06/17/2002 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Regular Council Meeting 6-17-02 Page 17 we are almost 2'/Z times greater than what we can do at 35. By the way, as the Mayor said today, you could not design a building with any quality today and a building even 3 stories at 35, it would have to be 42. So, technically, what we are talking about here is we are asking for one floor at 14 because we would automatically need at least 14' floor to floor to be able to put in a facility that had 9' ceilings. You don't have that here-maybe approaching 8' 8", 8' 10" but 9' is the actual minimum. So, that's all we're trying to do is quality. We think with a smaller footprint about 170' of exposure 270' away with a 25' height effectiveness distance (which is what it would be at 100' outside of that building) and that is with the 14' floor to floor for 4 floors. Mr. Marrie said on the subject of affecting the resident's property valuation, I have asked this once before of you, I believe that none of the Worton Park people have suffered any damage to their property values after Progressive went in there. Council President Buckholtz replied, quite correct. Just the opposite. Houses have sold very rapidly in that area. I don't even know what percentage. Mayor Rinker said one last [comment]: Even though I go nuts about Cleveland Magazine; the fact is these are statistics that don't lie: Mayfield Village in Cuyahoga County is the 2°d lowest per $100,000 assessment tax rate; 2nd only to Independence. If you want I 77 and I-480 running through the heart of your community; we've got 271 but I think apart from that, I think we've done a very good job of creating an environment where homes are a much more comfortable deal. Council President Buckholtz asked Ms. Calta to confirm if he is stating this correctly: Since we are addressing an appeal by Goldberg Properties to overtui7i the Board of Appeals' objection to this, then I want to clarify this--then a"yes" vote would be to overturn the appeals. Ms. Calta confirmed Council President Buckholtz was correct. She further clarified that the motion will be to reverse the decision of the Board of Appeals-so your "yes" vote will be to reverse the denial of the Board of Appeals' decision. Council President Buckholtz requested a motion to reverse the decision of the Board of Appeals. Ms. Calta stated the motion as follows: Dr. Parker, seconded by Mrs. Mills, made a motion to reverse the decision of the Board of Appeals in Case No. 2002-02 and approve the height and cul-de-sac variance contingent upon the negotiation of a Development Agreement to address the issues as outlined by the Mayor and Council this evening. Roll Call: AYES: Mr. Buckholtz, Mrs. Cinco, Mr. Marrie, Mrs. Mills and Dr. Parker NAYS: Mr. Marquardt Motion Carried Decision bv the Board of Appeals (Case No. 2002-02) Reversed. 17