place. Mr. Szarka said a permanent easement for parking and driveway access was in place. The office building used parking during the day and the restaurant used the parking in the evening. The easement would run with the land and if ownership or use changed that would have to go before the commissions for approval. The Assistant Law Director advised that the board was being asked to create a substantial non-conformance and generally speaking the zoning code was setup to try to eliininate non-conformances in the city. He cautioned the commission that if the city creates a non-conforming lot which is zoned retail use and even if the lot is substandard it is inherently entitled to be used as zone. The city can not apply its zoning code in such a way as to strip all economic liability from the lot. Therefore the city would be grandfathering it now and for all future retail uses. Unfortunately it would be very difficult to restrict or hold any future development on the lot to the code. Mr. Bohlinann did not feel the lot split was unreasonable as he thought the city granted a number of variances to build the office building to begin with. Mr. Mahoney said the existing lot was already non-conforming and splitting the lot would only further the non-conformities of the two lots; however he agreed with Mr. Bohlmann that the city created the situation the owners are now in. Mr. Mahoney asked if the commission had to forward the matter to BZA with recorrunendations. Mr. O'Malley advised that although the commission is required to forward the matter to the BZA they are not obligated to make recommendations on the variances. M. Mahoney moved to forwarcl Corso's 'I'rust, I.ot Split Plat of 29691 Lorain Road to the Board of Zoning Appeals without recommendations from the comanission. M. Meredith 7