09/10/2002 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

;r ? home in terms of ininimum square footage within the structure, but grants a bit more leeway in terms of the roads, yards, setback. And grants a considerable amount of discretion to the Planning Commission to deterinine and grant exceptions from the subdivision layout. It is not a function of the Board of Zoning Appeals to allow for these exceptions, it is a function of the Planning Commission when a plan comes before it. Another feature of a single-family cluster in reference to the road, is it doesn't necessarily have to be a dedicated public street. It can be a private drive but it remains subject to the engineer's review for the standards in terms of materials, length and width. Councilman McKay again addressed the board. He pointed out that Mr. Margolius owns the property that is multi-family and single-family. Mr. McKay said his last conversation with Mr. Margolius lead him to believe that Mr. Margolius was waiting to see the results of the Parcel E case. He may also have been waiting to see if he could get an access onto Brookpark Rd. without paying the state the money it feel they deserve, which is substantial. Mr. McKay said he believes it would be an objection to Mr. Margolius to rezone it anything less than what he already has. He believes his intention is to develop it as apartments or multi-family of some nature. His biggest hold up was the access to Brookpark. Mr. Stephens asked for clarification on the master plan. He said it shows their property already anticipated to be single-family cluster, which is in error, and it should be multi-family. He said either category is more than the existing single-family zoning. Mr. O'Malley indicated he would review what he said earlier. Table 8.2 indicates existing zoning classification for what they have described as undeveloped parcel number 41 as single-family cluster and that is clearly an error. He does not believe that in 1992 it was single-family cluster. It was also in error with respect to the balance of the property that is the neighbor to the east because he believes that was multiple residence at that time as well. Mr. Stephens asked if the master plan right now suggests that it is more applicable to be a multi-family zoning. Mr. O'Malley said that is correct and when the commission did the master plan they didn't expect that any of the land would continue to be single residence A. Mr. Stephens said it is not their intention to go that route. They would like to develop the land and have a smooth transition between the neighborhood that is concerned about having multi-family in their backyard and them wanting to develop the land with the constraints of how the property is shaped. They feel this is a very compromising zone. He pointed out that Mr. O'Malley said the board can make a recoinmendation and he feels the single-family cluster has far less density than the multi-family, which the master plan has already set out. He does not believe the board should have a problem making that recommendation to City Council. Mr. Spalding indicated they need all of the information in order to move forward. He is not willing to make any recommendation at this point. Mr. Stephens said what they do have is a master plan that suggests that the best use would be multi-family which has much higher density than what they are suggesting. Mr. Koeth said he would like to move forward and have a working session which would include the building department, the law department, Mr. 1VIcKay, Mr. Corsi, and if possible, Mr. Margolius to discuss this property. They will try to accommodate everyone. The work session will be a question and answer meeting and they can invite the residents along to listen. Mr. Spalding suggested getting professional planning input. Mr. Smerigan was mentioned. Mr. Rymarczyk asked Mr. O'Malley if the commission has to report to Council within 60 days of the application. Mr. O'Malley said if there is an application for rezoning, unless the applicant waives time, it would be appropriate to docket this and it inight be prudent and conservative to even track it back to the date it was filed, depending on how long it's been waiting to be heard by the Planning Commission. The most conservative interpretation would be from the date they filed the reQuest for rezoning as opposed to from this date forward. He said this is an important point. It is not uncommon for an applicant to indicate in writing a waiver of time and consent to a timetable that the Planning Commission might outline. Mr. Stephens indicated they are close to the 60 days right now. There were no Planning Commission meetings last month. They have an option on the property. He said their concern is more for the neighborhood and what they have committed to people they have met. Mr. Koeth said the neighbors should consider that. The land is going to be developed one way or the other. He reminded them that the board represents the neighbors and they look at that side first. Mrs. Kucera asked if the driveway would be considered in the rezoning. Mr. Koeth indicated it would. He pointed out the next meeting is scheduled for September 24, 2002 and he asked if they would still be within the 60 days. Mr. O'Malley said if the applicant would concur on 11