Laserfiche WebLink
W.1_.r_1 <br />CITY OF NORTH OLMSTED <br />PLANNING CONIlVIISSION <br />NIINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 <br />1. ROLL CALL: <br />Chairman Tallon called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. <br />Present: D. Cameron Alston, T. Brennan, K. O'Rourke, and R. Tallon. <br />Mr. Herbster arrived during the meeting. <br />Also Present: Assistant Law Director Dubelko, City Engineer Deichinaun, Bu.ilding Commissioner <br />Conway, and Clerk of Commissions Oring. <br />Chairman Tallon advised that New Developments would be heard first. <br />U. REVIEW AND CORRECTION OF MINUTES: <br />R. Tallon moved to correct page 2, 6th line, of the minutes of June 24, 1997 to read single stM <br />building, not single family as stated in the motion for Rite Aid. The motion was seconded by K <br />O'Rourke, and unanimously approved. <br />R. Tallon moved to accept the minutes of July 22, 1997 as presented, seconded by T. Brennan, and <br />unanimously approved. <br />N. NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND SUBDIVISIONS: (Heard at this point). <br />1) J. & K Builders Lot Split <br />The proposal is to split Permanent Parcel No. 234-17-037 into.two (2) Lots. Location is the south side <br />of Bretton Ridge Drive. Zoning is "A" Residence, Single entirely; one proposed sublot (with an existing <br />house) conforms to Zoning Code requirements, but the other proposed sublot is deficient in required <br />area, depth, and rear yard set back variance will be required. <br />Mr. G. Matheou, builder, stated that they are currently building a house in Cambridge Crossings which <br />is adjacent to the lot in question. He would like to build a house on this lot for himself. He believed that <br />having a house on this property would benefit the owner; who would not have to maintain the extra <br />property; would benefit him since he would be closer to work; and would benefit the community since it <br />would be a new home in an area of older homes. Chairman Tallon noted that this lot does not meet the <br />code requ.irements for area, depth and rear yard set back. City Engineer Deiclimann stated that the <br />required area is 13,200 square feet, and this lot (sublot B) is 11,692 square feet, so they are over 10% <br />shy on area, the minimum lot depth is 135 feet, and this lot is 127 feet on one side; the rear set back <br />required is 50 feet, and they would be about 5 feet short on one side. Mr. Tallon thought it would be <br />about 40 feet on one side. Mrs. Gaspar, the owner of the property,_ explained that she had to purchase <br />the lot when she bougbt the adjacent properry. She understood tliat Nlr. Sloggett; the previous owner, <br />had used this land for a garden since he moved in, and later purchased it from the city. She had no use <br />for the additional lot. She had a landscape company remove the garden and grass it over. It takes 6 to <br />10 hours a week to mow the lot. If she had it done, it would cost $100.00. She can still do the work at <br />this time, but does not lnow how long she can continue. She has made improvements to the house at a <br />cost of $18,000 and is trymg to make it more consistent with the homes in Cambridge Crossings. Since <br />she has recently taken a position m Lakewood, she has less time to maintain the property. Mr. <br />McDermott in the Engineering Department advised her that probably this land could be built on, which <br />is why she pursued it. She contacted several builders, but J. & K were the only ones who were willing <br />to go ahead, others wanted to try to market it before building. She stated that children cut through the <br />lot and swing on the trees and consider it a vacant lot a1so. The lot is not as deep as the code requires, <br />but it is wide. One neighbor is protesting it because it will spoil his view and diminish the value of his