03/26/2007 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, . J. Burke moved to table Parcel E N. Olmsted Town Center their request for variance (1123.12) which comsisted of a sign package for Bldg "C". N. Sergi seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Corso's/Szarka Trust, Lot Split Plat; 29691 Lorain Road (WRD # 3) Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of a lot split and the following variances are requested: 1. A 50.26 foot variance for lot width (south parcel), (code requires 150 ft, applicant shows 99.74 ft). 2. A 1.1146 acre variance for lot area (north parcel), (code requires 1.5 acres, applicant shows 0.3854 acre). 3. A 13,451 squaxe foot variance for lot area (south parcel), (code required 40,000 sq ft, applicant shows 26,549 sq ft). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section 1139.06. Mr. Gareau Sr., Attorney for the applicant and Mr. Szarka the owner each came forward to be sworn in and address the request. Mr. Gareau Sr. advised that the synopsis he submitted explained his client's situation. Mrs. Diver questioned if she understood the packet correctly, the request is basically for a mortgage and the land is owned by two different family members and the restaurant is owned by someone else. Mr. Szarka reviewed that the land is owned by a trust, the restaurant is owned by a trust and the rear building is owned by he and his wife. If either owner wishes to take a mortgage they have to purchase both buildings. They are just trying to clarify property boundaries and individual ownership. The use, owner, nor buildings will be changed it is just creating invisible lines. Mr. Burke voiced that granting the request creates two non-conforming lots. If either building is ever sold or damaged enough to require replacing the lots would be unusable and require a multitude of area variances. Mr. Gareau Sr. referenced other similarities within North Olmsted and in particular the mall site. To lease a building without addressing the ?land creates issues for bankers and county taxes. Mrs. Diver noted the synopsis implied there was no case of law on record to address their matter. She questioned why the city should be asked to take on the burden which the family has created themselves. Mr. Gareau Sr. felt that his synopsis being referenced was to show that the site was already developed therefore the Planning & Design Commission concerns were unfounded. He felt there was no other way for the family to resolve the matter. Mr. Szarka advised that Corso's who leases the restaurant from the family trust via a lease has first option to purchase the restaurant. However now he would have to purchase the restaurant, and rear office building both. Splitting the lot would allow the restaurant leaser to purchase the restaurant without having to purchase the rear building. Mrs. Sergi asked if the Corso's were family members. Mr. Szarka said they were not part of the Szarka family trust. Mrs. Diver read aloud excerpts from the Planning & Design Commission minutes. Mr. Gareau Sr. felt that the planner was concerned over future development but the lots are developed so her concerns were urulecessary and any risks being talcen are those of the applicant not the city. Mr. O'Malley reviewed chapter 1101.07 D Minor Subdivisions and how the board should proceed in their review of the request. He advised that family and trust issues were not relevant to the request. The board is addressing the applicants request relevant to lot width, depth and area only. Mr. Burke felt that the property could yield a reasonable return without variances. The variances being requested are substantial. The character of the neighborhood at this time would not be altered substantially but would be in the future. Governmental services would not be affected. The property owner purchased the property with the knowledge of the issues in fact created the issues before the board. The matter can be resolved through other methods then variances. Mrs. + 1 Diver thought legally it would be expensive to go through what would be needed to resolve the matter. However granting the variances would create 2 non-conforming lots and the lot as is, is a conforming lot. Mr. Burke the spirit and intent of the law would not be observed through granting 4