01.18.22 MEETING MINUTES SPEC. - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes of the Special Meeting of Council Public Hearing on Ordinance 2021-14 Tuesday, January 18, 2022 Page 8 Andrew Krembs 6584 SOM Court If you know anything about that, it's the southwest corner of the loop in the back. It's pretty close to the area you are talking about. In fact, it is the only residential area that is threatened or involved here in this overlay. I have a couple of questions that I am not sure I can get an answer to, but I will ask them anyway. We are not competing with Twinsburg. We are not competing with the other places you mentioned. What is the burning need for this to happen? It's my understanding that somebody said it's because you are afraid of losing tax revenue from Progressive because they are working at home. I know for a fact that they are not. The only people at Progressive allowed to work at home are the call-in people that are people that just take random calls that are made to Progressive. My daughter-in-law tried to get a job there and they said she had to work in the office and she is an insurance underwriter and she said, I can't. I've got a 4 -year-old and a 2 -year-old and I have to be at home and I am happy to work at home but I can't work at Progressive. If that's the case, we are not losing much in the way of tax revenue from Progressive if there is a limited number of people who are not actually working there. Physically at the facility. I have a couple of things that I want to propose. One of them is obviously the threat to our neighborhood. If you are going to do it, do it on a portion that hasn't got any residential people in the neighborhood; that has a highway in back of it and a road in front of it. Maybe that western co section of the overlay area, which makes more sense in the sense that you are not threatening a neighborhood that has a lot of people in it. There are a number of units on SOM Court. I also question the four-story. Just because there are two buildings that are four-story doesn't mean it has to be a four-story area. If the number of people that would be increased in terms of employees, if every one of those units ended up being a four-story it is going to be hell on earth with traffic. It just is overkill if you are trying to make up a little bit of tax revenue to add four- story buildings. We are staring out our window to Mt. Vernon as it is. We are not thrilled about it but it was there when we moved in, so we don't have any choice. We chose it. But the area you are talking about is equally close and to have four-story facilities on that portion that is at east of Beta Drive would be horrendous. We obviously are very much opposed to this unless there's some modifications made as I just mentioned. Thank you. Council President Schutt stated, Mr. Marquart, did you want to answer the questions? Mr. Marquart stated, thank you. If I could just address a few of the comments. Firstly, if you were to read through the Ordinance itself, rear setbacks would be protected to a great deal. They would not be as large as they are currently called for. Rear setbacks would be provided which in your case would essentially be your back property line. We also would give folks the option to, if they were to develop closer to a residential parcel, the overlay does require a significant setback or a slightly smaller setback with an opaque wall and landscape screening, so we did recognize and appreciate the need to protect residential folks along SOM Court and Montebello.